Tjenesani Ntungakwa

The long and arduous journey to a free Zimbabwe was definitely not going to be an endless one.

One day, the chickens would come home to roost.
Each pace towards Independence strengthened the nationalist movement and also raised the stakes.
The British and Americans were closely watching the political dynamics in Africa.
Such was the trend from the end of the WWII and throughout the Cold War.
In early February 1959, US secretary of state John Foster Dulles issued a statement in which he said the Soviet Union was making inroads in Africa at the expense American foreign policy.
The following month, assistant secretary of state for African Affairs Joseph Sattethwaite was pessimistic about the future of a proposed union of Guinea and Ghana on the grounds that it was having some “insuperable differences”.
Towards the end of June 1959, senator John Kennedy, a Democrat candidate for the presidency, suggested an African regional economic plan initiated by independent states in co-operation with certain European countries.
Kennedy chaired the foreign relations committee on African Affairs.
Africa was awash with revolutionary movements that were gaining mileage regardless of their size.
In Namibia, Guinea-Bissau, Angola, Mozambique, South Africa and Rhodesia, there was an unstoppable quest for self-rule.
On October 28, 1976, the main session of the Geneva Conference was officially opened by Britain’s ambassador to the UN, Ivor Richrad.
The Zanu delegation was headed by Secretary-General Cde Robert Mugabe, the Zapu team by Cde Joshua Nkomo and the ANC by Bishop Abel Muzorewa. Also there were Ndabaningi Sithole faction of Zanu and Ian Smith’s Rhodesian government.
Richard was in charge of his own ensemble.
Before the Geneva Conference, US secretary of State Henry Kissinger visited several African destinations.
When it came to Rhodesia, the Americans followed British spoor.
The US didn’t want Independent Africa to fall under Soviet influence.
Towards the end of 1974, the Union for the Total Independence of Angola agreed to a ceasefire with Portugal.
The Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola followed suit.
An was signed at Alvor, Portugal in January 1975 and a transitional governing council made up of MPLA, Unita and Holden Roberto’s National Front for the Liberation of Angola was to be in place until November 11, the expected Independence Day for the former Portuguese colony.
Its responsibilities would be to organise elections.
As implementation started, South Africa invaded Angola in November 1975.
In the first week of November 1975, Cuban troops landed in Luanda and immediately deployed against the advancing South Africans.
The long arm of US involvement in Africa, found itself in Angola and Kissinger apparently authorised a covert CIA operation.
In December 1975, The New York Times acknowledged the CIA’s presence in Angola.
The US state department said the presence in Angola was based on the need to counter Soviet activities in that part of Africa.
By the end of November 1975, the Cubans and MPLA allies had repulsed the South African Defence Forces at Queve River, about 100 miles south of Luanda. It was for these reasons that Kissinger toured what he considered Africa’s delicate spots before the Geneva Conference of October 1976.
In April and June of 1976, Kissinger flew to West Germany, Switzerland, Lusaka, Dar es Salaam and finally Pretoria.
Ambassador Richard visited the Frontline capitals of Lusaka, Gaborone, Maputo and Dar es Salaam in January 1977.
Geneva came and went without any substantive progress towards majority rule in Southern Rhodesia.
Britain and Ian Smith were unprepared for total transfer of power. The Geneva Conference gave room for the Rhodesian Front to insist on a settlement that was fully cognisant of the Kissinger Plan.
Zanu and Zapu were also wary of the fact that Ivor Richard had conducted some wide consultations with Johannes Vorster and Ian Smith.
The Geneva Conference was adjourned.
From December 24 to 29, 1976, Cde Mugabe went on a consultative outreach in Tanzania.
It was in the course of his visit that he met US ambassador to Tanzania James Spian and his assistant, Herbert Levin on December 25 at Kilimanjaro Hotel.
The Americans spoke of a fund to help an autonomous Republic of Zimbabwe.
The grant would be called the Zimbabwe Development Fund.
Cde Mugabe also spoke with the ambassadors of Algeria, Guinea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia and the Libyan charge d‘affairs.
At the beginning of 1977, the Deputy Publicity Secretary of Zapu in the ANC, Cde Mark Nziramasanga, inserted a New Year’s message to the people of Rhodesia from the party‘s President, Cde Nkomo.
The text appeared in the Rhodesia Herald of January 1, 1977.
Cde Nkomo gave a summary of the Geneva Conference, the failed talks with Ian Smith in March 1976 and also celebrated the birth of the Patriotic Front that same year.
Cde Nkomo said, “The driving force behind the formation of the Patriotic Front was our love for the land of birth. For the love of our country we buried our differences and agreed to work together. This is our real achievement, a milestone in the history of the nationalist movement.”
In a nutshell, the Geneva experience showed Zanu and Zapu they had their hands full in dealing with Western trickery over the Rhodesia question.
The Geneva Conference was followed by Malta I and II in the first half of 1978.
Nothing much came out of these.
Geneva culminated in a frustrating impasse. There was a strong feeling that the British had unilaterally called off the conference, a development which incensed the OAU.
On a continental scale, the fight for freedom in Southern Africa was becoming everybody’s business.
The OAU convened its 28th Ordinary Session in Lusaka from January 24 to February 4, 1977.
President Kaunda delivered the keynote address to the delegates at Mulungushi Hall, lamenting the fact that efforts to resolve pertinent issues in Southern Africa amicably had failed.
He also confirmed the fact that the Anglo-American proposals behind which the OAU had thrown its weight “floundered on the head of Ian Smith”.
“For us Geneva was only an extension of the Liberation War in Zimbabwe,” President Kaunda said.
After everything had been said and done, 1977 was a year of awakening.
The 28th OAU Summit passed a resolution endorsing the Patriotic Front on February 4.
The Liberation Committee affirmed that it was giving assistance and full support for all the fighting cadres of Zimbabwe whether they were based in or outside Rhodesia.
For the sake of progress, Zimbabwean nationalists were to desist from condemning each other.
Finally, the liberation Committee was to find means and ways of ensuring that the armed struggle was intensified.
On a broader scale, 1978 was the year in which confrontations in Southern Africa escalated to an unprecedented magnitude.
Zapu, Zanu, Swapo, Umkhonto we Sizwe and the MPLA government in Angola were in one way or another engaged in massive military deployments against the armies of settler colonialism, apartheid and a brand of post-WWII Eurocentric fascism in Africa.
The mood was fiery and diplomacy had lost its relevance.
The Patriotic Front was a chapter that preceded the Lancaster House Conference in the last quarter of 1979.
By that time, there had been some change to Rhodesia’s political system.
A new and short-lived administration was in place, the Zimbabwe-Rhodesia marriage of settlers and Bishop Muzorewa.

36 total views, 12 views today

Teddie Bepete

In any democratic society, the media play a vital role in shaping and reflecting public opinion. From the early days of civilisation, the media have been the locomotive by which human progress has sailed.

Nationalism being the patriarch of nation states, nation- building has found its matriarch in the media.
Now the media are powerful enough to challenge the pillars of nationhood.
According to British politician Edmund Burke, the media have acquired the status of “fourth estate” of the realm.
The historical episodes that gave birth to Zimbabwe were heavily influenced by the media.
Fortune seekers and adventurers who pioneered colonialism in Zimbabwe were spurred by newspaper advertisements in Europe that trumpeted support for the scramble for Africa.
Rhodesia was very media sensitive.
Between 1960 and 1979, the Rhodesian government saw to it that open repression was the order of the day.
Publications like The African Daily News, the Catholic Magazine Moto, and The Zimbabwe Observer were banned for accommodating black political and social views.
The media that remained were owned by the British and South Africans, whose ultimate agenda was to sustain colonial repression and apartheid.
Radio and television were heavily monopolised by the state. “Padare” was one of the infamous radio programmes eulogising the genocidal bombardment of refugee camps in the Frontline states.
The Rhodesian establishment would have been successful in their heinous bid to throttle the voice of freedom had nationalists not started broadcasting from outside the borders.
The Voice of Zimbabwe, broadcast by Radio Mocambique, inspired multitudes in Zimbabwe to ford rivers and mountains to join others in training camps in neighbouring countries.
Liberation war songs and slogans fired up those who remained to become mujibhas and chimbwidos.
Such was the role of the media in the making of an Independent Zimbabwe.
Former Cuban president, Cde Fidel Castro Ruz, once articulated the significance of the media in the island’s liberation struggle: “Much more valuable than the rural recruits for our guerilla force were American media recruits to export our propaganda.”
So one may ask: if the media were so valuable in the making of Zimbabwe and Cuba, why then can’t they promote progress in today?
The answer is clear and the people must bear this in mind: the media can be as constructive as they are destructive.
According to Indian commentator Siddartha Dash, “Nowadays media (have) become so powerful that (they are) in a position to make or break governments.”
Though the media can serve as a bridge between governments and people, they have also been used to destabilize States and subvert national interests.
Technological advancements mean multitudes can be reached quickly.
Today, the media can be the fulcrum of a new holocaust that destroys the concept of sovereignty in the developing world.
At a February 18, 2015 roundtable discussion, the US state department explored use of social media to proliferate American foreign policy objectives at a personal level.
Their target was to reach grassroots communities in sovereign nations so as to be able to get those people to support American objectives in their own countries.
Macon Phillips, co-ordinator of the state department’s bureau of international programmes called it “empowering regular people in their own society to effect the change they want to see”.
Evan Ryan, assistant secretary of state for educational and cultural affairs, concurred with Phillips on the need to use social media to foment dissent.
Thus, for any country to develop, it must have an effective state media.
In 2013 President Vladmir Putin articulated this thus: “Whoever owns the media controls what it says. There should be patriotically minded people at the head of state information resources.”
We should be locked in a constant struggle to build media that uphold the collective values of their nations.
In many instances, the media have been useful in exposing corrupt practices, thus saving nations millions of dollars.
But there are many cases where the media have accentuated destruction of nations.
World opinion was misled by Western media to believe Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was demolished.
Brother Leader Muammar Gaddafi’s demise was precipitated by a concerted media campaign. Libya is still burning.
In Zimbabwe, pliant media are at the forefront of seeking to dismantle the country’s sovereignty.
Voice of America’s Studio 7 continually tries to subvert the legitimate Government of Zimbabwe.
The private media’s strident spin daily throws brickbats at President Mugabe and his Government.
Press freedom in Zimbabwe is a Zanu-PF legacy, and it is unfortunate that this same freedom is now abused to attack land reforms, indigenisation and empowerment and any progressive idea Government puts forth.
Nations that have developed have done so on the back of forward-looking media.
The US is a good example.
The American media are highly patriotic, from the newsroom to the cinema.
They put their flag first and eschew anything that challenges their national interest. Not so in Zimbabwe.
It is the media that must embellish the nation with colours of hope and not despair.
Zimbabweans should painstakingly defend their heritage.
If we speak with one voice victory is certain.

49 total views, 14 views today

GOVERNMENT is often accused of policy inconsistency and such concerns were also raised at a recent breakfast meeting hosted by the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development in partnership with the IMF.
The event was themed “Zimbabwe’s Vision and Policy Options”. The notion that Government struggles to remain consistent on a national vision is grossly exaggerated.
Government’s vision, at least over what was decided to be a five year time horizon from 2013, is very clear! The vision is outlined in the Zimbabwe Agenda for Sustainable Socio-Economic Transformation.
To expedite realisation of ambitions set out in the blueprint, Government decided to pursue a 10-Point Plan of high priority.
Thus, Zim-Asset and the 10-Point Plan represent a clear vision of the socio-economic outlook that the Government intends to create.
It was disappointing that neither Zim-Asset nor the 10-Point Plan were mentioned at a forum that intended to justify Zimbabwe’s vision with regards to its engagement with international financial institutions; more so because the event had a fair attendance of Cabinet ministers who remained mum on this matter.
Consequently, a platform meant to display conviction and focus in a national vision was left exposed to an interpretation, yet again, that Government may not have consensus and clarity on where it is trying to go!
We should inquire on why this happens so frequently? Why did it happen that for the umpteenth time, on a platform where Government was meant to exude confidence and clarity in its vision, representatives in attendance were overwhelmed by the moment? The answer could be as simple as a lack of accountability.
When a nation does not enforce accountability on those delegated to achieve set aspirations, then the credibility of those aspirations wanes.
We are then perceived as an unsure nation, and one that lacks seriousness in the path we have chosen.
Were it not for Finance Minister Patrick Chinamasa’s assertive closing remarks, this is exactly the impression our Government representatives had given to international financial institutions that had gathered to actually hear Zimbabwe revel in the purity of its aspirations and offer a strong case of a bankable national vision that warrants financial support.
Ideally, ministers in attendance, for instance, should have engaged IFIs by highlighting the progress they have made thus far in achieving results towards our socio-economic transformation.
Minister Chinamasa and RBZ Governor Dr John Mangudya stood out as they shared success in the Fiscal Reforms sub-cluster of Zim-Asset, especially in the matrices of financial sector stability, improved fiscal management, and public sector administration.
The day before, Minister Chinamasa had just announced the successful conclusion of the last Staff Monitored Programme which was well received by international creditors. Unfortunately, this is as far as the ideal scenario went.
Other Government representatives in attendance should have advanced convincing arguments in respective clusters outlined in our national vision.
For instance, the Food Security and Nutrition cluster clearly set out to achieve a self-sufficient and food surplus economy.
It is discouraging that as a nation we have succumbed to the belief that El-Nino should be a strong impediment to achieving our targets, especially when our dams and water sources are above 60 percent capacity nationwide.
If it is the case that we lack infrastructure for irrigation, then perhaps greater discourse should be on how IFI financing can be persuaded into investing in such infrastructure.
The idea is that by achieving our vision of self-sufficiency and food surplus, we would in effect be creating a vibrant and lucrative agricultural sector able to service IFI loans pretty easily.
Unfortunately, we did not use this platform to offer such assurance, and the reason could be that we have not interrogated the progress made in our agricultural sector as a whole.
Perhaps more disappointing was the absence of representatives from the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructural Development.
IFIs are the most customised financiers of long-term investment that aligns with our infrastructure needs. Private and institutional investors are no longer a dependable market for long term infrastructure investment.
The absence of representatives from this ministry creates a concerning assumption that as a nation we may not be well informed on effective strategies on how to finance our infrastructure deficit.
Zimbabwe should engage IFIs with assurances that structures are being put in place to create productive infrastructure in road, rail and air. For a nation importing power whilst carrying a fiscal deficit is unsustainable and the need cheap capital in power generation is extremely important.
Our national vision is to create an economy based on value addition and beneficiation.
Not much was discussed with regards to how we have taken strides towards shifting our industrial processes towards high value chain activities.
No industrial sectors were presented as testament to these efforts; perhaps due to the fact that industry has not really made notable progress in this direction. More specifically, the mining sector was better off hidden from IFIs.
Recent revelations that US$15 billion has been lost and further admission by Mines Minister Chidhakwa that citizens have not gained anything from mining shows a country deficient in tenacity of purpose. If we cannot manage our most lucrative sector, why would IFIs take us seriously?
We need to take ourselves seriously.
To revert to the important question of why Zimbabwe appears to lack clarity of purpose and vision, the answer is our lack of accountability and result evaluation. If we measured progress towards our set targets, then there is no reason why we should be overwhelmed and blank when we are offered platforms to present what we are trying to do as a nation.
The IMF breakfast was an embarrassment.
We appeared to have no vision, not because we do not have one, but simply because we do not hold ourselves accountable to it!

72 total views, 27 views today

Howdy folks!
The United States never cease to amaze. Does that Western country want to see anything good coming from Zimbabwe? Certainly not!

The shameless Office of Foreign Assets Control has recently added two of our biggest fertiliser manufacturers — Chemplex Holdings and Zimbabwe Fertiliser Company — on its long catalogue of sanctions against Zimbabwe, much to the frustration of our progress in this key economic sector. Agriculture is the backbone of our economy and by striking the backbone, they are hoping to paralyse this Phoenix economy of ours.
America, when it’s not in pursuit of its own happiness, is really on a deliberate and relentless mission to destroy our economy, no matter how much they may try to distance themselves from this naked truth. Slapping sanctions on these two entities is akin to declaring an economic war to our economy!
You see, one thing this cowboy likes about these devils is that they are far-sighted.
When they look at Zimbabwe, they see potential in our economy — which some of us may be sometimes blind to see. And in our agricultural sector, they saw an avalanche of that potential. They know that once agriculture is dealt with to booming levels in Zimbabwe, then a dynamic change can result.
Agriculture has very strong linkages with our manufacturing sector, and other key sectors of the economy. It also employs many people.
But what is it that America saw, to prompt it to throw this bomb in our agricultural sector? I will tell you a long story that has been happening in this sector for the last couple of years.
Well I can begin from the Finance Minister’s Mid-Term Fiscal Policy Statement of last year, which protected fertiliser manufacturers by imposing a 25 percent tariff duty on imported fertiliser.
I knew then that it was a step in the right direction, which is why I supported that move in my piece dated 16 August 2015, titled “Protect fertiliser manufacturers”. I was actually challenging the recommendation that had been made by the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Finance and Economic Development that the import duty on fertiliser “should not be introduced”.
I indeed cited the Industrialisation Development Policy’s pledge for the fertiliser industry: “To encourage local manufacture of fertilisers, fertiliser raw materials will be placed on zero tariffs with respect to customs duty while finished fertiliser imports will attract customs duty.”
Of course, local fertiliser manufacturers had done their homework. They were not just seeking the protection for the sake of it. They actually pledged to reduce the price of fertiliser by 20 percent, by implementing dynamic competitiveness measures. And true to their word, the prices of fertiliser started to fall down in the months to follow, which in itself is a big plus to farmers.
You see, fertiliser costs dominate the production costs of most commercial or even communal farmers. So the going down of fertiliser prices would definitely means the cost of agricultural production will also fall down. And America was watching and envying all this as our backbone was gaining this might, watching from a distance.
Then the Zimbabwe National Water Authority followed suit and gave farmers an early Christmas box last year by slashing tariffs.
For A2 farmers and estates, tariffs were slashed by 27 percent and a 40 percent for A1 farmers, with those of communal farmers being cut down by a whopping 56 percent. We all know that water is an integral input for farmers and the reduction of its tariff would again reduce the cost farming.
Again, jealous America was watching.
America knows that we are the breadbasket of Africa. The wicked country knew that the reduction in water tariffs would encourage uptake of water for agricultural purposes. And we have many water bodies that can be utilised for agriculture — 11 000 dams with a capacity to irrigate 11 million hectares.
This is huge!
Zimbabwe did not end there. We then started a revolution to acquire irrigation equipment and also rehabilitate existing infrastructure to link our soil with water so that meaningful agriculture can take place.
Friendly countries like Brazil, China, Belarus and others came to our aid, by giving us concessionary loans to acquire agricultural equipment. We knew as a country that a sustainable solution in agricultural production lies in irrigation, in the face of these unfortunate incidents such as the El-Nino-induced drought, which will now require us to import more than a million tonnes of maize this year.
The issue of irrigation as already been unequivocally pronounced in Zim-Asset, which spoke of the need for “improved agricultural infrastructure to mitigate against drought through rehabilitation and expansion and expansion of irrigation projects and increased construction of dams”.
The blueprint seeks to increase functional irrigation area from 150 000ha to 220 000ha through rehabilitation, building and modernisation of irrigation schemes; and increasing power available and affordable for irrigation.
And Zesa also came to the party by ensuring they sourced adequate power from neighbouring countries to replenish our dwindling stocks.
Farmers require constant power to irrigate their crops. A cocktail of the above, I tell you, can transform the way we look at our agriculture. It can certainly bring back our glory days in no time.
While all this was happening, then BOOM! — America dropped the bombshell on ZFC and Chemplex. It just could not bear with it anymore.
It had to act before it’s too late! It had to hit us somehow it can. The hypocrisy manifested in the move is also shameful.
You see, America actually imports agricultural produce and things made from agriculture from Zimbabwe, talk of our fresh cut roses that they use to propose to their sweethearts; cocoa butter, fat and oil; and others. When they are tired of eating their GMO foodstuffs (70 percent of their foodstuffs is made from GM crops), they look at countries like Zimbabwe for reprieve.
Yet we are the same country they slap its key institutions in the agricultural sector with sanctions. How ironic!
Now we are in a situation where the two entities — ZFC and Chemplex — are going to face challenges that are likely to result in their cost of production rising, no matter how much we may try to protect this sector with tariffs.
I don’t have to give a new explanation other than that which has already been offered by the president, explaining how the sanctions system works. President Mugabe aptly puts, in his birthday interview, that: “We don’t have our own currency. We are using American currency. When we import say vehicles be it from America, South Africa, Brazil and want to pay for them, it’s the American dollar that we use. Questions are asked when the money gets to New York, where is it from and if it’s from Zimbabwe, No! Similarly, if payments are to be made to us, if these are to Zimbabwe, America says no because all the payments must be made through their banking system.”
So there you have it!
America was against us taking back our land. And when we took it back, they have since been on a rampage to make sure that we don’t do anything on that land. It’s all about land, folks; hitting our backbone hard by making sure that nothing happens in agriculture.
Even China also confirmed that, not long ago. China’s director-general for African affairs, Mr Lin Songtian, is on record saying, “Before 2000, President Mugabe was loved by the West, but when he started redistributing land to the people, to them he became a dictator.”
Folks, in light of the above, we can actually deduce that America is an enemy that doesn’t want anything good about us. But my question really is: What are we doing about it? We are still stuck with the same currency they are going to use to unleash their full wrath on Chemplex and ZFC.
The same currency they are playing contractionary tricks with, this year, when we are in a liquidity crisis and seeking to play it the expansionary way, albeit with our wings clipped.
Again, the same US dollar has been gaining much strength and frustrating our exports in the process. Exports which are supposed to be our number one source of liquidity and now suffocating. Yet again, the same US dollar that is overvalued and bringing the obvious consequences in the process — we see them wherever we set our eyes on.
Folks, just as much we are enemies of America, her currency too is an enemy to our economy.
I agree with Dr Ranganai Gwati’s submission in a three-series article in this paper that the US dollar is no longer a sustainable currency for Zimbabwe.
I only disagree with him on his notion that the rand is the way to go. This however can be a discussion for another day.
For now, it may be a good idea for me to get on my horse and ride on.
Later folks!

48 total views, 15 views today

Food is the most basic human right, and it is laudable that the Government of Zimbabwe is determined to ensure that everyone enjoys that constitutional and universal right.

With this drought across Southern Africa that has been caused by El-Nino, our people are obviously going to need assistance.

According to the Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee, an estimated 1,5 million rural Zimbabweans will be food insecure this year.  Others have put that figure at three million. Either way, it is unacceptable that any Zimbabwean go hungry through no fault of his/her own.

It has been reported that the levels of vulnerability and acute food insecurity in Zimbabwe are such that an estimated $1,5 billion is required to mitigate the drought’s effects and to build capacity to avert such an extent of hunger in future.

This situation has necessitated large-scale humanitarian food relief operations all across the country.

As such, the President, his deputies and several other Government officials have on several occasions assured Zimbabweans in drought-stricken areas that no one is going to starve as food relief will be availed to cushion them.

These have not been empty promises. First Lady Amai Grace Mugabe has made it her business to distribute food aid in vulnerable areas.

Only last week, she left many smiling faces in Chivi because of her efforts. As reported elsewhere in this publication, Cabinet has approved a US$200 million National Schools Feeding Scheme to feed four million pupils when the second term of 2016 opens. Our Government has to be commended for stepping up to the task. Several non-governmental organisations have also come to the party and have been offering food aid.

Our gratitude towards the NGOs for their efforts can never be over stated, as long as they stick to their mandate and do not turn into pseudo-political parties and their aid does not come with conditions.

This is something we must be conscious of as we inch towards the 2018 harmonised elections.

But while these measures address immediate food security needs, vulnerable communities should be assisted to build resilience to climatic shocks and eliminate the need for food assistance in the long-term.

We cannot be beggars for life.

As Zimbabweans, we are definitely not a lazy lot. While this season we have been hamstrung by the El nino phenomena, how do we explain the fact that humanitarian organisations have been coming every single year to our rural areas with food aid?

How do we, as a sovereign and proud nation, allow our people to look forward to free handouts, year in year out? Zimbabwe is well-endowed with a lot of water bodies that have been lying idle for years, with some even flooding while the communities around them wait for food aid.

If the trends in recent years are anything to go by, weather patterns have shifted for the worst and we cannot afford to continue relying on rain-fed agriculture. We do not need to look any further than irrigation and mechanisation to start addressing this matter. We need to secure our livelihoods. After all, agriculture is the backbone of Zimbabwe’s economy.

The ZimStat 2013 report told us that 67 percent of the Zimbabwean population lives in rural areas.

Most of these people derive their livelihoods from agriculture and other related economic activities.

Moreover, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation says this sector provides employment and income to 60 to 70 percent of the Zimbabwean population, while supplying 60 percent of the raw materials required by the industrial sector and contributing 40 percent of total export earnings.

Those statistics underscore the importance of the agricultural sector to Zimbabwe.

The time to resuscitate the sector is now so that in years to come we do not have to rely on handouts from other countries. And with the United States sanctioning Chemplex and the Zimbabwe Fertiliser Company, and by extension all the people of this country, we should be vigilant about protecting our livelihoods.

Irrigation and mechanisation, combined with good farming practices, can take us to the Promised Land. Brazil’s More Food for Africa programme through which several communities have already benefitted from irrigation equipment provides a great foundation for transforming our agricultural sector.

CARTOON

421 total views, 143 views today

Persistence Gwanyanya
QUITE often economists are more inclined towards analyses-based approaches to economic issues, which is itself rooted on a “describe-before-prescribe” approach.
I find this approach powerful in that it recognises that the efficacy of an economic policy largely depends on an understanding of how that policy would work under ideal conditions before making an analysis of the unique constraints that may prevent the proposed policy from achieving desired results.
This approach also gives clarity to the nature and root cause of an economic problem; thus, safeguarding against the danger of prescribing wrong policies to remedy a problem.
In medicine it is understood that a wrong diagnosis could result in a wrong prescription, which could aggravate the ailment. As such, the need for economists and policymakers to fully acquaint themselves with an economic problem facing business and the economy before prescribing successful policies to deal with the same cannot be over emphasised.
With the advent of dollarisation in 2009, we thought the traumas of doing business in a hyperinflation environment had disappeared forever. But like they say, solutions to one crisis breed seeds for another crisis; it seems the cash crisis is now resurfacing, ostensibly because it is no longer possible to counteract the effects of low economic activity and unfavourable balance of payments position through monetary policy interventions such as open market operations and through printing of money (seigniorage).
When Zimbabwe dollarised in 2009, it lost its monetary policy autonomy and thus the ability to control liquidity. The country is, therefore, at the mercy of unfavourable global economic and financial conditions and any unfavourable policy shift may result in deeper and potentially explosive crises which could be difficult to address. This demonstrates the extent to which policy makers must be now more careful and thoughtful in their policy formulation and roll-out.
Hyperinflation and banking sector madness prior to dollarisation saw the erosion of the savings culture in Zimbabwe as confidence in the banking sector sank to historic lows. The general populace would now prefer to keep their money outside the banking system as the tragedy of losing their hard-earned cash at the height of the hyperinflationary era continue to take its toll on confidence levels.
This has affected the banks’ intermediation capacity and therefore their ability to create money.
Banks are fiduciary institutions which survive on the confidence levels of the banking public. They create money by lending out depositors funds to those in need.
The proportion of money left in bank vaults and that which is lent out is informed by the understanding that depositors may not demand their money at one go.
The problem will only arise when depositors lose confidence with the banks and demand their money en masse.
Faced with a bank run, banks may fail to meet the demand for cash as borrowers would need more time to unwind their investments or raise the required funds to pay back their loan balances.
The starting point in analysing the country’s liquidity constraints is to consider the sources of liquidity in Zimbabwe and how these have performed over time.
An ideal economy under dollarisation generates liquidity from exports, diaspora remittances, foreign investments (including portfolio investments) and external lines of credit (including grants), which are attributes of BOP.
The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe reports that since the adoption of multiple currencies in 2009, export earnings accounted for over 59 percent of the country’s liquidity, followed by diaspora and international remittances at 29 percent, external loans, income receipts and FDI at 12 percent by December 2015.
The generated liquidity is mainly used to meet import bills, repayment of loan maturities and servicing interest, transfers to diaspora recipients and payments for external services, grants and allowances for foreigners.
Since dollarisation, the demand for liquidity has outstripped available liquidity, weighed down by an unfavourable current account position – itself an indication of an economy unbalanced towards high levels of consumption and imports vis-a-vis low savings, production and exports. It is estimated that Zimbabwe has accumulated current account deficit (net payments for foreign goods, services and other foreign remittances such as payments of grants, aid and allowances) of more than US$18 billion since dollarisation.
Being a capital scarce economy, there has been heavy dependence on foreign capital to fund the ballooning current account deficit.
Building adequate foreign exchange buffers and improving domestic money supply conditions has been a major challenge.
At this point, most of you may be trying to figure out the connection between the explanation on the drivers of liquidity and what is being experienced in the market today. It is crucial to point out that Zimbabwe is a commodity-dependent economy, with more than two-thirds of exports being tobacco, sugar, gold, platinum, ferrochrome and diamonds. Global commodity prices have been softening since reaching their peak in 2011, and in 2015 the prices of gold, copper, platinum and nickel extended their decline on the back of anaemic global economic growth and a slowdown in China.
This saw revenue flows from exports for the 11 months to November 30, 2015 plummet by 12,2 percent to US$2,5 billion on the previous year’s performance.
Capital flows continue to be constrained by tight global economic and financial conditions, differences over empowerment laws and unfavourable ease of doing business conditions.
An appreciation of the constraining factors to liquidity growth at national level has been laid out. But obviously you may be wondering what could be the major factors influencing distribution of scarce liquidity among banks.
There is need to understand why it has become increasingly difficult for some banks to push payments, both local and foreign.
It may be a good starting point to highlight that a bank can only do international payments using cash deposits into its foreign accounts.
All foreign earnings are received into a bank’s account(s) maintained with foreign banks. These accounts are called Nostro accounts, and if there are not adequately funded, a bank may find it difficult to push its foreign payments.
Thus, a bank’s ability to meet foreign payments depends on its ability to attract deposits in its foreign accounts from various sources such as exports, foreign loans, diaspora remittances and different other forms of foreign capital.
In the event of a bank’s foreign account being inadequately funded it may have to repatriate (export) cash from local deposits to fund this account, otherwise it may have to stagger payments until the account is adequately funded.
However, cash repatriation comes at a cost, which would mean increased charges on foreign payments. The cash situation could have been aggravated by the RBZ directive to reduce the maximum threshold on cash that can be held in Nostro accounts from 30 percent to five percent in 2014 to improve the local liquidity situation.
The directive came when the country’s export revenues were dwindling as the global economic and financial conditions got tougher, typified by softening commodity prices.
Subsequent to the implementation of this, a number of banks started struggling to make international payments and the RBZ reacted by increasing the maximum threshold to 10 percent. However, it seems several banks are still failing to generate enough cash into their foreign accounts to allow smooth flow of cross-border payments.
The RBZ pointed out in its recent Monetary Policy Statement that about US$2 billion was siphoned out of the economy in 2015 through illicit financial flows by both business and individuals. US$684 million was externalised by individuals in 2015 under the auspices of free funds.
In a dollarised economy it is difficult to demarcate between free and non-free funds, which made the RBZ abolish the concept of free funds. For all withdrawals of US$10 000 and above, a notice period of at least one day should be given to the bank to enable it to do the necessary Know Your Customer procedures and to mobilise the required liquidity.
The RBZ also emphasised the use of plastic money, citing the practice in other jurisdictions, including the US, which enforce the maximum reportable cash limits that can be carried on person and/or withdrawn from financial institutions to guard against money laundering and leakage of liquidity.
Following promulgation of these controls, we have seen sceptics withdrawing their money from banks and one must be forgiven for thinking that these controls could have been construed or misconstrued as indication that the liquidity situation is worse than the market thought. Those companies that generate huge sums of money started to speculate and others even started selling cash.
We understand that some companies have been selling cash at between one and 1,5 percent for an RTGS transfer.
Does that sound familiar? Those who were around during the hyperinflation era will tell that this is what we call “burning”.
We hope that with the opening of tobacco floors on April 4, 2016, the cash situation is going to improve.
However, we take cognisance of the fact that small-scale farmers, who are normally a significant contributor to liquidity have been hard-hit by drought and their sales would be low, with reduced impact on liquidity. Tobacco from contracted farmers has limited impact on liquidity because most of it is pre-funded from foreign sources and the bulk of sales go to loan repayments. Maybe successful implementation of the Lima Convention would proffer a lasting solution to this cash nonsense!
I have laid out the foundation for the “describe-before-prescribe” approach by forming an understanding of the ideal liquidity scenario in the dollarised Zimbabwe and an understanding of the constraining factors to liquidity today.
We would now what to take our analysis further by subjecting the policy measures such as controls on Nostro accounts and cash withdrawal limits under the identified constraining conditions before advising the best policies that the RBZ can adopt to address the country’s liquidity situation in Zimbabwe. This is a discussion for another time.
Persistence Gwanyanya is an economist, banker, and a member of the Zimbabwe Economics Society. He writes in his personal capacity. Feedback: percygwa@gmail.com and WhatsApp +263 773 030 691.

1,210 total views, 441 views today

Only a few decades ago, drug abuse was not a big thing in Zimbabwe.

Issues around substance abuse were those we learned of on international news casts and we hardly related to them.
Today, drugs, sex and alcohol are key features of a huge proportion of the population, especially in urban and peri-urban areas.
We have a level of social decadence that we cannot ignore.
What is the cost of these practices on our family units, social fabric and above all, our economy?
You may be thinking “what is the link between drugs and development?”
One point is indubitable: the influence of drugs in Zimbabwe is growing, drawing an ever-larger percentage of what should be an economically active population into a state of non-productive dependence that has serious health and financial implications.
The increase in reports of substance abuse-related crimes and traffic accidents are evidence that the drugs are a serious threat to our economic and social development.
A major conceptual roadblock if you may to addressing the issue on platforms broader than just law enforcement and health is the stigma attached to those involved in drug-related activities.
There is a perception that drug abuse is an activity engaged in solely by criminals or dysfunctional members of our society; a perception which is utterly misguided!
This is a problem that does not know social and economic status.
Furthermore, more often than not, the sources of drugs are well-off people.
So, perhaps, instead of the law enforcement agents expending most of their resources on the end users, it would make a lot of sense to pay more attention to tracing the source of the drugs.
We have to address loopholes in many sectors, from border control, transport, the revenue authority, the banking sector and dare I say perhaps even politicians.
The fact that the drugs industry affects multiple sectors is what makes it particularly detrimental to the nation.
The most common impact is that on the users, who not only risk mental disorder which limits their contribution to economic activities but also diverts funds they could have used to improve their standard of living.
That is money that is going into the pockets of drug peddlers.
Beyond the users, the economy suffers particularly because much of the funds from drug deals do not pass through formal financial systems.
Traffickers rarely bank money, and the entire transacting chain is untaxed.
There is another great danger.
Drugs generate incredible amounts of money. That means societies start being dominated by drug dealers.
Do we really want such people to have influence over social and economic policies?
The statistics provided by stakeholders involved in the fight against crime reveal a worrying situation: more than 100 cases of drug abuse every month in Harare alone!
The reality today is that four out of five school-going children abuse drugs at least once without the knowledge of their parents.
According to police, the statistics should be a cause of worry for the entire nation.
It is time the Education Ministry looks seriously into measures to prevent the entry of illegal substances onto school premises.
There is need to police the environs of schools as many predators lurk around our educational institutions waiting to lure children into substance abuse.
The schools’ curriculum should also dedicate time and space to discussing in an in-depth manner social issues affecting children.
The young are susceptible to crime as it can look glamorous from the outside.
The relationship between drug abuse and crime is a strong one: drug addicts turn to crime to finance their cravings and on the other hand people under the influence of drugs easily engage in violent and reckless behaviour.
Zimbabwe Republic Police spokesperson Senior Assistant Commissioner Charity Charamba says between January and December 2015, 5 445 people were arrested on various drug-related charges.
She said people between ages 15 and 35 were the major users and abusers of drugs.
In all, 5 273 people were charged for varying offences which included importing, selling, manufacturing, possession and unlawful possession of dangerous drugs.
What does the future if Zimbabwe hold if the youth continue down this destructive path?
In 2018 we will hold national elections where the youth will contribute significantly to the percentage of voters.
Can we trust the youth to make sound decisions if their motivations are directed and influenced by drugs and alcohol?
Most importantly will the youth not become easy targets for rogue politicians who offer them drugs in exchange for their support or to unleash political violence?
For starters, the legislation needs to be revised as it currently provides too many loopholes for drug offenders and dealers to quickly go back to the streets without even forfeiting the money and assets gained from their illegal activities.
Secondly, we need to invest in state-of-the-art detection equipment at all entry points and adopt a zero tolerance approach to corruption at these areas.
The Ministry of Truth advises the youth to avoid contact with drugs on any level as addiction is easily reached.
It only takes one look at drug addicts to see that the short-term pleasures are not worth the long-term suffering resulting from substance abuse.
Use your time to invest in yourselves and your nation’s development.

Cde Jason Zhuwao is district chair of Zanu-PF Harare Central Youth League and CEO of Team Zanu-PF Live, the party organ for mass dissemination of information, research, mobilisation, networking, live updating of current affairs and e-media campaigning.

1,677 total views, 612 views today

Elias Z. Mapendere

For the past two or so weeks, the police have been having a cat and a mouse relationship with motorists, especially those picking passengers at undesignated places.
The operation was code-named Operation Mushikashika Wapera.
This kind of interaction ended up spilling into the courts of law. One such case is Raymond Madamombe v Commissioner–General of the ZRP and 2 others (Case Number HC2226/16), where Justice Tsanga ordered that the vehicle of the applicant be realised within two hours of the order.
I was privileged to represent the applicant in that matter and my active involvement with the case made me to seriously reflect on the lawfulness of the whole operation.
I wish to share my reflections with members of the public in this paper.
I wish to start with clearing the air on a misconception that might develop in the minds of some amongst us that the parties who approached the courts have anything against the constitutional mandate of the police.
Far from it.
Any person in his right frame of mind would appreciate that when the police discharge their constitutional mandate in terms of Part 3 of Chapter 11, of amongst others, maintaining law and order, surely, they are not doing this just to get a salary at the end of the month.
They do so for the benefit of the nation at large. Thus, they deserve our support because we are the direct beneficiaries, as citizens, of law and order.
However, there are certain practices which the police might need to guard against.
Without exhausting the list, one such tendency is the conduct of overzealous and over–enthusiastic elements which are common in any such organisation as big as the police service.
For instance, one cannot doubt that it was never the intention of the people who came up with the operation to weed out pirate taxis that the operation would end up targeting driving schools dropping off learner drivers.
Similarly, it was never the intention of the architects of the operation that even professional people coming from work picking up their wives who had been shopping would end up losing their cars. Such conduct ends up alienating the police from the citizens who are supposed to support them.
The other consideration is whether the operation complies with the rule of law. The starting point for the analysis of the rule of law or lawfulness of any conduct is the supreme law of the land, the Constitution of Zimbabwe.
The Constitution becomes the starting point because Zimbabwe is a constitutional democracy.
Authority to the effect that Zimbabwe is a constitutional democracy can be found in a number of cases such as Smith v Mutasa NO & Anor, Biti & Anor v Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs & Anor etc.
In the latter case, Justice Ebrahim held that “Zimbabwe, unlike the United Kingdom, is not a parliamentary democracy, but a constitutional democracy”.
As Olivier puts it, in a constitutional democracy, the constitution is regarded as representing “the deepest societal values and is the grundnorm for the democratic process”.
Having said that, it is pertinent to note that Section 2 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, in no uncertain terms, provides that the constitution is the supreme law of Zimbabwe, and any law, practice, custom or conduct inconsistent with the constitution is invalid.
Although police operations such the one aforesaid cannot be law, there are obviously no difficulties in classifying them as conduct or practice.
Thus, as conduct or practice, their operations should conform to the constitution.
One such constitutional principle that is of vital importance is the principle of rule of law.
This principle is provided for under Section 3(1)(b). It ranks second to the principle of supremacy of the Constitution.
In simple terms, the principle requires that all conduct of the state should be authorised by law.
The Legal Dictionary defines rule of law in the following terms: The rule of law requires the government to exercise its power in accordance with well-established and clearly written rules, regulations, and legal principles.
If we are to unpack the operation under spotlight one would realise that if the police were to arrest a traffic offender, he or she would be penalised by either paying an admission of guilty fine or be taken to court.
All this is authorised by the criminal procedure and evidence Act.
The vehicle would have to be impounded at Chikurubi Police Camp. The offender would then be given a form with nine stakeholders that must clear the vehicle.
These ranged from all sorts of government departments such as VID, Vehicle Theft Squad, Zinara and ZBC to mention but a few.
While there is nothing wrong with said departments from conducting vehicle checks, surely there is no law that provides that once an offender has been penalised, the vehicle should be impounded and only released after being cleared by a number of government departments.
What I find amusing is that some of the facts can be ascertained by the arresting detail upon looking at the windscreen. For instance, by merely looking at the windscreen one can easily ascertain whether the vehicle has a valid Zinara or ZBC disc.
What then is the importance of resorting to calling such officials?
Meanwhile, the said officer take their time to come while the vehicle is accruing storage charges.
Be that as it may, it is important to note, as we argued before the High Court, that I am unaware of any law that says that once the police arrest a person for a traffic offence, they must hold on to the vehicle and release it when they fill like doing so.
Further, I am also unaware of the any law stipulating that the accused person should get clearance from the said departments or stakeholders.
In the absence of law authorising the seizure of the vehicles in the manner aforesaid, it is safe to conclude that Operation Mushika shika wapera violated property rights of vehicle owners enshrined in section 208 (2)(d) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.
The operation also comes short of the principle of the rule of law enshrined in the Founding Values and Principles of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

Elias Z Mapendere is a partner with Mapendere and Partners Legal Practitioners. The views expressed above are entirely his own. Feedback: emapendere@gmail.com and WhatsApp 0772 882 355

2,103 total views, 758 views today

Wendy Nyakurerwa – Assistant Editor

There are always two constant scenarios in the game of politics, if one is not a winner; they are the looser. There is no in between.

Victors almost always never waste any time gallivanting all over the place polluting our air with noise because they have more important things to do. On the other hand, losers almost always seek relevance in the strangest places.

On March 9, 2015, Itai Dzamara, an opposition politician-cum-fly by night journalist went missing after being “abducted by some unidentified men”. A year on, not even a hair of his head has been found.

We commiserate with the family.

A lot of speculation has been bandied about concerning this sad story. And opportunists in MCD-T have taken advantage of this disappearance to play with people’s emotions.

You see, Itai Dzamara is a family man, with a wife and two children who are obviously missing him. Hubby and daddy disappeared and they must be living through hell.

Last Wednesday marked exactly one year since the disappearance and Morgan Tsvangirai and his few remaining hangers-on took to the streets of Harare to mark the anniversary “in solidarity with the Dzamara family”.

There is a rat smelling there. A very big one, probably carrying bubonic plague too.

Earlier in the week, Dzamara’s family filed an urgent High Court application to get the police to allow the march.

It was that urgent. Yet when they got what they wanted in the courts, the day of the march came and they were nowhere near the front row.

Rather, it was Tsvangirai and his deputy Thokozani Khupe whom we saw leading the pack, smiling from ear to ear.

Smiling, when dear Dzamara is still missing!

You have to give it to Tsvangirai. No Kodak moment gets overlooked. He grabs it with both hands, eyes wide shut.

The Legend of the Parks gaffe is testament to the love for Kodak moments.

So on this day in question, which was supposed to be Dzamara’s memorial day of sorts, the MDC-T gang where all smiles as they posed and looked straight into the cameras.

Forgive us for expecting more solemn faces.

Where l come from, our culture dictates that when one is attending a funeral or memorial service for a loved one, family, friend, colleague, neighbour or even distant relative; if they are too stingy with their tears, they can at least wear a sorry face to show their compassion towards those affected; unless of course “kana vari ivo vanenge vadya munhu”, in which case there will be an urgent need for a tsikamutanda.

But let me hasten to say that this culture obviously doesn’t apply in the Western-sponsored MDC-T camp; instead, they grin ear to ear when they are saddened by “crimes against humanity”.

It is the same sad-glee Bush and company had when they spoke of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Perhaps at this point it would be prudent to ask them what they know concerning Dzamara’s disappearance.

But the activists didn’t end there, they stooped to even lower depths.

See, when one is guilty of something and their sixth sense tells them that someone else knows about it, they become uncomfortable because they know that it will only be a matter of time before they are exposed.

Such is the case in MDC-T.

For the past 12 months, rational people have been asking why the opposition party has been making so much noise over Dzamara alone as if he is the only missing person.

This time around, thinking that they had finally devised a perfect solution that would make them look cleaner than saints, they roped in Paul Chizuze, an activist who went missing in 2012.

Never mind the fact that the courts had given the green light to Dzamara’s family to conduct the march for one purpose, which was marking his disappearance’s anniversary.

Patson, ltai’s sibling, had done well in notifying the police, and then the High Court, of the family’s intention to hold a “religious march” in remembrance of his brother.

What then was Chizuze’s picture doing on those posters?

As l have said, there is a big rat stinking here.

The fact that Chizuze was slotted into Dzamara’s march as an afterthought only proves that MDC-T are once again not at all sincere in their advocacy for human rights or Chizuze; neither do they feel any compassion for his wife and children.

Rather, Chizuze, just like Dzamara, is just another pawn, another excuse for a Kodak moment.

1,674 total views, 613 views today

Over the past two editions, Zambian veteran politician Dr Vernon Mwaanga has been narrating Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle from a Zambian point of view.

This week, Dr Mwaanga concludes his narration, revealing why the Zambian government rounded up some Zanu leaders in Lusaka after the assassination of chairman Herbert Chitepo in 1975.

He reveals that the leaders were put under interrogation adding that one of chairman Chitepo’s bodyguards, Cde Saddat had to be interrogated more because information pertaining to the assassination was pointing towards him.

After giving so much support to the liberation movements, not only in Zimbabwe but other African countries, does Zambia feel it has been thanked enough? Read on…

MH: In 1974, towards the end, we see Zanu moving its operations out of Zambia to Mozambique. Some Zanla commanders have spoken to say the decision to relocate to Mozambique was taken following frustrations dealing with the Zambian government which seemed to favour Zapu. What is your comment?

Dr Mwaanga: Well, I don’t remember any particular incident when they complained that we are being frustrated by the Zambian government. We opened our borders for them and we gave them all the assistance that they needed.

I am sure that you will agree that between Zambia and Zimbabwe there were logistical problems in the sense that our boundaries are divided by a river as opposed to Mozambique. The logistics in terms of Mozambique were much easier. The risks from here were a lot higher than the risks from Mozambique.

So whatever reasons they may have had, they moved there with our blessings and we continued to support them. They continued to have an office here.

MH: But when Zanu moved to Mozambique did you as Zambian government feel relieved?

Dr Mwaanga: No, no. Not really. We just felt that there was now burden sharing in the region and that one of the countries (Mozambique) we had helped liberate was able to assume part of the responsibility.

It was not a sense of relief but a sense of consolidation. We were happy that we had now opened other fronts and it would be easy now to carry out the struggle from another base. The enemy had Mozambique to worry about now. The geography between the border area between Zimbabwe and Mozambique was a lot more favourable for guerrilla activity. So there was no sense of relief but there was burden sharing now.

The pressure against the Smith regime increased and we were happy because of that.

MH: Also during the same time before Zanu moved to Mozambique, there was the Nhari rebellion in Zanu. Newspaper reports from that time show that as Minister of Foreign Affairs, you were very angry with the way this rebellion was handled.

The reports say you actually got angry and called for the arrest of Chitepo. Tell us exactly what happened from your point of view?

Dr Mwaanga: Without going into specifics, there were problems during that Nhari rebellion. There were fights within Zanu, among the cadres. The Zambian government felt this was not necessary. There was no need for cadres to start fighting each other. Our people, the Zambian people, were beginning to question our ability to deal with the situation. They were saying we had lost control of handling the situation. We had to take action to stop it. Some of the measures we took were not pleasant but it was the only way we could deal with the situation.

MH: What were these measures?

Dr Mwaanga: Well, we had to disarm some of the combatants and place some of them under detention for a temporary period just to cool down things. The measures were not pleasant. It was not pleasant to do that but the situation demanded that we act.

We had to act otherwise our people would have lost faith in us. As a government we had to appear to be in control of the situation. All along we had been in control so when these conflicts started to affect peace and security in our country, our people began to grumble. They began to complain and as a government we had to take action.

And I think we dealt with the situation in the best way possible without exaggerating the situation and without letting it get out of the situation. We had to take very strong measures.

MH: Who are some of these Zanu comrades you had to arrest?

Dr Mwaanga: Well, in keeping with the commitment we made at the time, we decided that these people would not be named. We kept the names internally.

MH: But Dr Mwaanga after so many years you still can’t lift the confidentiality?

Dr Mwaanga: We made the commitment that we would keep all this confidential. We didn’t want to get involved in your local issues.

MH: So you are going to your grave with those names?

Dr Mwaanga: Ohh, yes, definitely. (Laughs) I am sure even if you talk to some of my other colleagues, the response will be the same. They won’t give you those names.

MH: Did you actually sit down and agreed that you will go to your graves without revealing the names?

Dr Mwaanga: Yes, we sat down. We sat down and said now and in future, we won’t reveal the names and forever thereafter. (Laughs) We didn’t think it would be in the best interest of the people of Zimbabwe to mention names. These people still have families.

MH: Ok, now back to my issue. Did you actually call for the arrest of Chitepo?

Dr Mwaanga: We threatened to. He had to show leadership. He was one of the most senior here. He had to show leadership.

Fortunately he did respond. If he had not responded, we would have arrested him for the sake of restoring peace. We would have arrested him even for a temporary period in order to resolve the bigger picture. We were more concerned about the bigger picture not so much the individuals. As the national chairman, he had a duty to stop the conflicts. The problems hinged on internal discipline.

MH: Did you face the same problems from Zapu or Zipra?

Dr Mwaanga: We didn’t face such disciplinary problems with Zapu or Zipra. Zapu had strong leadership and because of that we didn’t have too many internal problems. We only had social issues which we were able to handle at another level.

The other political party which was very strong here was Swapo from Namibia. Sam Nujoma was a very strong character. We didn’t have internal problems with Swapo just like we didn’t have problems within the African National Congress. Oliver Tambo was here and he exercised very strong leadership.

MH: So are you saying the Zanu leadership was weak?

Dr Mwaanga: The leadership in Zanu which was based in Zambia was weak. That is what led to all these internal issues. If the leadership had been strong, I don’t think we would have had the kind of problems that we faced.

Discipline in political parties is very important. We wanted the Zanu leadership that was based here to discipline its people so that we would not get involved.

We had taken a decision never to get involved unless the issues of security and law and order were under threat.

It wasn’t our responsibility to maintain order in the different political parties. It was up to the leadership. All we wanted was that our laws should be obeyed.

One of the decisions we made was that we exempted all liberation movements from paying duty for any equipment that they got. We actually passed a law in Parliament amending the Customs and Exercise Act to exempt them from paying duty. We passed this Act in 1966.

Anything that came into the country for the freedom fighters was to be exempted. You will also be interest to know for example that at the time when we became independent, we still had white officers in the army, in the police and in the security agents.

There were times when cadres from Zanu or Zapu would be arrested carrying arms by our police, the army or the intelligence. They would tell us that we have arrested some terrorists. They would be put in jail. In such cases we would come up with imaginative ways of having them released. Sometimes we even exchanged them for common criminals and we made sure this was never published. We found ways to drop their charges.

We had several of such cases. There were lots of crossings that were taking place. Comrades coming in from Tanzania with arms. Some truckloads of arms would be found. This happened until we decided to set up our own private ways. We came up with a system that was controlled by the Zambian security.

MH: Yeah, I was coming to that. This crisis crossing of so many freedom fighters in your country must have posed quite some security threats. How did you handle this?

Dr Mwaanga: Ohh yes, very serious security threats. We devised ways to make sure these guns were at one place with the exception of a few they would use just in case they were invaded by suspected Smith rebels. These rebels indeed came from time to time.

When they were ready, we then made arrangements for these arms to be handed back once the routes had been identified. The comrades would be given the arms just before crossing into Rhodesia.

It was quite a serious issue to have so many arms circulating around but we found a way of dealing with that making sure that we found safe places where we could store the arms. They were only released when it was time to cross into Rhodesia, Namibia, South Africa, Botswana and so on. We made the determination of the time to give them the arms.

MH: On 18 March 1975, Herbert Chitepo was assassinated in a car bomb. Earlier on you spoke about the incident he came and informed you that his life was in danger. As he spoke to you a few hours before his death, did he show genuine fear?

Dr Mwaanga: Yes, yes. He showed genuine fear. He appeared very afraid. Some of the people who had escorted him to my office, one of them at least, must have been someone who he didn’t view in very favourable terms. So to avoid all two of them, I told him to come and see me in my office alone. That was how high the levels of tension and suspicion were. He appeared genuinely afraid. When I looked into his eyes I could see that he was really concerned and I said to him are you sure you don’t want us to give you security right now? I can phone the Inspector General of Police to give you security. He said, no, no let me see how the situation goes.

He said tomorrow I will come back and tell you if I need security.

MH: How did he leave your office?

Dr Mwaanga: He left with these two guys he came with. They drove to Chilenje South where he was staying.

MH: On hearing that Chitepo had been assassinated…

Dr Mwaanga: It was a VW Wagon I remember that very well.

MH: Now, looking back today and with what he told you before he was assassinated, who would you say killed Chitepo?

Dr Mwaanga: Well, it’s a combination of factors. Either the internal wrangle in Zanu got out of hand because he seemed to be afraid of the internal differences, that there were people from within Zanu who were threatening his life. Or it could have been the work of the Smith regime.

This was a bomb which was planted under his car at his house which exploded and killed him. A number of investigations have been conducted and I think you have seen some of the theories that have been suggested.

MH: And which theory do you think is true or is closer to the truth?

Dr Mwaanga: I don’t really know myself. I wouldn’t say. (Laughs) I have always been reluctant in my life and even in my political life to apportion blame.

MH: But it’s very possible that due to the internal fights, the enemy could have taken advantage of that?

Dr Mwaanga: Yes, that is possible. Very possible and that was the danger when you had internal problems. I told you earlier that Smith agents had infiltrated the party Zanu to some degree. You leave yourself open to infiltration by outsiders. The danger of that happening was always present.

MH: How did the death of Chitepo affect the relations between the Zanu and the Zambian government?

Dr Mwaanga: Well, I don’t think it affected the relations that much because really, what could we have done? We offered everything that we could.

MH: At his house, the house of such an important and senior Zanu official, wasn’t there security provided by the Zambian government?

Dr Mwaanga: What normally happened was that he had some Zanu security working with our security services to protect him. As much as possible, the Zanu security was responsible but if they needed assistance from the Zambian security, that would also be made available.

MH: I am asking this because when I spoke to some Zanla commanders they said a few metres away from Chitepo’s house there was a Zambian police post?

Dr Mwaanga: There was a police post in the township. In every township there were police posts. Indeed he was not leaving very far from this police post.

It was a police post which was set up there essentially just to deal with the interests of the population in that township.

MH: After the death of Chitepo, the Zambian government went on to round up some Zanu leaders in Zambia.

Dr Mwaanga: Suspects at that time and those who were involved in this conflict. It was a way of trying to find out exactly what was going on. They were not just rounded up and put away. They were interrogated to find out what was going on.

Why levels of indiscipline within Zanu had deteriorated to that extent. That was the whole purpose of rounding up the leaders.

MH: Some people, especially from Zanu say the Zambian government overreacted?

Dr Mwaanga: Well, they are entitled to their opinions but we had a duty as Zambian government which they didn’t have. We had a duty to maintain law and order in our country. We were elected by the people of this country to maintain law and order. And we could not be seen to be sacrificing law and order at the expense of supporting the liberation struggle.

While supporting the liberation struggle, we had made it clear that they had to obey the laws of the country.

MH: Don’t you think by rounding these Zanu leaders, you were already apportioning blame?

Dr Mwaanga: The problems were going on within Zanu. What could we have done? Could we have gone to round up Zapu leaders who were not involved in the Zanu wrangles? That would not have been appropriate.

These wrangles were confined to Zanu.

MH: If this death had been caused by the Rhodesian agents, why would you round up the Zanu leaders?

Dr Mwaanga: When a crime occurs which involve death, you have to investigate every possible angle. Every government does that. You are not sure what has happened. The only way you can establish the facts is by talking to people who may have information leading up to that death.

You see, that death shocked up. We didn’t think we could have a senior person from Zanu being assassinated in our country. That brought a lot of pain to us.

MH: As these comrades were rounded up and interrogated, was there another parallel process to investigate whether this could have been caused by the Smith regime?

Dr Mwaanga: Ooohh yes, every angle was investigated. The military, the intelligence, the police, and the criminal investigations department – we mobilised all the resources at our disposal to carry out the investigation into this matter.

MH: When the Zanu leaders were detained, the liberation struggle according to some Zanla commanders was put on hold.

Dr Mwaanga: No, it didn’t. The people who were detained, it’s not as if it was hundreds of people, it was just a few people.

MH: Few but very crucial in the execution of the liberation struggle. I have spoken with one of the comrades, Cde Saddat who was one of chairman Chitepo’s bodyguards who survived that bomb blast. He complains bitterly against the Zambian government. He says he was tortured in excruciating ways. He has no kind words for your government.

Dr Mwaanga: Well, he was regarded as a suspect. Information was leading up to him and because of that they wanted him to agree to certain things which had occurred. The police use these methods in many countries including Zimbabwe.

MH: He actually used the words you are using now saying “they wanted me to agree to things that I hadn’t done.”

Dr Mwaanga: Well, we also know that a lot of these people who are trained, they are trained never to disclose anything. Even if they are tortured and even if they undergo rough interrogation, they don’t admit to anything. Our police and intelligence system knew that.

We have a very professional force and they know exactly what kind of trained these people had been through.

MH: When you say information was leading to Cde Saddat, what exactly do you mean?

Dr Mwaanga: The information was that he knew something about it which he was not telling the authorities. It’s very important to investigate all the facts even if it meant few people had to be inconvenienced otherwise the investigation would not have been completed.

MH: The word inconvenienced in the context you are using it, what exactly does it mean? Does it mean torture?

Dr Mwaanga: No, no. It means being inconvenienced. Security forces use different methods even in Zimbabwe to extract information from suspects.

Especially suspects they believe know something and not saying anything.

MH: But even some of the leaders who were arrested, they say they were also tortured?

Dr Mwaanga: That’s possible. I don’t know the details how they were treated because the police was handling that. I don’t know of anyone, a murder suspect who has been treated well anywhere in the world.

MH: When you look back now, would you say the Zambian government handled that situation well?

Dr Mwaanga: Yes. When I look back now, we had no alternative but to do what we did. We had to be seen to be getting to the bottom of exactly what happened.

We also had a responsibility not only to Zanu and the people of Zimbabwe, but to Africa as well. The whole of Africa was looking at us to see what we were going to do. We had no alternative but to do what we did. There are always casualties somewhere along the line. In every struggle there are casualties. I don’t want to tell you what some of the parties, including Zanla and Zipra forces did to some of their own comrades. I wouldn’t want to tell you that because what they did is far worse than anything you can ever imagine.

There are bound to be casualties in any struggle. It’s the price that organisations pay.

MH: This information which you are saying was pointing to Cde Saddat, where was it coming from?

Dr Mwaanga: It was coming from within Zanu.

MH: Then there was the Commission of Inquiry that was set up to investigate the death.

Dr Mwaanga: Its report was made public as you know.

MH: I know. Do you stand by the contents of that report up to this day?

Dr Mwaanga: Well, I was not involved in the investigations and by then I had moved on to other issues so I cannot vouch for the report.

MH: From your point of view, how did the death of Chitepo affect Zanu?

Dr Mwaanga: I don’t know to what extent it affected the party in Zambia. I wouldn’t think it affected the struggle in any significant way because freedom fighters kept crossing into Rhodesia. Even the crossing from Mozambique continued.

So I wouldn’t say it affected the internal operations of Zanu in any significant way. Our statistics show that nothing really stopped.

MH: Did you at some point as the Zambian government support Zapu and Zanu financially?

Dr Mwaanga: We gave them money. The budget of the director of intelligence catered for that. We used part of this money to finance the liberation movements. Even buying houses for the leaders of the liberation movements and paying rentals for some houses. This was coming from the Zambian tax payers. This was our commitment to the struggle. The Liberation Committee gave them a budget but it was never adequate.

MH: We understand that before the Zanu and Zapu leaders who were in detention in Rhodesia were released in 1975, the Zambian government had organised a secret meeting which involved the Rhodesian and South African leaders. Tell us more about this meeting.

Dr Mwaanga: Yes, we sent our officials to Rhodesia to bring the Zanu and Zapu leaders. We brought the leaders and when they got to Lusaka, they were flown to State House by helicopter. Some of the leaders of Zapu and Zanu in Zambia at that time didn’t even know that their leaders were in Zambia. They only got to know about it when they walked into the venue of the meeting. At that same meeting we had the leaders of Rhodesia and South Africa.

MH: Why the secrecy?

Dr Mwaanga: Its state craft. It would not have been helpful to let the leaders know. The information would have leaked. We knew that some of them had been infiltrated and we didn’t want them to leak the information.

We had given an undertaking to both the Rhodesians and the South Africans that we would not leak the information. We kept our word.

The art of state craft is complicated. We had to honour what we had promised. Most Zanu and Zapu leaders in Zambia only saw the leaders when they were leaving going back to their respective prisons.

After about two weeks, that’s when Smith announced officially that the leaders were being released. But they already had been here to discuss the details about their release.

MH: You really had to play a delicate balancing act?

Dr Mwaanga: Very, very. We didn’t want these missions to fail and for the missions to be a success, we had to have certain discipline. Even within the Zambian government, this information is highly guarded. Many of our senior ministers didn’t know. That is how to conduct state craft. This was in the best interest of everyone concerned.

MH: In 1978, the Rhodesian forces crossed into Zambia attacking some Zapu bases near Lusaka. Why didn’t you as a government fight back?

Dr Mwaanga: If you talk to our military, they will give you their story, but from a political point of view, we didn’t want an escalation of the war situation. I remember when they attacked a number of these camps they were so daring that we had to evacuate people from these camps to bring them to the Rhodesian university. We used all means of transport to carry even villagers to bring them to Lusaka. We had to mobilise doctors from all over the country to treat the wounded people.

We went on radio asking our people to donate blood and I am happy to tell you that hundreds of Zambians queued to donate blood. That was how far our people were prepared to assist the armed struggle. Our people supported the struggle because we explained to them.

Without the support of the Zambian people we would not have been able to achieve what we achieved. I see many people thanking the Zambian government but the people who really deserve to be thanked are the Zambian people. They are the ones who sacrificed the most. There has to be a special place in history for them with regards to their contribution to the liberation struggle.

MH: From the way you are talking, it’s clear that the people of Zambia sacrificed a lot. Many Zambians died while others were injured. On its part, the Zambian government also made lots of sacrifices. This entire sacrifice do you sometimes regret?

Dr Mwaanga: Not at all. At no time did we ever regret that decision. Even when our power installations were blown up, bridges were blown up, our people injured and killed, we said this is part of the price we had to pay to liberate our neighbours.

You see, each time the Rhodesians bombed a bridge and killed our people, they renewed our determination to do even do more to get rid of them. No price was too high for us.

MH: When elections were later held in Zimbabwe, some reports say the Zambian government was not happy with the outcome as they thought Zapu would win. What is your comment?

Dr Mwaanga: I don’t think that’s true. The Zambian government took a realistic position because we had made our own assessment. You probably know that we had observers before, during and after the elections. They made assessments and told us what was going on. These observers had warned the Zambian government that the elections would be won by Zanu. That victory of Zanu came as no surprise to us. We were expecting it but we also felt that within that victory, there had to be room where the two parties could find a way of working together.

MH: If you were fine with the results, why did it take President Kaunda almost two years to visit a free Zimbabwe after so much sacrifice?

Dr Mwaanga: Well, to visit Zimbabwe, you had to be invited. Leaders don’t just get up and say I am going to visit this or that country. They have to be invited.

You can’t just wake up and say I am coming to visit. We also realised that the leaders in Zimbabwe needed time to settle down and get organised. There was no ill-feeling from the Zambian government. No.

MH: Do you think Zambia has been thanked enough for the role it played in the liberation of not only Zimbabwe but many other African countries?

Dr Mwaanga: Let me put it this way, in many parts of Zambia I have been to. I have been asked that same question. Even at some Zambian universities. They ask me – why did we support the liberation struggle of these many African countries? They ask me, have we been thanked enough? My explanation has been that we did not do it because we wanted to be thanked. We did it out of principle because we were committed to the liberation of Africa. The issue of being thanked, the issue of benefits does not even arise at all.

We were supporting the liberation struggle so that when the countries are free they would thank us. We did it because we wanted to see them free.

Now that the veteran Zambian politician, Dr Mwaanga has put so many controversial issues into perspective, next week we bring you the interview we had with one of Zambia’s highly decorated military strategists who was in the thick of things during the liberation struggle working with commanders from Zanu and Zapu. Don’t miss your copy of The Sunday Mail as Zambia narrates Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle from a military point of view.

18,973 total views, 5,150 views today

Connect the dots.

A story that all South Africans should be worried about is the intervention of Johann Rupert, known as the don of the Stellenbosch mafia, in the reversal of the appointment of Des Van Rooyen as the minister of finance last year.

Pinky Khoabane

Sources say on President Jacob Zuma’s announcement, Rupert flew to South Africa from London the next morning and summoned Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa to a meeting. Accompanied by bankers including Absa’s Maria Ramos and her husband, Trevor Manuel, who is a director of Goldman Sachs, Ramaphosa was told in no uncertain terms that Zuma should reverse his appointment of Van Rooyen.

The story may be apocryphal but subsequent events showed that it was true. Van Rooyen was removed from the post after serving only four days of his appointment and moved to the post of Minister of Corporate Governance and Traditional Affairs.

The value of the currency fell by 12 percent to a record low of just below R18 to the US dollar and the rest, as they say, is history. Fast forward to last month when Zuma unexpectedly welcomed the newly established presidential press corps and addressed the issue of Van Rooyen.

Zuma said he was the most qualified finance minister he had ever appointed in that portfolio.

“That thing caused such havoc and people think that Zuma just woke up one day and took a decision. Some say he was told by some people (to appoint Van Rooyen),” Zuma was reported as saying.

“You might not know why I take decisions. You might get a good reason, but you don’t know, you may speculate based on what you see,” he said. In the backdrop of the debate on state capture, the question to be asked is who exactly it is who runs the economy.

In response to the fall in the rand, the ANC Youth League in January outlined the intricate market trading system existing in the world. It also outlined how financial institutions stood to gain with the fall of the currency and said they were a threat to the growth of developing countries.

The league said currency had become a great source of income for financial institutions.

“These institutions trade the rand by selling it among themselves which greatly impacts its price. In the name of a free market system, governments have limited control in how the markets buy or sell the currency in their countries.”

It quoted Adam Smith’s book “The Wealth of Nations”, in which he argues that in the new economic world order, the days of conquering countries through military means was no longer necessary as countries could simply conquer others by selling their products back to them and taking the wealth back to the nations from which they came.

They accused Barclays, with the help of its American counterparts, Goldman Sachs, of “excessively and aggressively selling our currency”.

The Guardian earlier reported that 15 authorities around the world were investigating collusion and price manipulation in the largely unregulated currency market.

Last year, Forbes reported that four banks had pleaded guilty to antitrust violations relating to collusion and manipulation of prices in the foreign exchange market. The banks involved are Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Barclays and the Royal Bank of Scotland.

We cannot forget that the depreciation of the rand in 2001, weakening by 42 percent from September 1 to December 31, led to the Rand Commission.

The commission was prompted by a letter from the head of the SA Chamber of Business, Kevin Wakeford, to Former President Thabo Mbeki, alleging that from “reliable sources”, he had come to hear that southern African countries were involved in currency trading. Although the final report on the inquiry found no evidence of illegal conduct, the report remains controversial.

Christine Qunta, one of the commissioners, submitted a report independent of the other commissioners.

Once the inquiry was commissioned however, the rand began to appreciate and remained at around R6 to R7 for the next seven years. Much has been made of the Guptas alleged appointment of ministers which if proven true, is of grave concern.

They have, for their part, denied any involvement in influencing cabinet appointments.

Calls for Zuma’s relationship with the Guptas to be probed are to be welcomed. However, the probe must be wide ranging to include all those who play a role in shaping the economy.

From the meeting with Rupert, it is clear that he and other business leaders have a direct influence on who is in the Cabinet based on their ability to influence markets. — The New Age

Pinky Khoabane is a columnist and social commentator.

51 total views, 22 views today

Howdy folks!

The 2016 National Budget was spot on when it said youth empowerment is crucial to the economy, especially as youths are the leaders of tomorrow.

I

t was indeed in harmony with the national Constitution’s declaration that it will take reasonable measures, including affirmative action programmes, to ensure that youths “are afforded opportunities for employment and other avenues to economic empowerment”.

When we look at the current strategies to tackle youth unemployment and try to reconcile them with the above policy and constitutional commitments, we reach attention-grabbing deductions.

The question is: Are we really doing enough?

What seems to be under the spotlight in attempting to address the joblessness epidemic grappling our nation is the Localised Empowerment Accelerated Fund (Leaf), a US$10 million revolving fund targeted at empowering the youths by supporting their business ventures.

This US$10 million facility will attract an interest rate of 10 percent per annum.

It is a good initiative in that it has set a quota for every district to ensure wider access.

And it also guarantees youths resources so that they won’t compete with those who are more credible borrowers in the mainstream financial services market.

The latest Monetary Policy Statement actually admitted that youths are excluded from formal financial services largely due to negative stereotypes that consider them as high risk-takers, as people who cannot provide collateral, have limited business and life experience and lack a track record or credit history.

The Central Bank actually believes that access to financial services could help youths become economically active, start their own enterprises, finance education and engage productively within their communities.

Then we have vocational training centres that Government has been rehabilitating with a view to equipping young people with skills that are relevant for them to thrive in the economy of the day.

We are also “stemitising”. Results will start to be realised in the medium to long term.

Other strategies are being implemented albeit on a smaller, or should I say less prominent, scale.

Youths, in their large numbers, are mainly looking at the above to be delivered from their economic challenges.

What seems to be the challenge with Leaf is Government’s proposal that “participating banks shall bear 100 percent risk as the decision to fund shall rest with them”.

Obviously this will increase and complicate access conditions to the Fund as banks try to ameliorate perceived risk.

Government, in a way, is actually saying to banks, “We do not trust these youngsters. If you are to deal with them, then you must be prepared to deal with the consequences.”

Normally, when people get a heads-up of that calibre, they will try to be very careful for nothing.

Where emphasis should actually be placed most is the bankability of the proposed project and the ability of its implementer, and constant monitoring of the project as it is being implemented.

But why should we also accept a culture where youths are expected to only write their business plans when money is put on the table?

This should be discouraged! Youths should be encouraged to develop their business ideas from an early stage.

While they are learning and acquiring skills in high school, they should be assisted to start developing ideas and business plans that they will implement later.

These plans can continue to be worked on and fine-tuned as they grow, so that the youths can have a profound understanding of their business models. This should also be reinforced through career guidance to ensure that they make proper choices in pursuing their targets.

The above will ensure that when money is put on the table, we have youths who are already grounded in what they want to do and they have concrete plans that they can relate to and are in a position to implement them successfully.

This is better than the current scenario where you can find a young person with a very brilliant business plan, which they, unfortunately, cannot even articulate or explain beyond what is written on it.

Youths have actually condemned themselves to mere speculators who pay other people to write the documents on their behalf and then present them as if they are their own.

When that kind of person is given capital, chances are very high that they will fail to implement the project and end up misusing it.

While part of the solution to youth unemployment is economic growth and fostering youth inclusion in that growth, we have not been experiencing the kind of growth that is satisfactory enough to warrant that.

Youth are actually falling by the wayside.

The IMF, in its recent End of Mission statement said, “Economic difficulties have deepened. Zimbabwe cannot wait and needs to act now. The El Nino-induced drought has hit the economy hard.”

A fusion of youth unemployment and a drought of this magnitude can only succeed in condemning youths to worse conditions.

It’s pushing them into a corner and they may be left desperate enough to do just about anything — legal or illegal, moral or immoral — for them to bust hunger.

If youths are the “leaders of tomorrow” as Government indicated in the National Budget, and if we want to preserve them so that they can take up those roles when that kingdom comes, we should be thinking along the lines of providing safety nets as a short term measure to avert hunger.

Going forward, we need the Youth, Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Minister to reserve certain sectors for youths, especially sectors that have lighter barriers to entry.

Youths cannot be expected to start large, hence the low hanging fruits must be left for them to partake.

Later folks!

149 total views, 68 views today

In 2015, Government gave foreign companies in Zimbabwe up to March 31, 2016 to submit their indigenisation compliance plans. However, several firms are yet to comply, prompting authorities to come up with stringent measures to deal with them. The Sunday Mail Chief Reporter Kuda Bwititi caught up with Youth, Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Minister Patrick Zhuwao to discuss the matter. Below is Minister Zhuwao in his own words.

***

Firstly, we must recognise that the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act became effective on April 18, 2008.

However, there has been very little progress in implementing key provisions, mainly the provision stating that at least 51 percent of all business — public and private — should be owned by indigenous Zimbabweans.

We have seen significant non-compliance and disregard for the laws of the land to a point where His Excellency, the President, had to throw down the gauntlet as he closed Zanu-PF’s National People’s Conference in December 2015.

HE declared that Government would not accept companies that reject our indigenisation policies, and his order was that such companies should not operate in Zimbabwe come 2016.

I, therefore, wrote to all ministers on December 18, 2015, highlighting the President’s statement and soliciting their advice to ensure compliance.

I also engaged Finance Minister Patrick Chinamasa and Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Governor Dr John Mangudya, as indigenisation and economic empowerment has an economic bearing.

Following all these consultations, it was clear that the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act (Chapter 14:33) and its subsidiary legislation were comprehensive enough to enable companies to comply.

We then developed implementation frameworks, guidelines and procedures to help companies understand and comply.

All non-compliant companies were requested to comply by March 31, 2016, in accordance with the Head of State and Government’s order.

Not playing ball

It is disappointing that there has been very little movement since HE’s statement of December 2015 and our subsequent unpacking of the legislation to make it easier to understand.

This has been worsened by the fact that I have engaged business organisations at various fora at least bi-weekly to explain the Act’s provisions.

I have made myself available to anybody seeking clarification, but only one such request has been made.

Unfortunately, I have no option but to conclude that companies are not complying thus breaking the law.

It is important to adhere to the law as not doing so results in anarchy.

Those who have not complied are being contemptuous of the people of Zimbabwe on whose behalf Parliament enacted the law.

They are also being contemptuous of the Head of State and Government who issued clear instructions on compliance and who is in that position on an electoral mandate.

The net result of non-compliance is total disregard for the people of Zimbabwe and such disregard is unacceptable by any standards.

In attempting to make companies comply, our ministry had initially come up with the idea of a levy that could be moderated by the extent of indigenisation compliance.

However, on further reflection and consultation, we realised that such a levy would actually be payment for companies to continue disregarding the law.

I, as minister, would have been complicit in committing an illegal act.

Any similar levy that enables companies to continue breaking the law runs contrary to the spirit and intent of a Constitutional democracy like Zimbabwe.

I have previously stated that I will take the empowerment issue to Cabinet and Parliament for consideration, but will not do the same with the levy.

Instead, we will put in place appropriate measures to invoke Section 5 of the Act which speaks of cancelling operating licences of non-compliant companies.

What this means, effectively, is non-compliant companies will be stopped from operating.

Zimbabwe believes in the rule of law; we can never accept a situation where companies continue to wilfully and contemptuously break the law.

This is not policy inconsistency: I have always pointed out that the proposed levy was a means of ensuring compliance.

The levy was never imposed.

It was a proposal, and a proposal — by its very nature — is open to discussion.

This proposal should have been accepted by businesses and that acceptance would have been demonstrated by their implementation plans, with the proposed levy being one component.

However, the prospect of the levy is now off the table and what remains involves Section 5 of the Act: licence cancellation.

The message we should send investors is that Zimbabwe upholds the rule of law. We have legal provisions that must be followed.

Companies that operate illegally must stop operating.

On the occasion of his 92nd birthday anniversary interview, the President said we lost diamonds because of companies similar to those ones that do not want to comply with the law.

Now, the people of Marange are left with gaping holes; there are no diamonds, no resources to talk of.

And a lot of companies that are not complying are in mining.

These companies dig holes to no value.

It’s better to keep our resources until we engage businesses that respect our laws and the institution of Parliament.

Economic impact

One has to consider the true impact of some non-compliant companies. If we take, for example, the revenue that accrues to Government, one will learn that only 10 percent of such revenue is in the form of corporate taxes.

So, at most, the impact, for instance, on Government revenue is not more than 10 percent, considering that a number of companies pay taxes.

My message to the companies is in two parts.

Firstly, they had five years to comply. Secondly, after those five years lapsed, they had an additional year and were given an ultimatum by the President.

It is rather unfortunate that even I, as the minister responsible, did not adhere to that ultimatum and extended it by three months in concurrence with two of my colleagues.

And it is on the back of that extension that I think we should not give further leeway to contemptuous companies.

There is a law to be followed, and I am bound by Oath of Office which requires me to abide by the laws of the land.

It is a position of law, and this is what must happen. I must implement the law, so should line ministries, and I should add that it is the duty of Government to uphold the law.

As they contemplate their future, non-compliant companies must look at the principle of dirty hands, which says it is difficult for the court to hear you if you have committed any illegality.

Let us save each other the time of approaching the courts when it is blatantly obvious that you have breached the law.

We want to say to companies that have complied: “Thank you for respecting the laws of our country.”

In accordance with natural justice and equity, such companies must be given the opportunity to operate with a comparative advantage.

Are all these measures drastic, excessive?

That question must be read in line with amendments effected by Finance Act (Number 3 of 2014), which devolved management and implementation of indigenisation legislation to line ministers.

There has been little traction, though.

Indigenisation and empowerment

The thrust of this initiative is encompassed in the Act’s preamble which provides for two aspirations/pillars.

Pillar One deals with ensuring at least 51 percent of business shareholding is held by indigenous Zimbabweans, and that speaks to the indigenisation component.

The economic empowerment component (Pillar Two) relates to utilising natural resources to create micro, small and medium enterprises owned by indigenous Zimbabweans.

There is a distinction between empowerment and indigenisation.

Indigenisation is about correcting shareholding structures of companies that are not indigenously-owned in terms of shareholding.

So, the indigenisation component is about shareholding.

On the other hand, economic empowerment is about effective and judicious utilisation of human resources in a manner designed to create and grow micro/small/medium/large scale enterprises.

Property rights

Before one raises any point on this, one must interact with the legislation. Shareholding disposal is recognised and this is very clear in the law.

Vilification of indigenisation is not based on real economic considerations, but on political grounds.

And part of that political consideration is that indigenisation — by its very nature — talks to unjust, illegal and racial discrimination perpetrated on the indigenous people of this country.

So, you then find that entities that seek to vilify indigenisation, especially entities that want to propagate a narrative of “re-culturing terminology on indigenisation”, are really ashamed of the fact that we, as black people, were previously subjected to racial discrimination.

This is disrespectful and contemptuous to the people of Zimbabwe, and the root cause of this contempt is racism.

These are people who have spurned the hand of reconciliation extended by the Head of the Republic in 1980, and cannot countenance a black person as equal to them.

There are also black Rhodesians in these institutions who still consider themselves inferior to white people.

It is a shame that we have people who are conditioned to think they are inferior — 36 years after independence.

At a meeting I once attended, a chief executive of a financial institution indicated that financial institutions cannot be run by black people.

It’s so unfortunate.

1,777 total views, 918 views today

Dr Gift Mugano

Zimbabwe is struggling to bring in investors, which is crucial to achieving the long-sought economic take-off.

It is not a secret that we desperately need foreign investors to achieve economic growth.

Closing companies is not the way to go for Government as this will have a negative impact on the economy.

First of all, we need to understand that because we use foreign currency in our economy, our need for FDI is very high, especially at a time when we are not receiving much international financial support due to the debt overhang.

So, anything that puts a dent on attracting FDI should be seriously reviewed for our benefit as a country.

We are already in a precarious situation; we are not exporting much and our capacity to earn foreign currency is very limited.

Therefore, we need to burn the midnight candle, looking at ways to get FDI.

This proposal to revoke the licences of companies that do not comply with the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act can come back to haunt us.

It will definitely scare off investors and deprive us of FDI. Investors will panic. No investor wants to invest in a country that is shutting down companies.

It will also be difficult for companies that are operating here and may have complied with the Act to put in more investment in the process of expanding their businesses.

They are likely to abort such expansion.

Further, companies will fail to attract offshore investment because investors will not be prepared to send their money, fearing that Government will take drastic action.

It should be made clear that the question of indigenisation and empowerment is not debatable. Almost every other country in the world has mechanisms for carrying out similar programmes.

However, it is important to continue dialogue and not close the door on deliberations.

The fact that a significant number of companies are not operating is a symptom of a fundamental issue that needs dialogue.

Zimbabwe’s risk profile is already very high, partly because of sentiments over indigenisation.

While it is a very good policy, it is also incumbent upon us to protect the goodness of this policy by not soiling its name.

We have to be responsive to the negativities that are being spread about indigenisation, and we can only do that if we continue with dialogue.

Government should not make decisions based on emotions, but be prepared to get back to the table and hear the voices of those companies that are yet to comply.

It is not good for companies not to comply: It is worse for Government to take drastic decisions.

I believe the road to fulfilling the indigenisation and empowerment policies is long, so we should not take shortcuts, but go through all the necessary avenues.

Dr Gift Mugano is an economist and research associate in the Department of Economics at Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University in South Africa. He shared these views with The Sunday Mail’s Chief Reporter Kuda Bwititi on March 18, 2016.

2,495 total views, 1,273 views today

Phyllis Johnson

Herbert Wiltshire Tapfumaneyi Chitepo was born near Nyanga in the lush eastern highlands of Zimbabwe on 15 June 1923, the year that the British South Africa Company, a legacy of Cecil Rhodes, lost its grip on the country they called Southern Rhodesia.
The white settlers had voted for “responsible” self-government, and Southern Rhodesia was annexed as a British colony.
One of the earliest nationalists, Abraham Twala, had written in 1922 that, “experience has taught us that our salvation does not lie in Downing Street” (the office of the British Prime Minister). This perceptive observation was shared by a generation of nationalists who took up arms 40 years later.
Among them was Herbert Chitepo.
Chitepo was a man of contrasting images. He was a warm and compassionate family man whom his Rhodesian adversaries regarded as the “brains” behind the guerrilla war and whom his comrades described as the “architect” of the second chimurenga, the struggle for freedom and independence.
Born into a peasant family, and endowed with a clarity and strength of intellect which he further developed, Chitepo rose to become his country’s first black barrister.
His parents died when he was very young and he was raised by Anglican priests at St Augustine’s mission school near Mutare.
The young Chitepo was a brilliant scholar, always at the top of his class, and he went to South Africa for secondary school and for a Bachelor of Arts degree in English from Fort Hare College. He studied law in London and was called to the bar at the Middle Temple. Back home in the late 1950s and early 1960s, Chitepo defended many nationalist figures in Rhodesia before accepting an appointment as the first African Director of Public Prosecutions in Tanganyika (Tanzania) in 1962, soon after that country’s independence.
He combined his legal base with nationalist political work and was a founder member of the National Democratic Party in 1960. After NDP was banned, he was a founder member of the Zimbabwe African Peoples Union (Zapu) in 1962, and one of those who broke away in August 1963 to form the Zimbabwe African National Union (Zanu).
Chitepo was instrumental in the decision of the Liberation Committee of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), based in Dar es Salaam, to recognise Zanu as well as Zapu. At Zanu’s first Congress in Gweru in 1964, he was elected in absentia as National Chairman.
Many nationalists were arrested soon after, including Robert Mugabe, and served a decade in prison, while those outside the country organised the military response to take back their land, led by Chairman Chitepo. In 1966, Chitepo decided to leave his prestigious job in Tanzania and move to Zambia to devote himself full-time to reorganising the party and beginning the armed struggle in earnest.
It was a decision that separated Chitepo from many of his contemporaries who sat out the struggle in academic institutions and comfortable jobs, and it was a role that radicalised his views.
He was Zanu’s most senior leader at liberty and under his guidance, the party shaped its military wing, the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (Zanla), under the command of Josiah Tongogara.
28 April 1966 marked the start of the armed struggle when seven armed guerrillas died in combat with Rhodesian troops in the Battle of Sinoia (Chinhoyi).
This was the first organised act of armed insurrection since the first chimurenga of the 1890s following the settler occupation of the land. The war thereafter can be divided into three phases.
That first phase from 1966-1968 was marked by the Battle of Sinoia and the battles by Zapu in the north-west of the country in 1967.
Addressing a Chimurenga Day rally on 28 April 1968, Chitepo insisted that the only language the Rhodesian Prime Minister would understand was violence.
“Zimbabwe was taken from us through bloodshed. Only bloodshed – a bloody chimurenga involving four and a half million of us – can restore Zimbabwe to its owners.”
However, the Rhodesian military power at that time was intimidating and the guerrillas had little chance of winning a conventional confrontation.
Chitepo explained that, “We have tried to correct this tragic error by politicising and mobilizing the people before mounting any attacks against the enemy. After politicising our people it became easier for them to cooperate with us and to identify with our programme.”
The next phase was a lull while a new strategy was implemented under Chitepo’s leadership, and the third and decisive phase based on political mobilisation of the population was launched in the north-east of the country on 21 December 1972.
This phase involved military collaboration by Zanu and Zapu at various times, through joint efforts and initiatives, supported by the Front Line States chaired by the Tanzanian President Julius K Nyerere.
Seven years later to the day, on 21 December 1979, a peace agreement was signed after negotiations in London, democratic elections were held in February 1980, and independence regained on 18 April 1980.
Herbert Chitepo was a tireless worker and leader who devoted his life to achieving this goal, and ultimately he died for it.
He was known as a strategic thinker and a gifted orator, and when he addressed the Sixth Pan African Congress in Dar es Salaam in 1974, he proposed a global strategy against imperialism.
“By cutting off the tentacles of imperialism to the periphery we will deprive the white working class in capitalist countries of their high standards of living they have enjoyed because of the super profits that the multi-national corporations reaped in under-developed countries.
“It is only when the exploited working class of both black and white realize that they have a common enemy, a common oppressor and a common exploiter that they will unite and jointly seek to overthrow the capitalist system. This is our global strategy against capitalism, racism and imperialism.” Such activities and speeches did not endear Chitepo to the Rhodesian regime, or the West; nor did his role in the formulation of Zanu’s new military strategy in the 1970s.
Chitepo’s fiery language and the fact that he was the front man enunciating radical party policy inevitably made him a target for assassination by the Rhodesian regime.
Just after 8am on 18 March 1975, an explosion shattered the morning routine in Chilenje South and echoed across the southern suburbs of Lusaka, the capital city of Zambia, headquarters of the liberation movements fighting against colonial or minority administrations in southern Africa.
A pall of smoke and dust in the early morning sunlight cast grey shadows across the drive at 150 Muramba Road, shrouding the mangled remains of a pale blue Volkswagon. In the wreckage lay the body of Herbert Chitepo, 51, National Chairman of Zanu and leader of the Dare reChimurenga, the war council that was directing the infiltration of guerrillas into Southern Rhodesia.
In 1985, 10 years after Chitepo’s death and five years after his goal of independence had been achieved, came the first revelation of the facts surrounding his assassination by the Rhodesian regime.
Brigadier Dudley Coventry, who was still serving in the new Zimbabwe military and training the special forces, made another contribution to healing the wounds of the past when he provided the names of the late Chuck Hind and Ian Sutherland (by then relocated from Zambia to South Africa) and other details to two well-known journalists, the first link in a chain to others and a meticulous piecing together of details.
Sifting fact from rumour, bias and folklore; seeking information from those who did not want to talk as well as those who would; and testing the delicate balance of racial reconciliation, in the belief that only the truth could begin the process of healing, this story was told by my late husband, David Martin, and myself in our 1985 book, The Chitepo Assassination.
Parts of that book were borrowed almost verbatim by Peter Stiff in revising his own book, as revealed in his 2015 interview with The Sunday Mail, now 40 years after the death of the national hero, Herbert Wiltshire Tapfumaneyi Chitepo.

2,453 total views, 1,255 views today

Retired Brigadier General Timothy Kazembe is not your ordinary soldier. The Zambian government has honoured him with the Order of Grand Commander Distinguished Service First Division. He served in the Zambian Defence Force from 1970 up to 2003 with his last appointment being the Defence Secretary at the Ministry of Defence.

He currently holds several posts in Zambia and played a crucial role in the peace process in the Democratic Republic of Congo but that’s a fascinating story for another day.

Born in 1947, Rtd. Brig. Gen. Kazembe was in the thick of things as he coordinated military activities of liberation movements in Southern Africa.

Our Deputy Editor, Munyaradzi Huni (MH) tracked down Rtd. Brig. Gen. Kazembe in Lusaka, Zambia and his hospitality told the story of a commander with a big heart. Rtd. Brig. Gen. Kazembe talks about Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle from a military point of view. He talks about effect by the Smith regime to provoke Zambia into a war so as to derail the liberation struggle. He talks about the incident at Chifombo where Zambian soldiers shot and killed some Zanu cadres.

Without mincing his words, he talks about the assassination of chairman Herbert Chitepo in 1975. “From a military point of view, that was the job of an insider that one,” he boldly declares and goes on to explain.

Read on . . .

***

MH: I spoke at length with former Foreign Affairs Minister Dr Vernon Mwaanga about Zambia’s involvement in the liberation of Zimbabwe. He gave me the politics and the diplomacy. Now, we want to hear Zambia’s view of the liberation struggle from a military point of view. Tell us, as the liberation movements came to set up camps and offices in your country, from a military point of view what were the challenges?

Rtd. Brig. Gen. Kazembe: From a military point of view, I can tell you that there were many challenges. First, the hosting of liberation movements in Zambia was political to achieve independence in all these countries.

When the liberation movements were here, the Rhodesian forces attacked us and we wanted to retaliate. We were restrained from doing so by the politicians. Hitting back at the Rhodesians would change the course of the war. It would now be a war between Zambia and Rhodesia, side-lining the liberation struggle.

Second, we had the responsibility to monitor the movements of the freedom fighters and their ammunition. We had stringent measures that the liberation movements had to follow and we were forced to assign our forces to move with some of the freedom fighters.

MH: We will talk about the stringent measures later. Tell us, in terms of logistics how were the arrangements?

Rtd. Brig. Gen. Kazembe: Any logistics in terms of moving ammunition from one point to the other, we had to know where they wanted to go, when and how.

These were the days I was a staff officer and later operations officer. Later like I told you I became a border centre officer. I was deployed in Siavonga area to coordinate the movements of the freedom fighters from and into Rhodesia.

I would ensure that the freedom fighters crossed Zambezi River safely after checking the presence of the Rhodesian forces. As Zambian forces, we were informed of any movements and for those fighters who would have crossed into Rhodesia, we would give them a date to report back. We also gave them an alternative date to return in case something went wrong in Rhodesia.

At times we even gave the freedom fighters targets to go and hit in Rhodesia after sending our surveillance teams.

My responsibility was to operate about 150 kilometres into Rhodesia at that time.

MH: How would you do it? Would you go with your forces into Rhodesia?

Rtd. Brig. Gen. Kazembe: (laughs) No, no, no. We found people to use to gather information regarding the movements of the Rhodesian forces. These people would go for reconnaissance.

MH: Let me take you back a bit. You spoke about the decision not to retaliate when the Rhodesian and South African forces invaded Zambia to attack the Zanla and Zipra cadres. At what level was this decision taken?

Rtd. Brig. Gen. Kazembe: At the time, the Zambian Defence forces were highly politicised in matters relating to the liberation war. We knew that if we go head on with these rebel forces from Rhodesia and South Africa, we would lose direction.

However, it doesn’t mean we didn’t hit back. We killed many Rhodesian and South African rebel forces in Zambia. We would only fight back after a direct attack. We had this gun which we called “KK’s voice” which these rebels feared a lot. Just a 75mm anti-tank gun but when fired, it caused havoc to these Rhodesian and South African forces.

MH: During these early days, what ammunition did these liberation movements have?

Rtd. Brig. Gen. Kazembe: Well, they carried small arms, grenades and rocket launchers.

MH: These weapons were being sourced from all over the world. When they got to Zambia, how were you making sure that these weapons remained in safe hands and that they would go to the specific areas where they were supposed to go and not harm ordinary Zambians?

Rtd. Brig. Gen. Kazembe: There was very close liaison and co-ordination between the headquarters of the liberation movements and the Ministry of Defence. All movements of logistics we had to know. We also provided escort for some of the movements. Of course we had one or two problems, regarding the movement of ammunition but generally things were in order and under control. We managed to monitor all movements of logistics.

MH: There was the political side of the liberation struggle and the military side. How exactly were you coordinating these two?

Rtd. Brig. Gen. Kazembe: There was a time when the military thought they were not being given the chance to carry out their duties. They wanted to hammer the rebels from Rhodesia and South African who were invading Zambia. But as I said, we were highly politicised and we were operating at the same wave length with our politicians.

MH: So for coordination purposes how was the structure like?

Rtd. Brig. Gen. Kazembe: For the military, it was the Ministry of Defence and for politics there was Foreign Affairs. Other departments like Office of the President, Intelligence and Security and Home Affairs also chipped in.

MH: The setting up of camps during these early days, how did you choose the areas you chose?

Rtd. Brig. Gen. Kazembe: It depended on the type of camp. Others were transit camps where people coming back from training would stay temporarily and they were off. Others were logistical camps where some ammunition would be kept secretly. Then other camps were to coordinate the operations to send the freedom fighters into Rhodesia. There were also camps for quick training.

So some of these camps, in fact quite a number, were nearer the border around the Central Province and around Lusaka.

MH: Did the Zambian military train some of the freedom fighters?

Rtd. Brig. Gen. Kazembe: Yes, we did. The purpose of establishing the Liberation Centre was to first train our own people who would be attached to the liberation movements. So at every camp, we had our own officers liaising with the leaders of the freedom fighters. That’s why when liberation movements had casualties, we also had casualties.

These officers were there to monitor and see that things were moving smoothly. They would report to the head office regularly. They would also monitor the discipline of the freedom fighters and make recommendations to their leaders and so on. These officers would together with the commanders of the liberation movements train some of the recruits.

The training was mainly about minor tactics – like formations, how to conduct patrols, how to fire a fun, gathering information and so on.

MH: So from Zimbabwe, you dealt with which liberation movements?

Rtd. Brig, Gen. Kazembe: There was Zapu under Joshua Nkomo with its military wing Zipra. Later, Zanu came first under Reverand Ndabaningi Sithole and later under President Mugabe with its wing as Zanla. We worked with these military wings separately. Their political leaders also operated separately. Sometimes their commanders would inter-mingle. Remember their commanders were also political leaders.

MH: What would you say were some of the differences between Zipra and Zanla?

Rtd. Brig. Gen. Kazembe: Let me start from the political parties themselves. Zanu took the stance of the armed struggle. They said the only way the rebel Rhodesian forces would understand was the armed struggle. They said negotiations were not working and through the talks, the Smith regime was just playing delaying tactics at the same time trying to manipulate other political parties. So Zanu took a stance to fight an armed struggle.

Zapu said we could use both routes – negotiations and the armed struggle. So from those approaches you can see there were differences. These differences at some point led to clashes between these two parties. Also the Smith regime was not idle. It started training agents to infiltrate the liberation movements. So some of the clashes we are talking about were caused by the regime.

MH: The Zambian government has been accused by some Zanla commanders of supporting Zapu. What is your comment?

Rtd. Brig. Gen. Kazembe: I really don’t think that was the situation. It was the fluidity of the situation that was on the ground. How Zanla and Zipra comrades were operating. Of course there could have been some dynamics that gave that impression at the political level.

Also remember Zapu was like senior to Zanu in terms of their formation. Maybe Zapu had dealt with UNIP in Zambia for a long time. At the military level I didn’t see what you are talking about.

MH: From a military point of view, reports say the declaration of the Universal Declaration of Independence (UDI) by Smith in November 1965, changed the course of the war. Explain to us how UDI changed the course of the war?

Rtd. Brig. Gen. Kazembe: The UDI prompted the intensification of the liberation struggle. On 11 November 1965, the regime in Rhodesia declared UDI. This sparked a series of reactions from all over the world, including the OAU, the region and even ourselves as the hosts of the liberation movements.

This is the time the regime started pursuing the liberation movements heavily and attacking them, especially along Zambezi valley. In declaring UDI, the Smith regime was fooled by the support they were getting from the South African government.

That action led the Zambian government to deploy soldiers on its borders and even start training and acquiring weapons to face Rhodesian and South African hostility. On the other hand, this was good for us because countries like China then gave us lots of ammunition to defend ourselves. We didn’t buy anything. We were given for free. We were given small arms including some artillery guns.

At that time Zanu and Zapu were banned in Rhodesia and we agreed to host them here. We agreed because we wanted them to use Zambia as a safe haven for the political and military leaders because they were banned in Rhodesia.

MH: When you provided a safe haven for the political and military leaders of these two political parties, it obviously meant providing them with security. Tell us a bit more about the security arrangements?

Rtd. Brig. Gen. Kazembe: Many of the leaders like Joshua Nkomo, Chitepo, Tongogara and others we gave them protection and some privileges to enjoy. The movements had trained their own cadres so these gave them protection, then we chipped in with our own as and when asked to do so.

MH: When you mentioned the name Tongogara, you posed a bit. Tell us from a military point of view what kind of a commander was Cde Tongo?

Rtd. Brig. Gen. Kazembe: Tongogara was a strong character, militarily and politically. He carried out so many brave activities as a soldier. Very brave operations. Even the way he encouraged cadres who were weak in mind to be strong and be motivated was out of this world. Sometimes he would jump out of the truck while it was still moving. That was a brave soldier that one. He was a military strategist. He could see in the future in terms of operations. He could see things that some could not see and come up with a counter strategy. He would think in advance.

You know sometimes we would sit down with the Zipra and Zanla commanders strategising how to execute the war. Like I told you I operated as a border officer so I knew exactly the points to attack and how to go about it.

We would exchange notes on how best to attack the Rhodesian forces.

Some operations went wrong and we would interrogate the freedom fighters what would have gone wrong because we planned everything to the last detail.

MH: How would you assess the effectiveness of your strategies?

Rtd. Brig. Gen. Kazembe: You see the military operations affected the political direction of the war so we had mechanisms to assess the effectiveness of our operations.

Whenever we heard the tone of the Smith regime softening, we knew our strategies were working. When the military was hitting them hard, they would quickly agree to sit down for negotiations.

If we captured any one of them, we used to call them terrorists here, they were very sensitive. Because of that we would make lots of noise about the capture and you would see their moral going down. They would cease their operations for days and their politicians would soften their stance.

Of course, the other strategy was that our comrades would tell us how their operations would have gone.

Whenever we captured these Rhodesian terrorists we would treat them well but of course we would put them under interrogation.

MH: So in terms of military, extracting information is quite important?

Rtd. Brig. Gen. Kazembe: All military operations can’t be carried out without information. You need information to use the appropriate approach, to attack at the right time and to know what is required. Even to determine how you go for the attack and how to retreat.

MH: When you were deployed along the border, tell us exactly what were your responsibilities and how you operated?

Rtd. Brig. Gen. Kazembe: We would study the movement of the moon to see the appropriate time to send the freedom fighters across the Zambezi river. We would look at the river itself to see the appropriate crossing points and check the water levels.

We would get information across to see the movement of the Rhodesian forces and we would also assess that after crossing the comrades should go to this or that place.

Our job was to make sure the freedom fighters crossed into Rhodesia without being detected. We would choose the appropriate place and appropriate time to cross, mainly it was during midnight.

It was a delicate exercise because it meant life and death. To make matters worse, we were coordinating not only one group but many groups. One in Siavonga, one in Chirundu and many other areas.

Even when they were returning from the front, we had to make sure they crossed safely. Once they got to the Zambian side, we would sit down and assess how their operations would have gone. I would get the report and bring it to Lusaka.

As the war went on, there were just too many freedom fighters crossing into Rhodesia and when Mozambique became independent, from a military point of view we were happy because it meant some freedom fighters would now be crossing via Mozambique.

Also after those clashes between Zanu and Zapu that were caused by the differences in approach to the war, the opening up of camps in Mozambique was a blessing because the clashes sort of died down. Another thing was that crossing into Rhodesia from Zambia caused lots of military headaches due to the Zambezi river. From the Mozambique side into Zimbabwe, its all land and so this helped in the war effort a lot. Although Zanu was now opening from Mozambique, the political headquarters were still in Lusaka.

MH: While in Zambia you said the liberation movements were given a number of conditions, tell us of some of the conditions.

Rtd. Brig. Gen. Kazembe: The headquarters of these liberation movements were supposed to be in Lusaka only. The Liberation Centre was in Lusaka in Kamwala. We couldn’t allow the liberation movements to open headquarters everywhere because that would create lots of security problems and logistically it would strain us.

The office bearers were not allowed to go anywhere anytime and anyhow. I told you of the 20 kilometre radius for the office bearers. These office bearers were under constant monitoring. We limited staff to six people per each liberation movement. We didn’t want many people at the headquarters because that would make the headquarters a target for the Smith regime.

The office bearers also had to provide us with the list of their freedom fighters in Zambia and what exactly they were doing. The Office of the President and the First Division would have that list.

All the itinerary of the freedom fighters we were supposed to know well in advance. Even the dates of coming back we were supposed to know. All the crossing points were designated. The freedom fighters were not crossing anywhere and anyhow.

Remember these people were crossing to and from Rhodesia without passports. So the border centre officers were important in making sure that everything went according to plan.

MH: As the war intensified, reports say you actually had to remove some Zambians who were living along the border with Zimbabwe. Why did you do this?

Rtd. Brig. Gen. Kazembe: Yes, we had to remove some Zambians living along the border with Rhodesia. The Rhodesians were attacking villages along the border to discourage Zambians from supporting the liberation struggle.

The Rhodesians de-populated people along the border on the Rhodesian side so that the freedom fighters would find no one to help them upon crossing into Rhodesia. Also they wanted free movement along the border so that whoever they saw, they knew it was a freedom fighter. From our side we removed people along the border, but we left politically correct tribesmen who would assist the freedom fighters in terms of food and to assess the situation along Zambezi river. These tribesmen suffered a lot as the Rhodesians attacked but they remained vigilant. We relied on them a lot for information. Of course some Zambians cooperated with the rebel forces but in no time we would identify them.

MH: Tell us a bit more about the attacks by the Rhodesian and South African forces into Zambia?

Rtd. Brig. Gen. Kazembe: You know what they say. When somebody is drowning, he or she will try to pull anyone nearby. The Smith regime intensified attacks into Zambia as a desperate measure because they could see that they were losing the war. It was like a drowning man trying to pull others with him. The Rhodesian forces attacked places such as Kavalamanja, Mushika, Chakwenga and Mugulameno in Feira (Luangwa district of Zambia); Chivundu, Siavonga, Sinazeze, Devil’s Gorge, Simonga and Kazungula in the Southern province; Mboroma, Mkushi, Maheba and Chikumbi in the Central province and Chongwe and even the Liberation Centre in Lusaka. Scores of Zambian civilians, police officers and soldiers were killed in these ruthless attacks.

These raids by the Rhodesian rebels into Zambian territory not only left many Zambians dead and others maimed but also had a devastating economic effect on the people in the affected areas.

Despite this, the Zambian government and its people remained steadfast in supporting the liberation struggle. We knew the Rhodesian rebels wanted to divert their defeat by starting a war with us but we refused to be drawn into the fight.

If the Zambian people had not received enough political education, these attacks would have made the people turn against the government. The Rhodesian rebels wanted to discredit the Zambian forces, to make them appear weak and unable to defend their people. But this trick didn’t work.

Our political leaders and military commanders were sure independence was near. Even the ordinary people knew the independence of Zimbabwe was near.

MH: These attacks you said they intensified towards the late 1970s? How exactly would they carry the attacks? Give us more details?

Rtd. Brig. Gen. Kazembe: On 6 March 1978, sixteen Rhodesian jet fighter aircrafts accompanied by armed helicopters crossed into Zambia and bombed transit camps and villages in Kavalamanja area of Feira. Immediately after the raid, three armed Rhodesian helicopters dropped a force of paratroopers in the area.

A Zambian company from 2nd Battalion which was deployed in the area was bombed. Its Officer Commanding Captain Kalima and eleven soldiers were killed.

They carried air offensives using fighter jets and helicopters and ground attacks. They slaughtered many innocent people and damaged property in Zambia.

You are aware of their ruthless attack using helicopters accompanied by two jet fighters on Mboroma camp and at Mkushi which was for girls. Only one girl survived that attack at the camp.

They bombed Chikumbi camp just a few kilometers north of Lusaka killing almost all freedom fighters who were there and civilians who were in close proximity.

In April 1979, a combined rebel Rhodesia force of Selous Scouts and Commandos crossed into Zambia through Chirundu using land rovers at night. They attacked Joshua Nkomo’s house and the Liberation Centre in Kamwala.

For some reason, prior to this attack, the Zambian army (armoured fighter cars) and Ferret Scout cars which were deployed at Kafue bridge had just been withdrawn to Lusaka. These rebel Rhodesians carried these and many other attacks with assistance from South African forces. Like I told you, some Zambians assisted them but we dealt with them effectively.

MH: Besides these barbaric raids into Zambia what other military strategies did the Rhodesian rebels try to implement to defend themselves?

Rtd. Brig. Gen. Kazembe: They went for desperate measures. They started compulsory military training for all whites. Anyone around 17 and 18 years was supposed to be trained. The Rhodesians even called for Soldiers of Fortune from as far as the UK, Canada and so on to come support them in the war. We got all these intelligence information from their people we captured.

Seeing that they were being defeated, the Rhodesian rebels modernized their air force. They secretly acquired aircrafts from South Africa. The Rhodesian rebels established strategic posts including observation posts along the border with Zambia and Mozambique. They also intensified intelligence activities with assistance from the South Africans. The other tactic I spoke about it earlier on where I said they de-populated the areas along Zambezi river. However, all this didn’t deter us from supporting the freedom fighters. In fact, also at this time, the Zambian Defence forces recruited more soldiers to counter the operations of the Rhodesian rebels. On the other hand, more friends were also helping us.

MH: General, let me draw you to an incident that happened around 1974 at Chifombo in Zambia. Some Zanla commanders I have spoken to speak about an incident where after clashes between Zanu and Zapu cadres, the Zambian regiment shot and killed some Zanu members. Are you aware of this incident?

Rtd. Brig. Gen. Kazembe: Yes I am aware of this incident. It was an unfortunate incident. I am also aware that this incident has been misconstrued.

As the Zambian forces we were under instructions never to side with any party when these two were fighting. I know after this incident the recruits from Zanu quickly concluded that Zambia was supporting Zapu. No. What happened is that because of this misconception that Zambia was supporting Zapu, some Zanu cadres resisted orders from the Zambian regiment leading to a standoff. Unfortunately, some Zanu cadres were shot in the process.

MH: When this incident happened, where were you?

Rtd. Brig. Gen. Kazembe: I was at the army headquarters in Lusaka. You see, the clashes between Zapu and Zapu cadres really complicated things for us from a military point of view.

MH: I am happy that you are saying you were at the army headquarters. Did the army take any action against these members of the Zambian regiment who shot and killed the Zanu cadres?

Rtd. Brig. Gen. Kazembe: Any incident that happened both in good and bad faith was investigated by the military. In this case, we investigated and discovered that this was a normal occurrence under the circumstances.

The members of the Zambian regiment acted according to what the situation required. This was an unfortunate incident, but the Zambian soldiers had to defend themselves. They felt threatened by the advances of the Zanu cadres. Of course the politicians took advantage of that incident and blew things out of proportion. Like I told you Zapu and Zanu were fighting a common enemy but they were rivals.

MH: Zipra and Zanla tried to fight as a united force but the efforts didn’t work. Why?

Rtd. Brig. Gen. Kazembe: Like I told you, the approach to the war between the two was different. Also there was mistrust between these two fighting arms so they indeed tried to work together but it didn’t last.

MH: Earlier on, you spoke about the provision of security to both the political and military leaders of Zanu and Zapu. Now on 18 March 1975, chairman Chitepo is assassinated in a car bomb. Many people are still asking, where was Chitepo’s security?

Rtd. Brig. Gen. Kazembe: That was really an unfortunate incident. You see around 1974, there were lots of dynamics in Zanu. The matter was investigated and I wouldn’t want to say much about it because as Zambia we agreed that we would not say much about what we know.

MH: I hear you General, but just briefly, from a military point of view, what do you think exactly happened? Someone placing a bomb under a car. Is that an easy thing to do militarily?

Rtd. Brig. Gen. Kazembe: It had to be somebody who knows his movements. Someone who knows the right time to set the bomb. That person had to be an internal person. It’s not an easy thing to set up that kind of a bomb.

MH: With the security that leaders like Chitepo used to have both from the freedom fighters and from the Zambians, was it possible that someone from outside could come and place the bomb under the car?

Rtd. Brig. Gen. Kazembe: The planning had to be done very, very well. As for someone from outside, uuumm, that would require even more delicate planning and that was not an easy thing to do considering the risk and so on. From my point of view, it should be insiders who knew the movements and so on. That one was the job of an insider. That was an insider that one. That’s all I can tell you for now. We were gripped with sorrow when we heard about the death of Chitepo.

That tragedy made us ever more alert and even the way we viewed the liberation movements changed. We heightened security. But like I said, it could be infiltration by the Rhodesian Special Branch.

MH: Besides this assassination, there were also cases of parcel bombs and so on sent by the Rhodesian Special Branch.

Rtd. Brig. Gen. Kazembe: Yes, there were such incidences. All these incidences were made possible mainly because of the clashes between the liberation movements. The clashes left loopholes that the Rhodesians capitalised on.

18,538 total views, 5,895 views today

Today’s sermon is basically about advice mixed with a rewind into history just to sober up the Minister of Finance Cde Patrick Chinamasa and the Reserve Bank boss, Dr John Mangudya.

Somehow Oliver Mtukudzi, our own music legend will feature somewhere because he is one superstar who would do with some frank advice. I am not sure how the lovely wife Daisy will take this one, but Bishop vari kufanirwa kusakura nekuzunza.

Before plunging into the sermon, I need to first declare that Cde Chinamasa and Dr Mangudya are two very like-able gentlemen who I am sure are very sincere in whatever they are doing for this beloved nation called Zimbabwe. They are not only sincere, but are also very hardworking and my hope is that these gentlemen won’t misconstrue this sermon.

But first let’s take a visit to Pakare Paya in Norton. Last Friday, Oliver Mtukudzi held a commemorative show to remember his departed son Sam, that easy going boy who passed away while knocking on the doors of stardom.

Rest in peace youngman — hope you are playing your lovely music for the angels!

So last Friday, thousands of people thronged Pakare Paya for this commemorative gig and I am sure Tuku and Daisy were overwhelmed by the support they got from the thousands of fans who drove all the way to Norton to be with their superstar.

Wait a minute dear reader — ko Bishop vanoitawo zvemabhangu futi? Well, I am an outgoing Bishop and yes, for a commemorative gig for Sam, I had to be there. Takatoshumira ikoko futi.

Anyway, the show was well-attended and people had a good time. Even Tuku and Daisy had a good time. I saw them dancing. Oooh, what a sweet sight!

However, that other music legend, Simon Chimbetu would say “kufara kwamuri kuita pano, pane asipo.”

I am not talking about Sam here. There was something amiss about that show.

Selmor Mtukudzi was the missing link. Where was Selmor? I know she is currently out of the country, but shuwa shuwa Tuku can hold a commemorative show for Sam with all those other musicians Selmor asipo? No, no, no!

Let’s face it, our legend made a big mistake. I really hope it was a mistake. Arrangements should have been made for Selmor to be there. Shuwa wofara nevatorwa wako mwana gwenyambira saSam asipo? That was very wrong and the whole show looked incomplete without Selmor.

Bishop Lazarus sniffed around and was told that all is not well between father and daughter. Well, I want Tuku to read 1 Timothy 5 vs 8 which says, “Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

There is no denying that Tuku is a legend but he is a legend that must sort its family issues. We know for a fact that Sam and Selmor were very close so Selmor should have been there at Pakare Paye, tumwe tutaurwa hatinei natwo isu.

We expect our legend to act like a role model and lead by example — ahh, nhai akomana Tuku naDaisy ngavaite mushe!

Enough about Tuku and Selmor — now back to Cde Chinamasa and Dr Mangudya. What’s up with these two gentlemen with regards to IMF? They seem to have an obsession with the IMF, do they know something we don’t know?

I have said it before and I will say it again and again — these Bretton Woods institutions were, are and will never be a solution to our economic problems. Never, ever.

Just last week, Dr Mangudya got a rude awakening when he prematurely told the media that Zimbabwe was expecting to receive an IMF loan in the third quarter of 2016. He went on to say the loan would be a first in nearly two decades, after paying off foreign lenders by the end of June.

Before Dr Mangudya could take his seat after this announcement, the IMF in typical fashion responded through its spokesperson, William Murray.

Murray was very bold in declaring that, “In terms of financing, Zimbabwe cannot have a financial arrangement with the IMF because it has accumulated arrears to the poverty reduction and growth trust.”

So basically we are back to the same old story — pay this to get that, do this to get that — pure language of imperialists.

I know some will say, come on Bishop be optimist for once, but no, I won’t join a queue of fools. No. Why can’t we learn that the IMF, the World Bank and the United Nations are imperialist creatures meant to maintain the exploitative and manipulative economic world order?

I know as a lawyer by profession, Cde Chinamasa will stand by the IMF and as a banker, Dr Mangudya will stand by the IMF because their schooling taught them to believe that one plus one is always equal to two.

Allow me dear reader to go a bit in history to explain why I maintain that we are wasting time hoping that the IMF will solve our problems. Bear with me because we really need to put things into context here.

At the insistence of the USA, in July 1944, a meeting was held by countries that had participated on the side of the Allied Forces during the Second World War, at Mt Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods, Washington DC.

From Africa, only Egypt and South Africa were present at this conference which was dubbed the United Nations Economic Conference and later on because of the venue where it was held, it became known as the Bretton Woods Conference.

This conference drew together the best economic minds of the time who were supposed to design a new global economic system. The primary designers of this new system were John Maynard Keynes, adviser to the British Treasury, and Harry Dexter White, the chief international economist at the Treasury Department.

Just these designers will tell you what this project was all about. Indeed, in Washington the architecture of the global capitalist system was born and little Zimbabwe was born into this system in 1980.

At this meeting three important global economic institutions were born — first was the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development later called the World Bank. The other institution was International Monetary Fund. The third which was formed a bit later was the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade, later called the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

Of course around the same time, the United Nations was also born with its several agencies to sanitise this new economic world order whose unwritten mandate was to spearhead the smart exploitation and monitoring of the world.

I could preach more about these institutions but this is a sermon and not a lecture on history. However, for those who doubt the reasons behind the formation of the Bretton Woods institutions, the 33rd President of the US, Harry Truman in 1945 gave the clearest hint of the role of these institutions. Referring to America he said,

“For the first time in history, humanity possesses the knowledge and skill to relieve the suffering of these people.

“The United States is pre-eminent among nations in the development of industrial and scientific techniques . . .

“Our aim should be to help the free peoples of the world . . .”

There goes dear reader. Vanhu ava havatide mhani. How could America boast of possessing “the knowledge and skill to relive the suffering” of the people of the world?

America trying to free peoples of the world? How and why?

We need to open our eyes and minds.

To the like-able two gentlemen, Cde Chinamasa and Dr Mangudya, read Proverbs 19 vs 20-21. It says, “Listen to advice and accept instruction, that you may gain wisdom in the future. Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the Lord that will stand.”

Does anyone think it’s a coincidence that the same week that the IMF was making some noise on Zimbabwe, the US government added two Zimbabwean fertiliser companies to its sanctions list? Isn’t it obvious who is pulling the strings and calling the shots here?

Last time I urged Cde Chinamasa to give former RBZ governor, Dr Gideon Gono a call so that he recites to him what happened when he paid the IMF about US$120 million. Let’s learn to learn from others. Hapana chitsva apa.

Bishop is out!

16,957 total views, 5,120 views today

Anomie is a sociological term that refers to societal instability that results from a breakdown in moral values as well as widespread personal feelings of uncertainty and alienation.

Examples of social anomie historically deduced by researchers in developed economies include (but are not limited to) increase in suicide rates, increased levels of deviancy in the forms of violent crimes, prostitution and drug abuse.

There is arguably a link between economic circumstances and anomie.

Although anomie sometimes accompanies rapid modernisation; generally, it occurs when socio-economic circumstances change for the worse.

I think that anomie is currently visible in Zimbabwean society.

Since the turn of the century, a mixture of events have contributed to the moral decadence we see amongst us – a surge in drug abuse, prostitution, and violent crime.

The surge in the cases of rape and abuse of minors point to anomie and the erosion of our moral values.

Now, although we might be going through a rough patch as a country, I believe that it is important for us to realise that the only practical way to deal with this anomie is through institutional mechanisms.

I make the argument here that National Social Security Authority (Nssa) should play a critical role in this regard, by restoring the fundamentals of social security.

Social security in Zimbabwe

Nssa and other social security entities from across the world are inspired by the belief that everyone should be equipped with the means to procure basic needs and services.

This is enshrined in article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I am of the view that where there is adequate social security in a society, anomie diminishes.

However, where there is inadequate social security, anomie increases.

I have written this before, and I will repeat here that when the National Social Security Authority Act was first promulgated in 1989, global economic circumstances, and indeed the economic circumstances within Zimbabwe were different from what they are today.

Back then, the country’s developmental design was pinned on the idea of mass employment of working age citizens who would gradually contribute towards various social security related funds and schemes through Nssa.

The idea was that workers would make monthly contributions over years, primarily in order to provide a relatively cushioned retirement for them; and also to provide insurance for them in case they were seriously injured while performing their work duties.

I was surprised the other day when I came across a Nssa Compliance Inspection Sheet at our farming operation near Wedza. According to the document, a certain amount of thousands of dollars was payable to Nssa within seven days.

The Compliance Inspection Sheet is essentially an estimation of unpaid Nssa contributions and premiums dating back to dollarisation in 2009.

After studying the document, I went and read the Nssa Act and did further research on social security in different parts of the world before I reached the conclusions laid out below.

Despite the fact that the Nssa Act was promulgated with noble intentions, there are a few contradictions existent within our society today.

Our lawmakers and the Nssa officials should perhaps take this consideration.

First, the retirement age in Zimbabwe is generally 60 years according to the National Pension Scheme (NPS); yet, the average life expectancy is around 50 years.

It, therefore, does not make sense for workers to contribute towards a pension fund that they may never benefit from.

In this light, perhaps Nssa should change the nature of its packages, and offer contributors something tangible as a pay-out after every five to 10 years.

For example, Nssa could provide a package where after 10 years of contributions, a contributor becomes entitled to either a cash pay-out or a Nssa house in his or her rural area.

This would make more sense than for a worker to contribute to Nssa for years and still fail to reach the age of retirement, and consequently reap retirement benefits.

The second matter that Nssa should seriously consider is that Nssa as an institution does not inspire the same levels of trust from the public than it did 20 years ago, owing to a series of looting reports and allegations involving Nssa officials over the years.

In this light, employers and employees alike are skeptical of Nssa, and are concerned that this new wave of Nssa fundraising through the wanton issuance of compliance sheets will again promote the profligacy of Nssa top management and board members.

My suggestion, therefore, is that Nssa should introduce practical and tangible packages and services that benefit contributors immediately.

The fact is that people would rather have healthcare today, housing today and education today, rather than after say 20 years of contributing to a pension scheme.

Therefore, as an incentive to contributors in both the formal and informal economy, Nssa should collaborate with private health service providers and avail cheap and affordable healthcare to its contributors.

This would mean that a person making monthly contributions to Nssa would qualify for health services at certain facilities.

The obvious benefit is that this will reduce pressure on the public health system and concurrently offer incentives to employers and employees to make their contributions to Nssa.

That is just one example of the many packages and services that Nssa could introduce to provide social security for Zimbabweans today and not after the age of 60.

There are numerous other examples in China, South Africa, Brazil and India showing how social security institutions like Nssa are taking steps to provide social security for citizens through agriculture, health, housing and education.

If Nssa looks at those examples, and offers practical and relevant social security packages, then people will not have a problem with paying towards those schemes, and ultimately Nssa will play a role at rectifying the prevailing social anomie.

Tau Tawengwa holds a Master’s degree in Industrial Sociology and Labour Studies from the University of Pretoria.

57 total views, 1 views today

Ben Debney

The idea for this article came to me after the shootings in San Bernadino; all it really required was another atrocity to give it legs.

A dysfunctional part of me hoped I might get out of having to write it.

If the war on terror was ever meant to be won, by now it must be classed as a monumental failure for the West. Any conventional war that becomes bogged down in a protracted quagmire is generally regarded as a zero sum gain at best.

The roots of the war on terror in moral panic narratives means that we rarely seem to even ask the question as to whether or not it’s actually getting us anywhere.

If we don’t care that it isn’t, that begs the question as to the role war on terror narratives play in public discourse, whether we care if our ideas mean anything or whether we just care about being right.

Between the rise of Islamic State, the attacks on Charlie Hebdo, the second round of Paris attacks, San Bernadino and now Belgium, all prominently displayed in the media because the perpetrators are not on our side and the victims are affluent westerners, it does not seem that terrorism is going away.

On the contrary, it seems that it has made more and bolder incursions into the bubbles of apathetic individualism that dominate the safe and conspicuously comfortable existences of those of us safely removed from the consequences of the military adventures instigated by our national governments.

Indeed, the apathy seems almost to extend to each atrocity now, as the ritual outrage from political leaders who have new ideas on how to deal with the problem of non-state terrorism other than to beat their chests and lower themselves to the level of those provoking them precipitates a marked war-weariness.

To be sure, Osama bin Laden and his associates responsible for the original great atrocity in the West a decade-and-a-half ago achieved their primary goal of provoking the Great Satan into expensive, economically self-destructive wars.

Then there were the useful side effect of polarising West and Middle East, driving moderates into the arms of fundamentalists on both sides of the fence and enabling radical fundamentalists in congress, who for their part were more than willing to oblige their Islamic counterparts by dismantling remaining democratic forms in the name of defending them from the loyal opposition who had the same goals.

In this sense the war on terror was never anything more than therapeutic psychodrama, one in which “the emotional release of the protagonists takes precedence over what is actually being said. . . It is an expression of their pain and powerlessness confronted by the decay and dereliction, not only of their familiar environment, but of their own lives too – an expression for which our society provides no outlet”. (Stuart Hall, “Policing the Crisis”).

Having been cast to this end as a war on terror, the Western response to the terrorist attacks in the United States of 2001 has displayed characteristics that are far more accurately cast as moral panic.

A number of key characteristics points inexorably towards this conclusion.

The conflation in war on terror narratives of object and relation, such that terrorism as a relational phenomenon in reality is reified into an object, one that can be demonised, targeted and attacked according to conventional means. The reification of terrorism from relation into object for this purpose also means that, rather than something that can be understood rationally, it functions instead as a propaganda trope – one that can never be defeated, but that nevertheless supplies virtually endless fuel to the fire of perpetual war.

The reification of terrorism into an object that can be fought and defeated through conventional warfare as a subject of war propaganda necessitates application of the processes known to sociology as the “production of deviance” and social psychology as “moral disengagement”. In engaging in the production of deviance while giving way to moral disengagement, those responsible for creating War on Terror narratives rendered themselves cause and cure of the same problem, a paradox reflected in their tendency to perpetuate the feared outcomes of enemy success (eg the destruction of what remains of civil society and democratic rights and freedoms) in the name of combating them.

The systemic and deep-seated cognitive dissonance characteristic of War on Terror narratives between rhetoric and actions, as its proponents waged state terror utilising literally the same methods and propaganda tropes that Adolf Hitler used to start World War II abroad, while dismantling what remained of democratic freedoms at home in the name of defending them from evil doers who hated freedom.

The events cast as a war on terror, then, add up in the real world to a Terror Scare, a moral panic over terrorism.

As a characteristic feature of this moral panic, therapeutic psychodrama expressed as war on terror narratives have served to enable class war waged by the political classes of Western democracies against their own people, for the defense of the vested interests and class privileges of the opulent minorities on whose behalf the system of representative democracy was designed and in whose interests it has always functioned.

This is nothing out of the ordinary, but on the contrary entirely consistent with the prescription of James Madison articulated during the Constitutional Convention to the effect that the primary function of government should be to “protect the minority of the opulent from the majority”.

To the extent that that is the case, war on terror narratives have served the same blame-shifting, scapegoating and generally distracting function that the Domino Theory played for Western imperialists during the Cold War.

To the extent that those who have internalised the values, methods and goals of the Terror Scare as their own continue to parrot war on terror mythologies as their own in militant ignorance of fact and militant defiance of logic and reason for the sake of enabling therapeutic psychodrama, we can assume that they neither expect or desire an end to war.

On the contrary, the spectre of terrorism reified through the conflation of object and relation into a propaganda motif and a moral panic trope provides an opportunity for perpetual war, a permanent scapegoat to blame for everything wrong with the world.

An ideological crutch of this kind only ever becomes more necessary as the consequences of lowering oneself to the level of those provoking us come home to revisit us, even if it was a convenient way to gain greater control over remaining oil supplies and buttress the petrodollar regime at the time.

The destructive dynamic set in place only has one ending, just as there is only one person who really gains from it; no prizes for guessing who.

Ben Debney is a PhD candidate in International Relations at Deakin University, Melbourne. He is studying moral panics and the political economy of scapegoating. Twitter: @itesau.

52 total views, no views today

Howdy folks!
I trust I find you well on this day of our Lord. He is indeed risen from the dead!

The question uppermost in many critics’ minds following the cash problems experienced by banks not long ago was the central bank’s role as lender of last resort.
In early December, areas like Bulawayo experienced adverse cash shortages.
Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Governor Dr John Mangudya explained then that it was a temporary cash challenge occasioned by some banks that had underestimated their cash requirements at a time when companies were paying salaries and, probably, bonuses.
He then gave an assurance that they had moved in to disburse cash to banks in those areas.
There was another cash squeeze at the end of February 2016 when some banks could not meet local demand.
The Central Bank explained that February was a short month, and demand for salary payments for both public and private sectors far exceeded available cash, assuring the nation that they had imported adequate cash to resolve the situation.
The US$200 million lender of last resort-type facility, which was said to be a game-changer in addressing financial stability through a liquidity support window for banks, has, of course, supported banks to the tune of US$178,8 million as at December 31, 2015.
But how come we have been having episodes of cash shortages? What cash volumes should be in our vaults to checkmate such unpropitious episodes? Enough to meet salary demand on the day of reckoning?
Why should a mere slip in dates result in cash shortages that are felt in the entire economy?
Isn’t it a sign that we are living from hand to mouth as an economy, with very spasmodic and ineffectual buffers to extricate us from unforeseen exigencies?
Since it is known that we have no currency of our own, which is why we have to import cash virtually whenever we need to balance the matrix, we have to play the game by the rules of nine referees — being the nine countries whose currencies we are using.
But those currencies are not just imported willy-nilly. We have to first earn that money somehow!
You see, we cannot print US dollars, for instance.
So, for us to catch the US dollars that we can transact with, we have to first find a long fishing rod that can fish them.
Then we can eat the kill.
But, while fishing, we have to put different baits on the hook. In our case, that bait is usually exports. When we export, the proceeds are processed through our local banks’ Nostro accounts.
These are accounts held in foreign countries by local banks, denominated in foreign currency and are used to facilitate settlement of foreign exchange and trade transactions.
This is some of the cash that is imported to buttress our liquidity situation in the country. And when we import goods, we are actually exporting liquidity in the process.
Cash withdrawals are a function of cash availability. Therefore, the cash shortages point to cash challenges plaguing our economy.
The central bank has already told us that broad money supply closed the year 2015 at US$4,76 billion, and that it averaged US$3,1 billion between 2009 and 2015, which clearly shows no money supply dynamism happening.
Otherwise, the levels of money supply are exactly where we don’t want them to be.
The trend will continue if we sit back and relax while leaving our sources of market liquidity on auto-pilot.
In our case, the factors that influence market liquidity are mainly composed of banked export receipts, international remittances, external loans, income receipts and foreign investments.
If we do not cultivate these factors and rejuvenate them, liquidity challenges will continue to be the order of the day.
Taking our external trade as a case in point, we will see that exports have not been performing impressively.
In 2014, exports worth US$2,8 billion and imports worth US$5,9 billion were realised, representing a trade deficit of US$3,1 billion.
It is tantamount to saying we exported liquidity worth US$3,1 billion in 2014.
In 2015, our exports deteriorated to US$2,5 billion with imports of US$5,5 billion being realised, subsequently resulting in liquidity worth US$3 billion being exported.
For the first two months of 2016, exports have again fallen.
Exports worth US$459 million were realised between January and February 2016, compared to US$528 million which was realised in the same period last year.
If we do not break this pattern, we will continue to export liquidity, much to the detriment of our economy.
Again folks, if we combine together all the five factors of market liquidity I have highlighted above, for analysis, we will get insightful deductions.
We will realise that these factors, combined, raked in US$2,48 billion in 2009, rising to a record high of US$7,6 billion in 2013.
What is now disheartening to note is that the figure has been falling since 2013, to US$6,5 billion in 2014 and US$5,7 billion in 2015.
This clearly points to tightening market liquidity conditions and calls for sustainable and effective measures.
Otherwise, if we just fold our hands, market liquidity will continue to deteriorate by a billion dollars per year — on average — and we will virtually not have market liquidity to talk about in the next half-decade.
The solution to the above lies in a cocktail of measures, all falling under two categories.
The first requires us to plug all the needless leakages of liquidity.
Looking at our import bill, for instance, we need to scrutinise every item on that catalogue and only allow what is indispensable to be imported — things like fuel, machinery, raw materials and others.
Otherwise, the rest of the stuff that has substitutes that should be weeded out through robust import substitution such as resuscitation of distressed manufacturing industries and those that went bust, while consolidating the existing ones to ramp up capacity.
It is saddening to note that industrial capacity utilisation has been falling, year in year out, for the past half-decade.
Too bad our industrial policy is finishing its course without a ribbon on its chest.
What industrial strategies do we have, beyond 2016, to foster industrial resurgence?
As long as local industrial capacity utilisation is down, people will continue to import more and there will be less to export, meaning trade deficits will be inevitable.
Re-industrialisation is not an end in itself but a means to an end.
It has to be accompanied by measures in the second category that are mainly earmarked to promote the growth of factors that stimulate market liquidity and vigorous strategies that encompass competitiveness and an immense promotion of the Buy Zimbabwe agenda.
Buy Zimbabwe is a necessary evil folks!
Given the status of our economy, it would be unpatriotic to “sabotage” local products at the expense of “cheaper” imports.
In any case, do folks know what they mean when they say “cheaper”?
In most scenarios, the surprising reality is that “cheap” does not actually refer to price but quality.
Buy Zimbabwe initiatives, therefore, need to be sustained by innovative researches that lay bare the merits of buying local, beyond the usual orotundity.
While the Central Bank is working on other measures to boost exports, they require the buy-in of all stakeholders for them to work.
Some of the measures include capacitating trade attaches at Zimbabwe’s embassies abroad and streamlining excess export documentation, among others.
We need to move with speed in implementing such reforms.
The National Financial Inclusion Strategy also needs to be implemented to fruition as it will improve domestic resource mobilisation through formal systems.
The year 2016 must be a year of action, folks, real action by Government, business, media, consumers, banks, workers and other stakeholders in the Republic.
We are tired of political headlines and look forward to seeing more economic headlines capturing the economic miracle we can perform when we all come to the party.
Otherwise, I swear today by the risen Lord that we won’t get anywhere.
I ride on to the country.
Later folks!

55 total views, 1 views today