Zimbabwe News Update: US Admits Funding PM's Office

[XXPANTHAXX]

THE US government, through its Assistant Secretary of State for African
Affairs Mr Johnnie Carson, has openly admitted that it is funding the
MDC-T’s parallel government by providing funds to the Prime Minister’s
Office.

Even the United States Agency for International Development (USAID),
through its acting assistant administrator for Africa, Mr Earl Gast,
confirmed that the US government has been funding the PM’s Office.

In his testimony to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Sub-committee on Africa on September 30 2009, Mr Carson pledged his
support to advance US interests in Zimbabwe.

“Our assistance to Zimbabwe seeks to lay the groundwork for a return to
democracy and prosperity by supporting democratic voices and civil
society, including support to the Prime Minister’s Office for
communications and other capacity building,” said Mr Carson.

In his paper entitled “Exploring US Policy Options Towards Zimbabwe’s
Transition” that he presented to the same sub-committee, Mr Gast said:
“In addition, funding has included support for civil society
strengthening, support to help fulfill the terms of the Global Political
Agreement (GPA) (eg resources for the constitution-making process);
programmes to demonstrate responsible governance (eg improving the
public outreach capacity of the Office of the Prime Minister);
assistance to non-governmental monitoring of compliance of all parties
to the GPA; and support for independent media”.

It is understood that NANGO (National Association of Non-Govermental
Organisations) has already lined up seminars where it will start the
process to monitor all the parties in the GPA.

Mr Gast added: “The US$73 million in funding for Zimbabwe pledged by
President Obama during Prime Minister Tsvangirai’s recent visit to the
US includes significant inter-agency funding for HIV and Aids programmes
in: parliamentary strengthening, (US$2,4 million); elections and
constitution making (3,2 million); rule of law (3,8 million);
consensus-building (2,7 million); media (1,5 million); victims of
torture (1,9 million); civil society/local government capacity building
(5,8 million); maternal and child health, including tuberculosis ($4,1
million); and family planning (1,2 million).”

These revelations are set to shame the PM’s Office which has been
refuting allegations that funding for its parallel government has been
coming from the US government through USAID.

In addition to running the parallel government, the PM’s Office is
publishing a newsletter that is under the charge of Andrew Chadwick and
is receiving funding from the USAID.

An African diplomat privy to the presentations that were made by the
International Crisis Group, the Mercy Corps group, the US Treasury
Department and the USAID to the Subcommittee on African Affairs showed
that US policy towards Zimbabwe is in a quandary.

The diplomat said under the George Bush administration, US policy
towards Zimbabwe was shaped by ZIDERA whose main thrust was to attack
President Mugabe, attack the economy through sanctions and create and
fund subversive organizations.

“But now with the MDC in Government, clearly that template is falling
short because a continued attack on Zimbabwe through sanctions would
mean that in the event of failure, the MDC would also be blamed.

“Presentations made to the subcommittee clearly show that the US is
trying to adjust, in a fundamental way, its policy towards Zimbabwe,”
said the diplomat.

The diplomat said the shift in policy was necessitated by the creation
of the inclusive Government, the stabilization of the economy following
measures announced in Minister Patrick Chinamasa’s budget, the
re-engagement of Zimbabwe, the mounting campaign against sanctions and
the fact that America “now has a listening post in Government through
the MDC.”

Said the diplomat: “They want to fine tune the sanctions to make them
targeted but also fine tune assistance to make it targeted. They want to
have a target of destruction and a target of mitigation.

“The US will use the MDC as its listening post in Government and through
the Multi Donor Trust Fund they will fund seminars that they will use to
source data about the goings on in Government.”

The diplomat said the US government was now trying to enter into the
Zanu-PF stronghold – the farmers by providing funding for agriculture.

In recent weeks, farmers have been promised lots of funding from some
NGOs raising suspicion that this was a ploy to “buy farmers and deliver
them to the MDC in preparation for elections.”

In his presentation, Mr Carson spoke about “our recent notification and
consultation on new targeted programmes in the agriculture and education
sectors.”


‘Independent’ judiciary, commissions: Whose independence?

AFRICAN FOCUS By Tafataona P. Mahoso
Zimbabwe Sunday Mail

Those who have followed demands for “reform” by the MDC formations in
Zimbabwe will notice that if these political formations were to be
allowed to put their programmes into practice this country would end up
with the following commissions:

Independent Land Commission, Independent Anti-Corruption Commission,
Independent Media Commission, Independent Planning Commission,
Independent Broadcasting Commission, Independent Judicial Appointments
Commission, Independent Public Service Commission, Independent Gender
Commission and so on. . . .

Given the extreme partisanship and sectarianism which the MDC formations
have imported with their foreign sponsorship into Zimbabwean politics,
the first question which arises is: From which planet do the MDC
formations intend to import enough “independent” persons, let alone
resources, to build so many independent commissions?

Citizens can get some idea of the “independence” meant by the MDC
formations if they examine the lists of candidates these parties have
been presenting to the Standing Rules and Orders Committee (SROC) of
Parliament for nomination to the various “independent” bodies. There is
a high representation of former white Rhodesians being imported back
into Zimbabwe via South Africa, to take up positions on these
“independent” commissions.

It is also important to remember that in her encounter with President
Robert Mugabe on CNN on September 24 2009, “independent” journalist
Christiane Amanpour indicated clearly and openly that Roy Bennett was
the only definitely “independent” source of evidence which CNN should
consult in order to determine whether President Robert Mugabe’s account
of the quarrel between Zimbabwe and Britain was true! She, like MDC-T,
also demanded to know why the same Roy Bennett had not been sworn in as
Deputy Minister of Agriculture.

Perhaps our readers may wonder why we keep insisting that we are dealing
with ideology and propaganda rather than independence or law. Just think
of the concept of independent commission as language. Try to put it into
any one of our national languages. Does it make sense? Even in English,
does it make sense?

A commission has to be commissioned in order to have validity and
authority. To commission means: an act of committing or giving authority
to carry out a particular task or duty; the act of giving certain powers
to a person or body; the act of entrusting someone with particular
responsibilities; the state of being authorised to perform certain
functions.

As a noun, a commission is a group of people lawfully authorised to
perform certain duties or functions as a government agency. An
“independent” commission in the normal world is a contradiction. Its
independence exists as ideology or propaganda, not as reality. Before we
explain the meaning of the demand by the MDC formations to set up
unwieldy and expensive commissions in almost every sector, it might help
to look at recent history. When the myth of willing-buyer-willing-seller
in the 1979 Lancaster House Constitution failed to provide enough land
to satisfy the dispossessed African majority by 1990, two views became
prominent on how the land issue was to be resolved.

One view said that “the independent judiciary” would resolve the issue
through the courts.

The other view said the judiciary, the courts and the law at that time
(1990-1992) were part of the problem and had been part of the problem
since the days of Cecil John Rhodes and the British South African
Company. Africans had to wage the First Chimurenga and Second Chimurenga
precisely because the judiciary, the law and the courts were the
colonial instruments for the permanent racist dispossession of the
African majority.

When the white Chief Justice Anthony Gubbay prepared to hear one of the
land cases in early November 2000, the State asked him to remove himself
from hearing the case because in many previous utterances he had already
judged the African land reclamation movement and method to be illegal
and criminal. The white Chief Justice went ahead to hear the case and on
January 10 2001 he condemned widespread criticism of his conduct as an
“onslaught” on the judiciary, an erosion of judicial independence.

Denmark, Britain, the Commercial Farmers’ Union (CFU), the National
Constitutional Assembly (NCA), the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC),
leaders of the Law Society of Zimbabwe (LSZ) and the International Bar
Association (IBA) came out on the side of white settler farmers against
the African land reclamation movement.

This line-up of views proved correct President Robert Mugabe’s statement
on December 13 2000 that the courts and the law at that stage could not
resolve the Zimbabwean land question.

But that was only the beginning of the struggle which we see being
re-staged again in the form of “independent commissions”.

So, on February 6 2001 Chief Justice Gubbay came out politically and
openly in support of the white settler farmers and attacked the leaders
of the country, through the Press, for failure to arrest and lock up the
land-hungry masses.

The white Chief Justice also openly attacked the African Judge President
of the High Court at that time for admitting that the effect of the
position taken by the Supreme Court against the African land reclamation
movement had been to compromise the dignity and authority of the entire
judiciary in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of the people,
especially because the African land movement was a popular mass movement
with organic community resonance.

The white Chief Justice later resigned and the African Judge President
Godfrey Chidyausiku became Chief Justice.

Automatically, the replacement of a white Chief Justice by an African
Chief Justice in the middle of the African land revolution was condemned
as blatant patronage which destroyed the independence of the courts! The
International Bar Association sent a delegation biased in favour of the
white settler farmers and the former white Chief Justice.

The delegation also helped the settlers to incite the NCA, LCZ, CFU,
MDC, Legal Resources Foundation and Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights to
come out openly on the side of the white settlers and against the
dispossessed povo. The Financial Gazette openly declared on December 6
2001: “Zanu-PF takes over Zimbabwe’s courts: law experts say land
judgment political.”

This was in response to a new judgment on new land cases in which
compulsory land acquisition, land redistribution and land resettlement
were declared to be constitutional. Immediately, on April 17 2002, the
illegal regime change lobby demanded constitutional reforms for the
purpose of reversing land reform on behalf of the white settlers.

So, from this history and from the lists of persons submitted by the MDC
formations for nomination to independent commissions, we get the message
that white Rhodesians are “independent” and most capable of making
“independent” judgments about the future of Zimbabwe! Any replacement of
whites by Africans destroys the rule of law and undermines independence.

Moving further, the MDC formations’ logic becomes even more revealing.
The very same illegal regime change lobby which says white Rhodesians
are independent judges of their own dispute with Zimbabwe is demanding
that Zimbabwe’s war veterans and retired soldiers should never be
allowed anywhere near these “independent” commissions.

Why? Well, because, although the war veterans brought about Zimbabwe’s
independence, they cannot themselves be independent! Instead, the
appointment of any one or more of these people who brought independence
must be condemned as undermining the independence of these commissions.
In fact, it is a militarisation of these supposedly independent bodies.

After white Rhodesians, the other breed of persons the MDC formations
favour for nomination and appointment are lawyers. These are to be
preferred to any other discipline.

The Regime Change Strategy behind the Proliferation of “Independent
Commissions”

The idea that a judiciary headed by a white Rhodesian in Zimbabwe is
independent while one headed by an African is not independent; the idea
that a commission including retired Rhodesian security officers is
democratic and independent while one including retired war veterans of
the Second Chimurenga is “militarised” — has already been established
and understood through the examples cited. Readers should see the
Zimbabwe Independent of October 2 2009 and internet sites and Misa Press
statements in the same week.

But our readers should not end there. There is still the problem of
British, US and EU sponsorship, endorsement and funding attracted by the
campaign for “independent commissions”. Why is there so much Anglo-Saxon
interest and support for such a campaign? There were commissions long
before the regime change onslaught against Zimbabwe. But if our readers
check their old newspapers, there were no strenuous efforts to call them
“independent” and there were no campaigns to have them sponsored by
foreign governments through the NGO sector.

What is new? What is new is the failure of the regime change onslaught,
which started in 1997, to achieve its objectives of removing and
destroying the African liberation movement. What is new is the failure
to reverse the African land reclamation movement to date. What is new is
the determination still to overcome that failure.

This failure means that some of the methods of regime change, such as
violence and military invasion, have now been abandoned. This means that
a combination of instruments of “soft power” is now preferred.

One of those ever-present instruments is the Western media. In “Violence
in and by the media”, George Gerbner explained this role.

“They (the media) serve as projective devices that isolate acts and
people from meaningful contexts and set them up to be stigmatised . . .
Stigma is a mark of disgrace that evokes disgraceful behaviour.
Labelling some people barbarians makes it easier to treat them as
barbarians would (treat them) . . . classifying some people as criminals
permits dealing with them in ways otherwise criminal; it makes it
legitimate to attack and kill them . . . Stigmatisation and demonising
isolate their targets and set them up to be victimised.”

But the media alone cannot successfully destabilise Zimbabwe without
credible individuals, NGOs and institutions to generate ready-framed
events, stories and reports which fit the regime change agenda and
language. In other words, the media war on Zimbabwe has no effect unless
the catchment area for ready-framed events, stories and reports is
increased. BBC, CNN, Aljazeera and other propaganda channels will have a
hard time meeting the mission stated by Gerbner without sponsored
individuals, NGOs and neoliberal institutions which can be primed to set
off the spiral and orchestration of pseudo-events which can be used to
fuel the regime change onslaught.

If we step back and look at the timing of the Nobel Prize for Peace
which was given to US President Barrack Obama, we can see that the Nobel
Committee played a role for imperialism and Nato which some of our
commissions and proposed commissions are expected to play for the yet
unsuccessful regime change forces.

Obama was given a prize, which event has been globalised through mass
media, not for any achievement but for a wishful (even dishonest)
statement of intentions.

The purpose is to boost Obama’s image at home at a time when there is a
rising backlash against him, a backlash even within the African-American
community, a backlash on the diplomatic front because of failure to
dismantle George W. Bush’s global terror machine.

In the Financial Gazette for October 15 2009, Professor Ken Mafuka
reports that Obama is being challenged on “all fronts”. So imperialism
used the Nobel Prize for Peace as a timely means of shoring up his media
image. This is done by using the prize to confirm that his good
intentions are well meant. It has nothing to do with work achieved.

Likewise, the dozen or so commissions demanded by the MDC formations are
also meant to boost the false democratic credentials of these
foreign-funded impositions as well-meaning “democrats”.


Zim’s chance to make or break

By Jonathan Kadzura
Zimbabwe Sunday Mail

THE issue of regime change is not a thing of the past.

This phenomenon will hang on us like an albatross on our national neck
for as long as Zimbos will like to retain their identity and national
sovereignty.

Some Western governments have taken it upon themselves that if
Zimbabweans cannot remove President Mugabe and his Zanu-PF from power,
then they will do it. The easiest way of achieving this agenda is
through creating social unrest, which can easily be created in a country
where people are hungry and cannot understand why they are going without
jobs and food.

These are the hidden tools of the West when they plan regime change. It
is not about democracy, comrades and friends, it is about “OUR ECONOMIC
INTERESTS”. In other words, the West is saying “for as long as ‘WE’ have
control of their raw materials, they will remain our friends and in fact
we can move on to honour their leaders with knighthoods, so they can
become Sir Mugabes”.

It is important that we all get very clear about one thing and one thing
only. The Head of State and Government and Commander-in-Chief of the
Zimbabwe Defence Forces, President Mugabe, and his country are under
illegal and lethal sanctions because he only said rova hako, ndinofira
vana vangu!

This, I am sure, was an easy decision to make on the part of the
President but unheard of on the part of the West. Comrades and friends,
our charge is that we took back our God-given capital resource — land.

Therefore the whole regime change agenda is based on the far-fetched
dream that one day Zimbos will fail to feed themselves and yield to the
pressure of the West to restore land to them by proxy.

Again, we are in that season when we have a chance to make or break. We
are in that season when every Zimbabwean and every Zimbabwean corporate
or institution must stand by the simple fact of reason that “ZIMBABWE
WILL NEVER BE A COLONY AGAIN”.

The good Lord, as usual, will bless this country with enough seasonal
rains to provide us with a good harvest.

The question that will hang over us is whether we are ready for the
season or not. The failure of agriculture this season can only work to
strengthen the agenda of those who are pushing for regime change.

Let us be clear that our bone of contention with the West arises from
the land redistribution exercise. Should farmers fail to produce food
and raw materials this season they will only be arming those who are
pushing for regime change.

The first democratic Government of this country was very clear in that
the whole essence of going to war was to recover our land.

We have succeeded in doing this to a great extent but much more still
has to be done. A lot of new farmers are still holding on to their offer
letters but have not been given the opportunity to settle on the
allocated farms.

We urge Government to quickly move to correct this anomaly. It is also
important to note that these are the farms we read about in our media as
being portals of “fresh invasions” when in fact new farmers have been
patient to allow for orderly transfer of ownership.

In my view, a cut-off date must be set when everyone holding on to an
offer letter must have moved onto their prescribed piece of land.

It will not benefit Zimbabwe to continue arguing in the administrative
courts where political decisions have been taken.

It would be a pity if we are going to lose another season because nobody
is farming but arguing.

Remember the more time we spend upping and downing with pieces of paper
in our hands is opportunity lost and never to be regained. Those who
were told to move must move.

Those who were told to settle on the new farms must also go on and
ensure they grow food and raw materials for the country.

May I hazard to say that the formation of the inclusive Government has
also created a new demand for land.

Some deserving Zimbos did not get a chance because they were unsure of
the complexion of the new Government, but now that all the three
principals have made it very clear that land reform is irreversible and
was right in the first place.

There is now a bigger demand and hunger for more land kuvana vevhu. In
my view, it is only necessary for the inclusive Government to ensure
fresh applications from these “Thomases” are invited and that more land
must be acquired.

Tanaiwa kudhara, kusi kutota ngekupi? Let us move quickly so we can dry
our clothes. Makadya imbwa, idyai hono yacho.

A number of us are already on these farms, but chepamawoko hapana.
Fellow Zimbabweans, even in the most developed economies like the United
States of America, Germany and France, agriculture is subsidised.

In our country, agriculture is only at the formative stage. If those of
us who are on these farms fail to produce food and raw materials we will
be seen as pushing the wrong agenda of regime change because we will
have become a failed state.

All those who hate us are waiting for us to fail. I have a lot of
confidence in our farmers but may it be understood that we are grateful
for all the efforts demonstrated by the central bank in supporting
agriculture but this effort must not be seen as being outside the ambit
of Government.

Surely there has to be imagination enough in the Ministry of Finance to
come up with a financing model for agriculture.

We understand banks are not accepting offer letters as collateral, yet
those who gave us the offer letters have confidence in our ability to
produce raw materials and food.

What is so difficult in giving a blanket guarantee to individual banks
through the Reserve Bank so that high street banks can on-lend to
farmers? Why would anybody have the confidence to give me a piece of
land if they were sure that the land would be left to waste?

Should this season fail because of financing problems, the Ministry of
Finance must take full responsibility.

After we fail to produce food, the same good ministry will find money to
import food.

The same responsible authorities will reduce us to beggars who will
receive food from non-governmental organisations. Hunger and social
unrest will have been created, and whose agenda would we be pushing?

This is not and can never be fair. Our farmers must be given a fair
chance and Government must play its role in ensuring that farmers have
access to proper financing.

Remember, if agriculture fails, industry will also fail, and we will
only be playing into the hands of those who think our meltdown is a
result of the land redistribution programme.

It will be easy for them to say we told you when in fact the real
problem is a lack of proper financing structures which structures they
have largely destroyed.

After we have all heard about the US$510 million and the US$3 million,
we will not accept that Government could not help because they did not
have the money.

No. As a farmer I would hate to bring the land reform programme into
disrepute by failing to produce.

Worse still be classified as pushing the agenda of the West by helping
to create social unrest because of a shortage of food.

May I conclude by saying that those entrusted with the powers to manage
public funds must be responsive to the wishes of the nation.

As farmers, we do not want to be helping to push the wrong agenda.
Producing raw materials for our industry and food for our nation is our
only goal.
As usual, sharing ideas at a national level can only be good for our
nation. Today is a Sunday, take some rest.

[Aragorn]

This proves that the division being sown in Zimbabwe is yet another "regime change" being orchestrated by the U.S. Hopefully, Robert Mugabe and ZANU-PF will prove as strong against this challenge as President Hugo Chavez and the PSUV have so far been in Venezuela.