No Substitute For Dialogue, Says DRC President Kabila

[XXPANTHAXX]

From Sydney Kawadza in MUTARE
Courtesy of the Zimbabwe Herald

DRC President Joseph Kabila has challenged Africa to follow his
country’s example by actively seeking dialogue and pursuing national
reconciliation as a means of solving any internal differences.

In his keynote address at the annual Dag Hammarskjold Commemoration
Seminar at Africa University here yesterday, President Kabila said
victory over foreign forces that threatened to tear DRC apart was partly
attributable to political dialogue.

"Political dialogue, entailing compromise and give and take, had to be
brought to bear in order to defuse misunderstandings, build confidence,
mend the social fabric and induce reconciliation," the DRC leader said.

"Indeed, accepting to share power with adversaries, or granting amnesty
to rebels is seldom an easy decision.

"It can be politically painful and even dangerous. It takes vision,
wisdom and, above all, courage.

"Looking back, we do not regret having ridden that, at times, bumpy
road.

"It led us to where we stand today: strong and tall, as it was meant to
be," he said.

President Kabila challenged African countries to draw inspiration from
the DRC and its rebirth through resistance, dialogue, reconciliation,
democratic rule and hard work.

President Kabila’s presentation was titled "The State of the Congolese
Nation Following Negotiations".

The war in the DRC ended in late 2002 and President Kabila subsequently
formed a national unity government that roped in six vice presidents,
four of them former rebel militia leaders.

President Kabila paid tribute to the Zimbabwe Defence Forces for their
leading role in resolving, through Operation Sovereign Legitimacy, the
armed conflict that claimed millions of lives in his country.

He said the DRC received "heroic support" from Zimbabwe, Angola and
Namibia in those "dark days".

"I wish to seize this opportunity and, once again, pay tribute to these
sister countries.

"As a nation, we will never forget the blood shed by their gallant sons
and daughters to help us preserve our independence, territorial
integrity and national sovereignty," he said.

In September this year at the last Sadc Summit in the DRC, President
Kabila said he was grateful for Zimbabwe’s assistance and would soon
visit the country to personally convey his people’s gratitude.

The seminar, which ends today, is being held under the theme "The
Democratic Republic of Congo: The Road to Conflict Transformation and
National Healing".

President Kabila chronicled the DRC’s conflicts, starting with the
killing of iconic statesman Dr Patrice Lumumba in 1961 soon after the
country’s independence from Belgium the previous year.

This resulted in a drawn-out liberation struggle led by nationalists
such as Cdes Pierre Mulele, Antoine Gizenga and the current president’s
father, Laurent Desire Kabila.

"Unfortunately, this took place at the peak of the Cold War (between the
former USSR and the West) and their efforts got entangled in the
East-West rivalry.

"They could not succeed at the outset."

President Kabila said the military coup of 1965 ushered in 32 years of
Mobutu Sese Seko’s misrule, which only ended in 1997.

An era of freedom and democracy dawned, but this was almost nipped in
the bud by invading armies.

"As if history was repeating itself, no time was given to the new
revolutionary regime to organise and put people back to work. Just a
year later, the DRC was dragged into a long and protracted war of
aggression by her eastern neighbours," he said.

This was after Rwandese and Ugandan troops invaded the country in
support of DRC rebel militias who were tacitly backed by Western powers.

The war lasted over five years and claimed millions of lives.

President Kabila said the conflict was the costliest war in terms of
human losses after the Second World War.

The popular resistance organised by the late Laurent Kabila rallied
friendly countries and saved the nation, though unfortunately it also
claimed the liberation fighter’s life.

Meanwhile, President Kabila returned home last night after spending two
days in Zimbabwe.

He bade farewell to President Mugabe at State House in the evening with
the Zimbabwean leader expressing his desire for the two to continue
interacting.

President Mugabe parting shot was: "Thank you for the visit. Let’s keep
in touch."

During his visit, President Kabila met the three principals to the
Global Political Agreement to get an insight into how the inclusive
Government was functioning.


Zanu-PF Congress preps on course

Herald Reporter

Preparations for Zanu-PF’s National People’s Congress in December are
progressing as scheduled, party national chairman Cde John Nkomo has
said.

Delegates to the congress — expected to number about 10 000 — will elect
the Presidium comprising the President and First Secretary, two Vice
Presidents and Second Secretaries and a national chairperson. The First
Secretary will, in turn, appoint members of the Politburo.

Speaking after meeting the Congress Co-ordinating Committee on Monday,
Cde Nkomo said he had received progress reports but could not reveal the
amount of money raised so far.

The party aims to raise US$5 million for the congress.

"I have received progress reports from all the sub-committees that are
organising the Congress and they have confirmed that everything is
progressing according to our plan. We are quite optimistic that by the
time of the congress everything will be in place. As a committee, we
have come up with a system where we meet with the sub-committees every
Monday to monitor progress of the preparations."

Cde Nkomo dispelled rumours that the party was failing to raise
sufficient funds to finance the five-yearly meeting

"Yes, in every endeavour there are challenges and our case cannot be an
exception. But challenges are not problems," said Cde Nkomo.

"The challenges that we are facing are ordinary challenges that can be
found in any project."

Almost all the 10 provinces have endorsed the current leadership of
President Mugabe and Vice President Joice Mujuru ahead of the Congress.

Another Vice President and Second Secretary to fill the void left by
founding nationalist Cde Joseph Msika will be elected at the Congress.


US can’t teach us anything

Zimbabwe Herald

THE Western alliance’s reaction to the abortive presidential run-off in
Afghanistan should show all who were led to believe that Anglo-Saxon
opposition to President Mugabe’s re-election was about the professed
platitudes of electoral democracy, that they were sold a dead donkey.

American and British opposition to President Mugabe’s victory was
because, in their own words, ‘‘he continues to pose a continuous and
extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States (and the
British governments)’’.

A foreign policy, that we all know, is about plundering other people and
their resources.

A bit of history will suffice here.

Zimbabwe held harmonised presidential, Senate, House of Assembly and
local government elections on March 29, 2008 that saw the presidential
contest failing to produce an outright winner when none of the four
candidates garnered the 50 percent plus 1 votes required for a first
round win.

A run-off was, therefore, called for June 27 pitting President Mugabe
and MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai. And after gauging the mood of the
electorate, and with just days to go before the poll, Tsvangirai
announced his ‘‘withdrawal’’ from the run-off, alleging violence against
his supporters.

The British and American governments immediately began casting
aspersions on the legitimacy of the outcome, saying they would not
recognise President Mugabe’s legitimacy.

This was despite the fact that legal experts had described Tsvangirai’s
‘‘withdrawal’’ as a legal nullity since the run-off had already begun
with the deployment of election officers and observers countrywide.

Fast forward to August 20, 2009, the day Afghanistan held its
presidential election pitting two US-anointed candidates, incumbent
Hamid Karzai and his erstwhile foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah.
Though Karzai initially claimed outright victory with over 53 percent of
the vote in the first round, a UN probe into electoral irregularities
unearthed massive fraud involving over 20 percent of the votes credited
to Karzai.

The votes were docked necessitating a run-off that had been slated for
Saturday, before Abdullah announced his withdrawal saying the run-off
was going to be equally fraudulent.

What shocked many was that even before Abdullah’s withdrawal, the Obama
administration had enthroned Karzai as Afghan president for another five
years, saying ‘‘even if he were forced into a second round of voting he
would almost certainly win it’’.

More was to follow after Abdullah’s withdrawal as the US was first off
the block in congratulating Karzai even before the Afghan electoral
authorities had declared him the winner.

This is not to say we expect the legitimacy of our leadership here to
accrue from US blessings, no. All we are doing is exposing the hypocrisy
of the self-appointed ‘‘international democrats’’ and ‘‘moral
authorities’’ who, ironically, only yesterday opposed our own fight for
democracy here.

A bit of history again.

When Ian Smith declared his UDI on November 11, 1965, the progressive
world was naturally outraged and the UN Security Council responded by
slapping the Smith regime with a raft of sanctions beginning that year
till the brief restoration of British rule in December 1979.

Though the terms of the sanctions forbade trade or financial dealings
with Rhodesia, the US supported the beleaguered settler regime
regardless and covertly channelled assistance through apartheid South
Africa.

US allies, among them Portugal (then under Marcello Caetano), Israel,
and Iran (then under the US proxy Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi), also
assisted and traded with Rhodesia. In an attempt to bypass the UN
sanctions, the US passed the Byrd Amendment in 1971 and continued to buy
chrome from Rhodesia in violation of the UN sanctions.

As if that was not enough, the US also contributed to the establishment
of an armaments industry in Rhodesia that enabled the Rhodesian Front to
kill over 50 000 innocent Zimbabweans whose only "crime" was daring to
demand majority rule.

The US also provided the technical knowledge and support, again through
apartheid South Africa, towards establishing the 700-kilometre Border
Minefield Obstacle along Zimbabwe’s borders with Zambia and Mozambique.
Mines aimed at stopping aspiring cadres from crossing to training camps
and blowing up trained combatants crossing back into Zimbabwe.

Yet today, the US and its allies are trying to re-invent and pass
themselves off as champions of democracy in Zimbabwe.

We urge all those who may have been swayed by the Anglo-Saxon rhetoric
to acquaint themselves with our history to tell friend from foe.

Such knowledge is also vital to understanding the political dynamics at
play in our country today lest we are led down the garden path.

The US can’t teach us anything.


Height of American hypocrisy

By Tendai Hildegarde Manzvanzvike

ZIMBABWE and Afghanistan are thousands and thousands of miles apart.
What makes them suitable variables for comparative analysis? Why is the
West — the United States and Britain in particular — interested in the
two nation states? Why are their recent electoral processes of
significance?

After the failure of the illegal regime change project in Zimbabwe,
"legitimised" in part by the US sanctions law, the so-called Zimbabwe
Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001, the US and its allies
continue to refuse to recognise a Zimbabwe Government in which both
President Mugabe and Zanu-PF are major players, preferring their
handpicked stooges to be in charge.

They have continued to denounce Zimbabwe’s 2008 harmonised elections and
the subsequent Presidential run-off on the basis of alleged issues of
governance, rule of law, human rights, etc.

However, the culmination of Afghanistan’s presidential poll has revealed
the levels of the West’s hypocrisy and double standards, especially the
US, when it comes to Zimbabwe.

The Afghan issue shows that every principle of democracy, which the West
preaches about and would want to export to every part of the world, has
been thrown into the dumpster because their national interests took
precedence over the wishes and interests of the Afghan people.

For, on November 2, Afghanistan’s Independent Electoral Commission
announced that there was a new president, and he was none other than
former president Hamid Karzai.

The Western world, Washington in particular, was quick to embrace and
endorse Karzai as the legitimate leader of Afghanistan.

This contrasted with the West’s reaction to Zimbabwe’s run-off that
invited a full-blown diplomatic offensive in order to reject not only
the electoral results, but also de-legitimise President Mugabe, in
favour of the US, Britain and their allies.

Large sums of money were disbursed through civic organisations in order
to change the colour of Zimbabwe’s politics, a desperate attempt meant
to reverse the gains of independence, especially the land reform
programme, and also derail Zimbabwe’s sovereignty.

People’s memories are still fresh with the attempts made by the Bush
administration, through his Assistant Secretary of State for African
Affairs, Jendayi Frazer, to influence Sadc and the African Union. There
were several vain attempts to have Zimbabwe on the UN Security Council
agenda.

In fact, last week’s abortive visit by UN’s special rapporteur on
torture, Dr Norman Nowak, was a clear demonstration that until a
government of the West’s choice is in power in Zimbabwe; they will not
relent in their quest for regime change.

It is a goal and objective that they are pursuing with impunity, even if
it means funding parallel government structures within the inclusive
Government in pursuance of their interests.

However, on September 15, after monitoring the Afghan elections, former
US president Jimmy Carter described the Afghan poll as "despicable".

Said Carter: "Hamid Karzai has stolen the election . . . Now the
question is whether he gets away with it."

Carter’s comments followed allegations of massive fraud.

Well, on November 2, it became official. Karzai defied the odds, stole
the election and got away with it. If observers had expected disgust and
dismay, they were actually surprised to learn that the Obama
administration was the first to endorse Karzai as the "new president who
(was) the same as the old president".

However, the announcement was just a formality meant to make the
farcical exercise look credible because on October 31, Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton was reported as saying that the Afghan poll would
be legitimate even if Abdullah Abdullah boycotted.

Said the reports in the media: "Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of
State, has said the Afghan elections would be legitimate even if
Abdullah Abdullah boycotted the run-off poll, leaving President Hamid
Karzai unopposed."

Clinton also said that a boycott of the run-off election which had been
scheduled for November 7 by runner-up Abdullah would not de-legitimise
the poll. This was after the Abdullah camp had refused to "participate
in an election which (was) not transparent and fraud-free".

Long before Abdullah announced his withdrawal, both London and
Washington were already anticipating that he would retire "graciously".

Clinton also said that the withdrawal of a candidate would not be
"unprecedented" and would not affect the legitimacy of the vote.

"We see that happen in our own country where, for whatever combination
of reasons, one of the candidates decides not to go forward. I don’t
think it has anything to do with the legitimacy of the election."

So now people know where the withdrawals, boycotts and
‘‘disengagements’’ come from.

Washington was the first to endorse Karzai as Afghanistan’s new
legitimate leader, after the Independent Electoral Commission had
cancelled the run-off in the wake of Abdullah’s withdrawal.

In his congratulatory message, US President Barack Obama threw his
weight behind Karzai and acknowledged that although the election was
"messy", his administration was happy that the poll had finally been
resolved according to the dictates of Afghan law, and expressed hope
that there would be fresh efforts to tackle issues that were part of
Karzai’s first term: rampant corruption. He also urged a new chapter in
Afghan politics.

Meanwhile, other Nato members were talking about a coalition. The allies
appeared to be talking about the same thing in a different way. Maybe it
was because the likes of Gordon Brown, who spoke about a coalition, were
not happy with the final outcome.

It is evident from this that the American experiment plays itself
differently in various parts of the globe depending on whose side one
is.

Karzai is a liability to his people, but he is an asset to Nato, and a
speedy conclusion of this electoral issue was not necessarily meant for
the Afghan people.

The Obama administration has also continued with Bush’s so-called war on
terror. Instead of pulling troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama is
actually looking at sending over 40 000 more soldiers to Afghanistan.

It appeared Karzai had to be endorsed fast since time is not on Uncle
Sam’s side as winter is starting, and it will be very difficult to move
troops in harsh weather conditions. This is despite the fact that the US
administration has been advised that the Afghan war is unwinnable.

The Afghan war is also meant to boost Nato’s morale since the capitalist
system is celebrating the demise of communism 20 years ago. This is
despite the fact that the geo-political sphere is witnessing a
resurgence of major political and economic players like China and
Russia.


Zim’s sovereignty is irreversible

EDITOR — There is a Zimbabwean element that believes that Zimbabwe’s
independence, let alone sovereignty, are irrelevant.

They believe that these aspects of our nationhood are reversible.

Last Saturday, one of these elements, ROHR (Restoration of Human Rights
Zimbabwe), described as a radical human rights group, convened in the
city centre around 10am with the hope of sending a message to the Sadc
Troika "to take up a hard stance on the political parties, especially
Zanu-PF and President Mugabe, to own up to their agreements under GPA".

The emblazoned ROHR on the T-shirts made one wonder whether Rhodies had
made that daring move of reincarnation.

The irony was the message on the back of their T-shirts: "We will die
for our rights." Meanwhile, a gallant son of the soil who had died for
the true rights of the people of this country was being interred at the
national shrine.

As if ROHR’s actions were not enough, we then learnt that MDC-T leader,
Morgan Tsvangirai — who is the Prime Minister — was also playing golf as
Cde Makasha was being laid to rest.

Not only was this very unfortunate, but it was also very embarrassing
for someone in his position to be doing that. It was unfeeling to say
the least. What was there to celebrate?

Although former US ambassador to Zimbabwe James D. McGee, who introduced
Tsvangirai to the game, is gone, it is not difficult to hazard guesses
of whom he was playing golf with.

There are still so many of them, and since golfing gives opportunities
to discuss "serious" issues, the ‘‘disengagement’’ was probably the
issue as they teed off.

The 11th hour is notable!

Did Tsvangirai give a thought to that?

To the Anglo-Saxons and not just the Rhodies, the 11th month, 11th day
and 11th hour are significant, for this is the day and time when they
honour their heroes from the First World War that ended in 1919.

Anglo-Saxons commemorate this day normally called Armistice Day very
religiously. However, the renegade Rhodesian leader Ian Smith in 1965
declared a Unilateral Declaration of Independence from Britain on the
11th of the 11th of the 11th of 1965.

It was Smith’s action that made people like Cde Makasha leave home to
take up arms and fight for the independence and true rights of this
country.

With this little bit of historical context, the nation should ask what
Tsvangirai’s actions meant, and what an independent Zimbabwe means to
him and his party?

Nomagugu M’simang.
Harare.


We’re tired of MDC-T antics

EDITOR — Ever since MDC-T "disengaged" from the inclusive Government
more than 10 days ago it’s still not clear even to the top leadership as
to what they want to achieve with this move which President Mugabe
attributed to the party’s reliance on "little emotional" rather than
rational thoughts.

I came to this conclusion after Nelson Chamisa, the MDC-T spokesperson,
was at pains to explain what MDC-T’s "disengagement" from Government
means.

Chamisa, who had an interview with a local journalist, was incoherent
and equally confused as he was quoted as saying: "We are not disengaging
from the Government. There is no pullout from Government because we are
Government ourselves. It is impossible for one to pull out of
ourselves."

Then can the party please explain to the layman on the street in plain
Shona, as we cannot talk of English what to "disengage" means? The party
is not attending Cabinet meetings and the Council of Ministers where I
am sure Government business is discussed and direction as to the
operations of the ministries is given. On the other hand, Chamisa was
quoted as saying: "Our ministers are going to their offices and
executing their duties diligently as ministers of excellence." Can MDC-T
please stop insulting the intelligence of the masses, more so their
supporters who indicated that the party should stay in the inclusive
Government during their consultative meetings.

Which takes us back to the question of whose interest are those in MDC-T
serving as reports are that a day before making the decision to
‘‘disengage’’ Morgan Tsvangirai, the MDC-T leader, met with officials
from the US, Britain, Canada, Sweden, Denmark, France, Norway,
Switzerland, Holland and Australia, who overwhelmingly pressured him to
announce a "collapse of the inclusive Government".

People are tired of MDC-T antics, which for a long time are exposing
their naivete and gullibility, which borders on the ridiculous. There
seems to be no exceptional strategic advisers to this embattled party as
time and again they have found themselves in the deep end when they
can’t even swim.

MDC-T leaders should be told in no uncertain terms that these childish
antics will not move Zanu-PF, a party of seasoned politicians, to give
in to the regime change agenda.

Susan Chipanga.
Avondale,
Harare.


Boost for Malawi-Zim trade

Herald Reporter

Government has called for the expeditious implementation of measures
that promote trade between Zimbabwe and Malawi.

Officially opening the eighth session of the Zimbabwe-Malawi Joint
Commission in Harare yesterday, Foreign Affairs Minister Simbarashe
Mumbengegwi, said the two countries should work to clear obstacles
affecting trade between them.

"In this regard, we need to remove all impediments to trade, such as
non-tariff barriers, bottlenecks at border posts and unnecessary
bureaucratic procedures that are hindering trade relations between the
two countries," he said.

"We should also bring the private sector including SMEs on board to
ensure that our engagements as governments are relevant and meaningful
to our entrepreneurs."

Minister Mumbengegwi underscored the need to create an enabling business
environment saying that would benefit both countries’ economies.

He said Zimbabwe and Malawi had strong business ties hence the need to
undertake measures that ensured less taxation of the entrepreneurs.

"We, therefore, welcome the proposal to sign the Agreement on the
Avoidance of Double Taxation as a measure to stimulate further
investment between our countries."

He commended the government of Malawi and the Sadc region at large for
rallying behind Zimbabwe in the face of Western illegal sanctions.
Although the Zimbabwe-Malawi Joint Commission last met in 2002, Minister
Mumbengegwi expressed gratitude on the progress it had made since.

"Although it has been a long time since the last session of the Joint
Commission, we have witnessed the signing and implementation of the
Revised Bilateral Trade Agreement, the MoU on Agriculture and the MoU on
the Promotion of Small and Medium Enterprises," he said.

Minister Mumbengegwi took a swipe at Western governments for maintaining
illegal sanctions on Zimbabwe in spite of their condemnation by Sadc,
Comesa, the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Union.

Malawi Foreign Affairs Minister Professor Etah Banda said her country
was committed to upholding the mutual relationship between the two
countries. She said Malawi would do everything on its part to strengthen
trading relations between Zimbabwe and Malawi.

"We will do our best to ensure that we achieve our goal of enhancing
trading relations between our two countries," she said.

Prof Banda said in the face of modern global challenges, it was
imperative that the two countries explored new areas of co-operation to
deal with emerging global challenges such as climate change.

[Aragorn]

The first step in stopping the West(especially Anglo-Saxon empires like the U.S. and U.K.) is recognizing what their "foreign policy" is all about, as Zim and DRC appear to have done here.

The next is building non-Western alliances (South-South Cooperation, Multi-Polar world as Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez calls it), and thankfully, we see this step beginning to be taken.

At the same time, if the West wants to "sanction" Zim, Cuba and others, I say let them-they'll find out(the hard way) that's a double-edged sword, beginning with this being applyed to the U.S. by the rest of the world:


http://www.boycottamerica.org/

[Markezeh]

I agree it would be nice if we could sanction America and her western allies just like how they've sanctioned our people around the world. Maybe then they would learn, 'do unto others as u would av them do unto u'.