[A-List] Zimbabwe

["james daly" <james.irldaly@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Zimbabwe's trade unions are appendages of the imperialist-sponsored MDC. The 
ZANU-PF government was in the past imperialist-sponsored. The IMF SAPs 
adopted by Zimbabwe's ruling party in the 1980s, following an agrreement 
signed between the national liberation movement and Britain were  not liked 
by the trade unions and for good reason. But now the Zimbabwe Congress of 
Trade Unions appears perfectly happy to be sponsored by these same 
aggressive imperialist capitalist powers, against the interests of the 
Zimbabwean masses, and especially the rural Zimbabwean majority.

 There follows an article by the head of Zimbabwe's media about the ZCTU, 
and then an article by the same Tafataona P. Mahoso on the crippling 
santions (which the MDC and ZCTU are either silent about or openly support - 
theirs is a broad church) imposed by imperialism on Zimbabwe.

______________________________________


Sponsored politics, myths of civil society

AFRICAN FOCUS By Tafataona P. Mahoso

ZIMBABWEANS have just witnessed yet another spectacle of the defeat of 
sponsored politics in the form of the imagined mass demonstrations by a few 
leaders of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) against the real 
aspirations and interests of the majority members of their own organisation.

The ZCTU was the original base used by imperialism in the 1990s to stage the 
three-phase process, which produced the sponsored opposition Movement for 
Democratic Change (MDC). In June 2003, the MDC attempted a similar form of 
"mass action" without the masses which was called the "Final Push".

The spectacular failure of the June 2003 "Final Push" to take off explains 
why this time the two factions of the MDC decided not to officially "own" 
the most recent "mass action", but rather to allow the ZCTU to try to 
rehabilitate its discredited image by standing and marching alone as a trade 
union. Thanks to the masses of Zimbabwe, the mass action has turned out to 
be the ZCTU leaders' equivalent of the MDC leaders' "Final Push" which, in 
fact, tuned out to be the "final yawn".

However, the people of Zimbabwe should not sit back and relax. Sponsored 
politics is big business and it is here to stay, until the people learn to 
discard completely the twin myths of "civil society" and "multiparty 
democracy", the key mythologies used to justify the sponsorship of puppet 
politics in Africa and the rest of the South.

In the case of Zimbabwe, the ZCTU and the MDC tried to present themselves as 
homegrown alternatives to the liberation movement in Government, Zanu-PF. 
They were going to meet a supposed deficit in Zimbabwean politics as defined 
by white imperialist powers.

As the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr Stan Mudenge said at the 
Conference of Former Liberation Movements in April 2004: "The British Labour 
Party, like other European socialist oriented parties that strongly believe 
in control politics, figured out that they could exert their policies over 
African trade union leaders, but not on leaders of the liberation movements, 
who were deemed to be too independent [to be so sponsored and manipulated]."

So, in order to quickly sweep away the legacies of former African liberation 
movements as governments, trade union leaders would be chosen because they 
already maintained many so-called "civil society" ties to Western donors 
through Western-sponsored NGOs.

According to Dr Mudenge, "This selection came to include trade union leaders 
such as former President Frederick Chiluba in Zambia; Mr Chakufwa Chihana of 
Malawi; Mr Ben Ulenga of Namibia; Mr Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa; and Mr 
Morgan Tsvangirai of Zimbabwe. The defeat of President Kenneth Kaunda in 
Zambia's 1991 presidential election by Mr Chiluba was to greatly encourage 
the European trade unionists."

In fact, the Minister understated what happened. The Chiluba victory excited 
the sponsors as well as the sponsored parties and NGOs. It also fuelled 
gross exaggerations in the myths of sponsored "civil society" and 
"multiparty democracy".

The effect was that civil society organisations came to be seen as 
incorruptible political saints who were not only anti-establishment, but 
also anti-indigenous and donor-sponsored.

The people of Svosve and Nyamandlovu communal areas, who led the African 
land reclamation movement, were treated as too native and too radical to be 
accepted as "civil society".

Likewise, North American and European political parties who tolerated only 
two major parties per country at home, treated Africa as a place where even 
hundreds of sponsored political parties were considered ideal. Hence, we 
have a situation where the US and the EU have used their political 
foundations and NGOs to sponsor more than 300 political parties and more 
than 30 candidates for president in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). 
Surely, 300 political parties and more than 30 presidential candidates are 
just too many. And no one should be fooled into believing that the resulting 
confusion and cost represents evidence of "emerging democracy".

What the North Atlantic states are funding and encouraging as trappings of 
democracy in the Congo, they themselves rejected long back. Between the 
Versailles Treaty ending the first European continental war and the 
beginning of the Hitler wars, US industrialist Henry Ford wrote against the 
sort of confetti democracy we see being celebrated in the DRC as well as 
against the role of the mass media in promoting such confusion: "No one who 
considered the list of [sponsored] dreams and vagaries and theories that 
have swayed the people through the centuries can doubt this . . . The more 
utopian, the more butterfly-like the theory [or myth], the more it commands 
public adherence . . .

"The method is one of disintegration [not democracy]. Break up the people 
into parties and sects. Sow abroad the most promising and utopian ideas and 
you will do two things: You will always find a group to cling to each idea 
you throw up; and you will find this partisanship [multipartyism] dividing 
and estranging the various groups . . .

"Not one idea, but a mass of ideas are to be thrown up and there is to be no 
unity among them."

Henry Ford predicted the sort of confusion, which was later to engulf the 
North Atlantic states during the Great Depression and the rise of Nazism and 
Fascism. The mass media were both the fuel and conveyer belt for the 
confusion and bewilderment.

According to Ford: "Bewilderment characterises the whole mental climate of 
the people today. They do not know what to believe . . . In this manner, 
theory after theory [myth after myth] has been exploited among the masses; 
theory after theory has been found to be impracticable and has been 
discarded, but the result is precisely what the programme aims for."

This is pretty much what the people of Zimbabwe have been subjected to, 
using the myths of civil society and multiparty democracy.

In 2000, they were told that civil society and the sponsored multiple 
parties were going to overthrow the Government and the liberation movement 
of Zimbabwe "violently".

In late 2002, they were told that change would happen through sponsored 
genocide which would take place by January 2003.

In June 2003, they were told that the multiple parties and their civil 
society would kick out the Government and the liberation movement via a 
peaceful "Final Push."

In 2004, they were told that there would be a new government in Zimbabwe 
made up entirely of MDC elements by November, although the means by which 
this was to happen were not revealed.

Indeed, there have been so many threats and promises that it is no wonder 
that this time (September 2006) the people refused to listen to the ZCTU. 
Even the MDC could not officially own up to the planned mass action.

All the same, the two myths have to be destroyed by exposing the fraud 
behind them. As long as there are rich sponsors, there will be puppets to 
accept the sponsorship, unless the society educates its own children against 
the practice.

______________________________________________________________

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5391/is_200705/ai_n21288057/print?tag=artBody;col1

How sanctions are making the economy 'scream'

Mahoso, Tafataona

Britain and its Western allies claim that they have only imposed "targeted 
sanctions" and "travel bans" on the Zimbabwean leadership and not economic 
sanctions on the whole country. "Who do they think they are deceiving?," 
asks Dr Tafataona Mahoso, head of Zimbabwe's Media and Information 
Commission.

There is a campaign of what I call "economic terrorism" against Zimbabwe 
mounted by Britain and its Western allies. "Economic terrorism" is what was 
meant by the former US president, Richard Nixon, when he instructed US spy 
agencies to ''make the economy of Chile scream".

On 15 September 1970, Nixon called a meeting which was attended by (among 
others) National security Adviser Dr Henry Kissinger, Attorney General John 
Mitchell and ClA Director Richard Helms.

Helms' notes of that meeting show that the US used its global power over 
financial institutions, international corporations and aid agencies to throw 
basic economic factors in the Chilean economy completely out of control and 
therefore precipitate social and political havoc.

That is what Nixon meant by "make the economy scream". Because the economic 
havoc would start after the popular election victory of President Salvador 
Allende, the people would be made to believe (through massive media 
propaganda) that the turmoil was being caused by Allende's "mismanagement" 
of the economy.

In Confessions of an Economic Hitman, John Perkins confirmed in 2006 that 
the economies of targeted countries were made to "scream" and collapse not 
just through the actions of the CIA and other spy agencies alone, but also 
through the action of genuine-looking multinational companies which the US 
National security Agency set up in order to make sabotage look like free 
enterprise. Sabotage schemes had to be made to look like normal business.

But how was the Chilean economy to be made to "scream"? The following were 
some of the ways: According to the US National security Memorandum 93, 
America was to mobilise all its institutions and agencies to create a 
worldwide impression, starting from November 1970, that Chile was no longer 
"creditworthy". In Zimbabwe, the economic saboteurs have also been pushing 
the same claim since the implementation of the African land reclamation 
programme.

In Chile, the US would influence all donors and financial institutions who 
used to extend lines of credit to the country to stop doing so. The US had 
veto powers not only in the UN security Council but also in all major 
international finance institutions through the IMF and the World Bank.

Chile was immediately struck off the list of countries eligible for US 
loans, for ExportImport Bank loans, for Intet-American Bank loans and for 
World Bank and IMF loans.

The immediate effect of this was that Chile was demoted from credit-rating 
category B to category D, which meant that by fiat, the country was 
unilaterally and arbitrarily reclassified among the least solvent nations in 
the world, even though this was far from the truth.

The US used its power and influence to demand from Chile speeded-up 
repayments of loans which were otherwise not yet due. The US influenced 
international companies inside Chile to make their own extortionist demands 
on the country in order to make sure the economy would "scream".

The funding and credits denied to the government of Chile were selectively 
given to organisations and institutions inside Chile which were 
anti-government and were part of the US regime change agenda.

Because copper was the most valuable Chilean export, the US and its 
companies inside Chile asked European courts to block payments to Chile for 
its copper in order to deny the country foreign currency earnings. In 
Zimbabwe, we have seen similar efforts to have the country's diamonds 
condemned as "blood diamonds".

Finally, the US set aside an economic destablisation fund to be used to make 
the economy "scream". Some of the money was used to pay transport operators 
to park their vehicles in order to make commuters stranded.

Some of the money was used to pay certain unions to stay away from work in 
order to cripple production. Pare of [he fund also went to finance 
anti-government and pro-US media inside Chile in order to whip up support 
for the "economic terrorism" programme.

Making the economy scream means making the majority of people suffer 
economic hardships. The same template is being used in Zimbabwe today, or 
has been used since 2000 when the African people started to reclaim the land 
that once belonged to their ancestors.

You can substitute the name Zimbabwe for Chile, and everything you have read 
above has happened in the last six years since President George Bush signed 
the obnoxious Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act into law.

There is very little difference between a man whose house has been 
petrol-bombed and burned with all his household goods bought over a lifetime 
(this is terrorism) and a worker who finds that his salary which supported a 
family of eight last year can no longer buy one litre of cooking oil (this 
is economic terrorism). This has been exactly the impact that the Zimbabwe 
Democracy Act and other economic sanctions imposed by Britain and its 
Western allies have had on the Zimbabwean people.

To talk about "targeted sanctions" and "travel bans" on the Zimbabwean 
leadership is to put one's head in the sand like the proverbial ostrich.

Zimbabwe cannot even borrow or get any credit from our own African 
Development Bank and the African Development Fund because the Americans say 
so.

Meanwhile, the IMF and World Bank have been calling time on their debts, 
asking Zimbabwe to speed up the repayments as if there is no tomorrow. On 
several occasions the country has been threatened with expulsion from these 
institutions if it didn't pay up.

At the local level, the "economic terrorism" translates into the following 
actions and processes:

Every morning, wholesalers and retailers of basic goods and fuel, as well as 
money changers on the illegal currency market are provided with a rate for 
the day which is always higher than that of the previous day.

The rate during the last week of March was responsible for the hiking of the 
price of imported cooking oil from about ZS30,000 per two-litre bottle to 
Z$70,000, and for the price of petrol to jump from about Z$10,000 per litre 
to $22,000 per litre. This means that someone is coordinating the price 
hikes, and the economic ministries should know the centre of such 
coordinated sabotage.

On 3 April, the government, no longer able to look on while prices went 
through the roof, called a meeting of business leaders and strongly warned 
that it would not hesitate to take sterner action if the arbitrary price 
hikes continued. The industry and international trade minister, Obert Mpofu, 
rold the business leaders: "We are worried about these price escalations 
which clearly show no consideration for the public, and as a government, we 
want to know from you where the problem is before we take certain measures 
to protect the public."

The minister said there was no justification for the price adjustments, some 
of them done on an hourly basis. "As a government, we will be forced to take 
sterner measures against those overpricing," Minister Mpofu added.

As he spoke, a loaf of bread which should cost ZS825 was being sold at 
between Z$5,000 and Z$7,000, a twokilo packet of salt that sold for Z$4,000 
the previous week was selling for S18000, and a bar of locally-made soap had

jumped from Z$17,000 to Z$35,000. Business leaders blamed the price hikes on 
the falling value of the Zimbabwean dollar, officially pegged at 250 to US$1 
but trading on the parallel market at sometimes as high as 30,000 to US$1. 
"If the US dollar rate moves from Z$3,000 to Z$30,000, what do you expect?", 
asked Calisto Jokonya, president of the Confederation of Zimbabwe 
Industries, who was at the meeting. "The government should look at what 
really is causing the price increases and deal with that. Industry is only 
responding to the cost increases on the parallel market."

Some members of the Zimbabwean elite are also being encouraged ro purchase 
cheap shares overseas from companies which are also quoted on the Zimbabwe 
Stock Exchange (ZSE). They then sell those shares on the ZSE where the value 
is higher, and then obtain Zimbabwe dollars to buy foreign currency to buy 
more cheap shares abroad and continue with the same cycle.

Major manufacturers of basic goods are under-invoicing their exports in 
order to make quick foreign currency or externalise the portion by which the 
goods are underinvoiced. This process triggers shortages of the basic goods 
and also fuels price hikes.

The strategy of these manufacturers is to recover some of the cost of 
under-invoicing foreigners from the local population. Faced with the 
resulting extreme shortages, the local population has no choice but to pay 
the hiked prices and to make up for the under-invoking of exports.

Foreign embassies in Harare are also being used by the big powers to bring 
in foreign currency for economic sabotage purposes. A few months back, some 
companies m Zimbabwe were told by the US government to stop manufacturing 
goods based on produce from farms which were taken from white Rhodesians. 
Such companies are actually paid to enforce sanctions against the people.

The UNDP has also been instructed to stop supporting national economic 
programmes but instead to engage in remedial social work and political 
governance issues. The result is that, while the UNDP, the World Bank and 
the IMF should have been the biggest providers of capital for the truly 
national integration of land ownership and agriculture, they have turned out 
to be the greatest detractors of the programme.

Both the perpetrators of violence against the state and economic terrorism 
against the people have sought to reduce the effectiveness of the state so 
as to make the country ungovernable. In their propaganda, the state is 
presented and resented as a mere impediment to economic "reform" and 
prosperity. That is the misperception which the enemy wants and continues to 
cultivate because it generates cynicism and defeatism.

Copyright International Communications May 2007
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved