Re: [Marxism] New Zimbabwe radio station to counter Western media 'bias'

[Patrick Bond <pbond@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Walter Lippmann wrote:

Damn. Not again.

> Would Patrick Bond, who's been supporting those so-called
> "smart sanctions", and the others here, be backing efforts 
> to prevent Zimbabwe from defending itself in this manner?
>   

This new station is utterly irrelevant, you know. The Mugabe regime 
totally controls the airwaves inside Zim (to the extent of jamming any 
outside signals like the important SWAfrica), and has a loyal band of 
gullible people like yourself, Fred Feldman and Stephen Gowans ready to 
pass on the most ridiculous propaganda to lefty listserves and URLs. If 
you need more on why Zim state media should be mistrusted and avoided, 
read the Media Monitoring Project reports at www.mmpz.org.zw/ or 
consider what Louis posted about what happens to genuine journalists, or 
check out many more critiques of the draconian press laws, for example 
from the Freedom of Expression Institute in Joburg (see below for this 
week's FXI press statement on Zim).

> While I'm not very well-informed about Zimbabwe, I've been 
> told that the opposition controls the city governments both 
> in Harare 
>   

You should enlighten us about your source of misinformation so we can 
avoid him/her in future, and also do some elementary research of your 
own, dear Walter. The MDC overwhelmingly won Harare in the last 
municipal election (something like 29 seats to 1), and yet the city 
government was still stolen by Mugabe's local government minister three 
years ago via blatantly illegal commission rule, in a manner comparable 
to Thatcher v the GLC a quarter century ago. Except the outcome for most 
Harare residents is a city falling apart, where water is not drinkable 
(it used to be fine) and electricity is sporadic and potholes and 
streetlights aren't repaired. The most reliable info on what happens in 
Harare is here: http://www.chra.co.zw/

> and in Bulawayo, the principal cities of Zimbabwe.
> The media there is also hostile to Mugabe, 

Wrong again. Mugabe formally banned - and his thugs actually bombed the 
printing press of - the only daily paper that opposed him. The weeklies 
are so expensive and elite-oriented that they are allowed to operate. (I 
know, 'cause I used to do a fortnightly column for one.)

> yet he manages to 
> win elections in which the oppositon continues to participate. 
> Is that factually accurate? 
A fierce debate over registering for the gamed senate elections in late 
2005 was the reason for the MDC's internal split, so participation is 
not straightforward. As a former researcher for the SADC parliamentary 
forum election observation mission (June 2000), I can report first-hand: 
No, they are not free and fair. For the last few elections, here are 
some reports I filed: 
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2005-04/14bond-moore.cfm for 
2005; http://www.*zmag*.org/sustainers/content/2002-01/30bond.cfm for 
2002; and http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2000-06/25bond.htm

> It sounds like there's more to 
> Zimbabwe than we've been getting in the media. This morning 
> the SA Mail & Guardian reports that both Mugabe and the MDC 
> have agreed to have Thabo Mbeki mediate their differences.
>   
The wretched, desperate MDC leaders are hoping for an elite transition, 
as ever. With military support from China and South Africa, and 
political support from the other venal elites in Africa, Mugabe is 
simply too strong and devious to vote out of power or overthrow. Other 
possibilities for radical democratic - and anti-capitalist - change 
probably unnerve the conservative forces in the MDC.

> This is the same Thabo Mbeki whose been subjected to so much 
> criticism on these lists. Yet the MDC has agreed to have him 
> mediate. 

They all deserve criticism. And they get it, from grassroots activists; 
you can see at http://www.sokwanele.com/thisiszimbabwe .

> What does that tell us about the MDC and about Mugabe?
> http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__national/&articleId=304168
>   
The MDC elites are going to make fools of themselves yet again. Even one 
of SA's most simplistic commentators - the editor of the largest 
newspaper, Mondli Makhanya - had that right today, as you see below.

> This article sounds like Zimbabwe is defending itself from the
> same kind of hostile foreign political interference which Cuba
> faces. Fortunately for Zimbabwe, the world has changed and the
> U.S. and London aren't able to isolate it as it once was.
>   
Why did I just waste 15 minutes replying to you Walter? I guess because 
I appreciate your Cuba posts so much. But please stick to stuff you know 
about, it is really irritating having to pass on rudimentary information 
that would take you seconds to learn yourself on the 'net.

***

www.fxi.org.za

Press statement, 4/04/2007


RE: FXI's response to murder of Zimbabwean camerman Edward Chikombo and 
other media freedom violations





The Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) is shocked by the most recent 
assaults on media freedom in Zimbabwe, leading to the murder of 
Zimbabwean cameraman for the Zimbabwean Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC) 
Edward Chikombo, and the torture of journalist Gift Phiri, from the 
South African-based The Zimbabwean newspaper, as well as the conviction 
of Time magazine Alexander Perry for reporting without accreditation. It 
is speculated that Chikombo's murder may be linked to the smuggling of 
film footage of a badly-beaten Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) 
leader, Morgan Tsvangirai.



But, for the FXI, what is most shocking is the grossly inadequate 
response of the South African government to the growing crisis in Zimbabwe.


Censorship in Zimbabwe has repercussions in South Africa as well, and 
demonstrates the interlinked nature of the media freedom climate in the 
Southern African Development Community (SADC). If pictures of the 
growing repression in Zimbabwe do not reach the South African public, 
and South African-based international correspondents are prevented from 
reporting on Zimbabwe, then it is our media freedom as South Africans 
that is being violated too. South Africans will be unable to hold its 
own government to account for its foreign policy choices on countries 
such as Zimbabwe. South Africa simply cannot afford the luxury of 'quiet 
diplomacy' in the face of such brutality, it amounts to a tacit 
endorsement of censorship that affects the whole region.



The South African government's approach towards foreign policy betrays 
shocking double standards for a country that was liberated from the yoke 
of apartheid partly because other countries took a principled stand 
against the apartheid regime. Many in the SADC region struggled and died 
to free South Africa. Yet we return these sacrifices with mealy-mouthed 
protestations about Zimbabwe being left to sort out its own problems, 
peppered with an occasional condemnation of the Zimbabwean government's 
conduct. In the same way that the defence of human rights was at the 
core of these countries' foreign policy, human rights should be at the 
core of South Africa's foreign policy too, and should govern how the 
government conducts itself in all international forums, and in relation 
to all repressive regimes.


The FXI does a great deal of work in the SADC region, and travel to SADC 
countries all the time. The FXI hosts the Southern African Journalists' 
Association (SAJA), which has two Zimbabwean affiliates (the Zimbabwe 
Union of Journalists (ZUJ) and the Independent Journalists of Zimbabwe 
(IJAZ). The FXI also undertakes work around access to information with 
economic justice organisations in the region. As a South African civil 
society organisation with strong working relationships in the region, 
the FXI distances itself from the grossly inadequate response of the 
South African government.



Zimbabwe undoubtedly carries a colonial legacy from the Lancaster House 
agreement, concluded with the British government in 1980, that has 
profoundly disadvantaged the liberation cause in Zimbabwe. However, this 
historical fact should not be used as an excuse to justify internal 
repression, that the Zimbabwean government, and the Zimbabwean 
government alone, is responsible for.



More specifically, Zimbabwe's Access to Information and Protection of 
Privacy Act (AAIPA), and the Public Order and Safety Act (POSA), should 
be repealed, as they cast a pall over freedom of expression in the SADC 
region. They also violate internationally accepted standards of freedom 
of expression. The FXI will support all efforts on a cross-border basis 
to have these Acts repealed.



For more information, contact:



Jane Duncan
Executive Director
Freedom of Expression Institute
082 786 3600



***

Those who donât recall history get to be Mugabeâs dupes

08 April 2007
Mondli Makhanya


Mondli Makhanya

COMMENT ON THIS: tellus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thereâs this old saying about how the one thing we learn from history is 
how we learn nothing from history.

It always comes back to me when I think of the events of Good Friday, 2000.

Dozens of us journos had gathered at the Elephant Hills Hotel in 
Victoria Falls to cover a make-or-break summit that would stop 
Zimbabweâs slide into the abyss.

The government-backed land invasions were in full force; opposition 
members campaigning ahead of that yearâs June parliamentary elections 
were being beaten and tortured by police and Zanu-PF militias; the media 
and the judiciary were being strangled; the Zimbabwean dollar was 
heading south in a most dramatic fashion; fuel shortages were rife and 
the general economy was in free fall.

So South Africaâs President Thabo Mbeki, Mozambiqueâs Joachim Chissano 
and Namibiaâs Sam Nujoma descended on Victoria Falls with a view of 
talking nicely to Zimbabweâs President Robert Mugabe .

They came out of the marathon meeting brimming with optimism. They told 
us that Mugabe had agreed to a series of measures to restore normality 
to a country that had been one of post-colonial Africaâs shining stars.

Among the measures were that war veterans would be removed from the 
farms within 30 days; the rule of law would be restored and conditions 
for free political activity would be created.

On the economic front, an orderly land-reform programme would be agreed 
on and negotiations on funding it would be entered into with Britain and 
donor agencies.

When queried about why they were so confident that Mugabe would meet his 
end of the bargain, the three presidents expressed irritation that such 
a question could even be asked.

âHe is a head of state making a commitment to fellow heads of state and 
that is good enough. Why would you want to question his integrity?â was 
the basic response.

The following week, Mugabe and his lieutenants were traversing the 
countryside, repudiating everything that had been said at Victoria Falls.

The message to the masses: there is no way we will order Zimbabweans off 
the land they have reclaimed from the colonialists; there is no way we 
will set comrade against comrade by getting security forces to evict war 
veterans from occupied farms; there is no way we will allow the stooges 
of colonialists (the Movement for Democratic Change) to campaign to give 
the country back to the British.

Point by point they rubbished the Good Friday agreement, the very 
commitment that man of integrity had made to fellow heads of state.

I am writing this column on Good Friday 2007 (yes, some of us poor sods 
had to get up this morning to produce the newspaper you are holding in 
your hands) a week after the South African Development Community heads 
of state gathered in Tanzania, where Mugabeâs colleagues received a 
commitment from him on restoring political stability to his country.

In terms of the Dar es Salaam minute, Mugabe agreed to a process to 
enter into dialogue with his rivals and other sections of Zimbabwean 
society. By all accounts, the SADC leaders were quite tough on Mugabe 
behind closed doors.

And they walked away believing that the man of integrity would help them 
to help himself.

But a day after the summit, Mugabe was back on the podiums, proclaiming 
that his brother leaders had in fact backed his errant ways because they 
believed his version that the imperialists were behind the opposition.

Over the same weekend, his goons beat up more opposition leaders and 
jailed more activists. And Mugabe was endorsed as a candidate for yet 
another term of office â all as if nothing had happened in Dar es Salaam.

The point is that if South Africa and its neighbours had been willing to 
learn from history, they would have known by now that Mugabe is a liar 
who has no respect for them or the offices they occupy.

A question that is asked of those who are critical of the so-called 
quiet diplomacy approach is: âWhat were we expected to do?â

The answer should always start with what they should not have done.

They should not have legitimised him by endorsing three stolen elections 
and by repeatedly denying â in the face of incontrovertible evidence â 
that there was erosion of human rights and democratic practice. At 
various international forums our representatives should not have acted 
as Mugabeâs bodyguards. Here at home the government and the ANC should 
not have given Zanu-PF revolutionary credentials when it was clear there 
was nothing left in the party that said âliberation movementâ.

So what could we have done and what can we still do?

The first step for the South African government is to treat Robert 
Mugabe with a great degree of distrust. The next step would be to get 
the rest of Zimbabwean society, mainly the civil society activists who 
we have betrayed, to trust our honest-broker bona fides.

And then we need to speak loudly about the principles of the African 
Union charter and the SADC treaty and protocols â documents that the 
Mugabe government has endorsed. These are not imperialistsâ impositions, 
but minimum standards that we on the continent have agreed to.

They are a legitimate platform for intervention.
>   

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism