Criticism leveled at Mbeki is not uncommon

History is pregnant with many examples of leaders who come under severe criticsm in their final years in office

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 29 August 2007

The unfair generalisations contained in the letter by Andy Beytell, “On issues from A to Z, ‘racist’ Mbeki gets an F”, (The Star, 28 August 2007), explain a common phenomenon in countries where leaders are in their final years of office. This phenomenon is characterised mainly by severe criticism leveled at the leader and an impatient desire for change.

The recent outpouring of criticism leveled at President Thabo Mbeki from various stakeholders, including members of the Tripartite Alliance he leads, is not uncommon, particularly when one considers the fact that the president has less than two years before his term of office comes to an end.

History is pregnant with many examples of leaders who come under severe criticism in their final years in office. And the criticism usually ignores the fact that the leader is not running the country by himself, that he is serving in a collective and that he is carrying out a mandate normally sanctioned by the ruling party.

Take, for example, the case of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. He was pressurised out of office before the end of his term as Prime Minister in a rebellion championed by his Labour Party comrades. His sin? He, with the support of the same comrades in the British Parliament, took his county into an illegal war in Iraq .

Considering the politicking that goes with the run-up to the December conference of the African National Congress (ANC), where Mbeki’s successor may be elected, it is not surprising that our society’s desire for change often (and deliberately) ignores Mbeki’s strengths and achievements.
Our obsession with the succession battle going on in the ANC, coupled with our highly impatient wait for a new leadership at government level, renders many of us unfit to provide any fair assessment of Mbeki’s leadership.

His imperfections on the Aids pandemic not withstanding, Mbeki has led South Africa with unmatched skill, unique diplomacy, high intellect and dignity. Under Mbeki’s watch, our economy has grown (though not enough to satisfy everyone’s needs) and our country has broadened its influence internationally.

Many of Mbeki’s critics hate the fact that the president is more knowledgeable than they are. These armchair critics, many of whom are half-baked, hate it more when Mbeki hits back through his popular online letter in the ANC Today newsletter.

They want the President to sit back and take punches, but not only does he refuse to oblige, but he also exposes the hypocrisy of his critics and the racist pessimism they often seek to advance. Even his harshest critics will miss Mbeki when he joins the list of former African heads of states and government.

Beytell quotes Stephen Mulholland who is said to have written that Mbeki was "bitter, narrow-minded, vainglorious, officious, arrogant, pompous and racist". Yet the same can be said of Mulholland, one of the critics who cannot see any good in all of Mbeki’s work. What single positive thing has Mulholland said about Mbeki?

In evaluating Mbeki’s performance, critics must put the ANC succession battle aside and see the facts: like every human being in the world, the President has not perfected every aspect of his work, but he has led the country (and, to a degree, the African continent) with distinction.

• An edited copy of this article appeared in The Star newspaper on 13 August 2007 under the headline, “Criticism of a leader in final years in office is common”.

'A view of the summit': objections to my views

Online readers of the British newspaper, The Guardian, raise objections to my take on the political and economic situation in Zimbabwe.

Background

The British newspaper, The Guardian, runs a popular blog called “Comment is Free (CiF)” on its website, http://www.guardian.co.uk/. On Monday, 20 August 2007, one John M. Morrison wrote an article, “A view of the summit”, based on the summit of the SADC heads of state and government, held in Lusaka, Zambia. Morrison, a former foreign correspondent who was based in Zimbabwe from 1987 to 1990, mainly argued in his article that “African leaders meeting in Zambia proved all too adept at ignoring the ongoing disaster of Mugabe's Zimbabwe”.

My initial response to Morrison was the following: “For a man who is said to have reported from Zimbabwe for three years, it is baffling that Mr Morrision does not know what SADC stands for. Amongst other falsehoods in his article, Mr Morrison writes about ‘last week's Southern African Development Society (SADC)’! SADC correctly stands for the Southern African Development Community. Mr. Morrison must firstly get his facts right before we take him seriously”.

Morrison wasted no time in clarifying this: “I never called SADC the Southern African Development Society. These are minor errors which have crept in during editing. Subeditors (even at the revered Guardian) aren't perfect, as I know because I was a subeditor for many years”. Then followed other responses to my comments, published below as they appeared in the CiF blog.

1. 'SADC stands for Southern African Despots Club'

By DrJazz, Comment No. 769321

Madibeng: You should know that SADC stands for Southern African Despots Club. It does amongst black Zimbabweans. And they only speak of Mbeki to curse him. The economic problems started in earnest in 1997 when Mugabe gave the entire annual take from income tax to war veterans in the form of life pensions. Even war veterans in well paid jobs benefited. I have no idea why he did it, although I do know it was in response to unrest resulting from the elite helping themselves to the secret War Victims Compenation Fund.

2. 'See the facts, you the apologist for Mugabe'

By Sikandarji, Comment No. 769689

Madibeng: well DrJazz did suggest that things started to go badly wrong in 1997 when Mugabe gave the entire tax revenues to the 'War veterans', but presumably you overlooked this. In fact there were ominous signs well before: the Matabeleland massacres in the early 80s which I mentioned, his attempt to turn Zimbabwe into a one-party state in the late 80s when he also combined the offices of President and Prime Minister in one person (i.e. himself) and, yes, the so-called land 'reforms'. What you and other apologists for Mugabe overlook when you bleat on about Britain's failure to pay compensation to farmers for land redistribution is that Britain did fund such a scheme in the 80s', only to terminate it when it emerged that all the land purchased from farmers under this scheme ended up in the pockets of ZANU-PF politicians. Sound familiar?

It should, because of course when the land seizures did get underway in earnest in the late 90s, only a tiny proportion went to the poor and landless. All that has happened is that a wealthy white minority has been replaced with an equally wealthy but far less productive black oligarchy. You can call that 'progress' if you want, but the four million Zimbabweans (almost all of them black) who have been forced to flee the land they love might disagree. Perhaps more than anything else it is this which gives the lie to the feeble pretence amongst African leaders (which you appear to share) that criticism of Mugabe's regime in the West is motivated purely by racist concern for the welfare of the white minority. If that were ever the case, the battle was lost long ago.

There are only about 20,000 whites left in Zimbabwe, and the farming sector has been destroyed. There are at least two million Zimbabwean refugees in South Africa - why don't you ask them what they think of Mugabe's 'reforms', his handling of the economy? If you really think that life in Zimbabwe (where the land has been 'liberated' and 'returned to the people') is better than life in South Africa (where you complain that 80% of the land is controlled by the white minority) then why don't you go and see for yourself? Or even stay there? You might find a lot of people rushing in the opposite direction, but I'm sure the roads leading to Beitbridge and beyond will be pretty free of traffic.

3. 'Mugabe’s critics don’t want to keep land in white hands'

By Gareth100, Comment No. 769747

madibeng, I would suggest that all people in the west would like is for Zimbabwe (and many other African countries) to be run by people who have the interests of all their countrymen at heart, rather than an opportunity for personal enrichment for the leaders and their cronies. Not too much to ask is it? Surely the number of Zimbabweans fleeing into South Africa would suggest that something is gravely wrong? The question of returning the land to the black community is a complex one but surely it benefits no one if it contributes to the collapse of the economy? As for the 2002 elections being "free and fair", even the SADC voiced misgivings over the process, the only country not to voice concerns was South Africa, I wonder why?

4. ‘No country on earth has prospered from a peasant economy’

By DrJazz, Comment No. 770085

Madibeng: I don't want to take punitive action against Mugabe's regime. What I would like is for SADC to ensure that free and fair elections are held in Zimbabwe under a new constitution that doesn't give the President the power to appoint one fifth of parliament.

Zimbabwe went seriously wrong, as opposed to gradually wrong, with the award of unaffordable pensions to 50,000 war veterans in late 1997. They received the whole of the take from Income Tax. How much worse can you get? The ZimDollar halved in value overnight and continued the downward trend as the government printed money and entered the Congo war (so magabe could upstage Mandela, or so he thought). The next turning point was when Mugabe rejected the offer of finacial assistance from the inetrnational community for a transparent and fair land reform programme.

The next major turning point came in 2000 with the referendum on a new constitution which Mugabe lost. It was probably the only free and fair election in the history of Zimbabwe. That's why there was election rigging in the parliamentary elections a few months later which Mugabe narrowly 'won.' There were successful appeals to the courts against some of the results of that election, but the appeal process was allowed to kick in but was never resolved. In the 2002 Presidential elections there was even more rigging.

The critics do not want to keep land in white hands. They want it given to black FARMERS who would contnue to employ the hundreds of thousands of farm workers and continue to produce food and produce for export. Not Mugabe's cronies who can't/won't farm, or landless peasants who can barely support themselves from their small plots. A simple calculation shows there isn't sufficient land in Zimbabwe to support the peasant way of life.

No country on earth has prospered from a peasant economy. Small farmers in Europe have to be propped up by subsidies and second or third jobs.

• Visit the link, http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/john_morrison/2007/08/a_view_of_the_summit.html,for the full debate on Mr. Morrison’s article.

Substance abuse in South Africa

It’s time we stop pointing fingers at government

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 22 August 2007

Commenting on a radio talk show the other day regarding causes of road rage in South Africa, a caller blamed government for not deploying enough policemen on the roads. Road rage, the caller argued, would be avoided if government committed more resources to ensuring visible policing on the roads.

Fairly speaking, government has a constitutional responsibility to ensure the safety of citizens. However, much of the discourse relating to road carnage, crime and substance abuse neglects mention of citizens’ responsibilities. Now, research has revealed not only the extend of substance abuse amongst South Africans, but it has also highlighted the high costs of such abuse.

The World Drug Report of 2006 puts the number of “problem drug users” in South Africa at more than 200 000. A 1998 report by the Medical Research Council noted that South Africans consume “well over five billion litres of alcoholic beverage per year”.

The Minister of Social Development, Dr. Zola Skweyiya, has recently estimated that alcohol abuse is a factor in nearly half of road crashes. This, according to Skweyiya, results in a cost to the country of around 7 000 lives annually.

The alarming figures of substance abuse beg for a nationwide introspection, an analysis of the high rate of crime in South Africa in relation to substance abuse and the overall moral degradation in our society. More importantly, the alarming figures call for action from government, non-governmental organisations, religious organisations and individuals.

With regard to the role of individuals in combating drug and alcohol abuse, Dr. Skweyiya put it correctly thus: “The abuse of drugs and alcohol is influenced by the degree of tolerance by citizens in a particular country. The promotion of the perception, for example, that the use of dagga is not harmful, or that excessive or binge drinking is acceptable behaviour over weekends, undermines all efforts of combating this scourge”.

Apart from urging individuals to behave more responsibly in relation to the use of substances, government has drafted a new bill called the Prevention of and Treatment of Substance Abuse Bill this month, August. The Bill, once passed into a law, will replace the Prevention and Treatment of Drug Dependency Act of 1992.

However little government is doing to prevent and combat substance abuse, much of the blame and responsibility should be put right on the door of individuals, for they (and not government) are the ones who initiate the abuse. Government will not succeed in lowering the high crime rate if our society continues to tolerate substance abuse.

Quiet Diplomacy (Part II)

The one question Zimbabwe's critics are reluctant to answer

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 20 August 2007

This is the second in a series of articles focussing on the rarely explained reasons behind South Africa's reluctance to take tough action against Zimbabwe, a country the United States Secretary of State Condolezza Rice once described as "an outpost of tyranny".

The finished work will be included in one comprehensive essay titled "QUIET DIPLOCAY: Why South Africa Refuses to Take Tough Action Against Zimbabwe". This article focuses on "Resistance to act in favour of 'regime change’ ", which will form part of a chapter in the finished work.

The question critics won't answer

One of the troubles with the political crisis and economic meltdown in Zimbabwe is that those who want punitive action to be taken against President Robert Mugabe’s regime refuse to answer the simple question: where did Zimbabwe go wrong? Was the turning point the controversial 2002 presidential elections, or was it the equally controversial land reform programme?

The heads of states of the Southern African countries, under the banner of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), do not seem to think that the problems in Zimbabwean were caused by either the 2002 elections or the land reform programme, and this is confirmed by the decisions they take in their regular meetings.

Just recently, in Lusaka, Zambia, the SADC heads of state and government not only refused to condemn Mugabe as demanded by critics, but they went further to call for more cooperation with the Harare regime, with a view to forger stronger economic cooperation and closer political ties.

SADC and its refusal to condemn Mugabe

President Thabo Mbeki, who was appointed as the mediator between the ruling Zanu-PF and opposition Movement for Democratic Cgange (MDC), presented a confidential report to the heads of states in the Lusaka meeting. He then told the media afterwards that the leaders accepted the report, which, as Mbeki said, will be forwarded to finance ministers in the region so that they can devise means of contributing to the rebuilding of the Zimbabwean economy.

At their earlier meeting in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, in March, the same heads of state again defied their critics, saying the much talked-about 2002 elections were “free, fair and democratic”, adding, on the controversial land reform programme, that Britain must “honour its compensation obligations”.

Clearly, SADC is not convinced that the mounting pressure to punish Mugabe and his regime are worth heeding. In fact (and rightly so), SADC leaders are doing the opposite of what some pressure groups, some international organisations and certain Western countries want them to do in Zimbabwe. They are helping Zimbabwe instead of punishing it.

Human rights abuses and hypocrisy

The allegations of “human rights abuses” levelled against Zimbabwe do not warrant the amount of pressure that Mugabe’s regime is put under. This is because there are countries here in Africa and elsewhere in the world whose human rights records are far worse than those reported in Zimbabwe.

For example, the Human Rights Watch’s World Report 2007 observes: “Ruthlessly repressive governments impose enormous cruelty on their people in North Korea, Burma, and Turkmenistan. Closed dictatorships persist in Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. China is slipping backwards. Russia and Egypt are cracking down on nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and Peru and Venezuela are considering similar steps. Iran and Ethiopia are silencing dissident voices. Uzbekistan is crushing dissent with new vigor while refusing to allow independent investigation of its May 2005 massacre in its eastern city of Andijan”.

Like other critics of the Harare regime, the same report by the Human Rights Watch is not clear on where Zimbabwe went wrong. Instead, the organisation says of Mugabe’s country: “In Zimbabwe, President Robert Mugabe would rather drive his country to ruin than tolerate a political opposition”.

Is the problem in Zimbabwe really Mugabe’s alleged intolerance of the opposition? If yes, and if intolerance of opposition is enough justification of regime change, then the first regimes to be changed are those in which opposition parties not allowed to exist. We have a plenty of such regimes in Africa and elsewhere in the world.

Another one of South Africa’s neighbours, Swaziland, has been harassing and banning opposition parties for a very long time. In Sudan, President Omar el-Bashir had banned opposition parties for as long as it took his country to experience a long, deadly civil war. In Libya, there is still no opposition. In both the Sudanese and the Libyan cases, the international community prioritised negotiations. What, we must ask, prompts the high levels of impatience when it comes to Zimbabwe?

The real answer to the question

Though Africa’s critics will not say it, the situation in Zimbabwe is caused by the West’s refusal to have Zimbabwe’s land in black hands. Those pushing for regime change want to maintain Zimbabwe’s economy in the hands of the white minority. They want Zimbabwe to be like South Africa, where 80% of land is in the hands of the white minority, where only four percent of land has been given back to black people since 1994.

If the rigging of elections was enough reason why a regime should be pushed out of office, Nigeria will not be having Umaru Yar’Adua as its new president. After all, Yar’Adua’s election was marred by allegations of vote-rigging, with the European Union observer mission reporting that over 200 people have died due to election-related violence and that “minimum standards for democratic elections were not met".

You won’t hear this coming out of the mouths of those demanding “urgent reform” in Zimbabwe, but the struggle in our northern neighbour is the struggle for economic liberation. The harsh treatment against Zimbabwe, in the hands of the so-called international community, sends a message to younger democracies such as South Africa: “Interfere with the wealth of the white minority and face the music”. And, of course: “We [the West] are never without excuses to change a regime”.

• An edited copy of this article appeared in the City Press newspaper of 09 September 2007 under the headline, “World must play fair with Zim”.
• Another edited copy of this article appeared in the October 2007 edition of the New African magazine.

How about a state-run newspaper in South Africa?

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 16 August 2007

This may sound like the suggestion of someone living in and supporting an authoritarian regime, but, on a serious note, is it not time that the South African government considers introducing its own newspaper? I suggest this for two serious reasons. And, before you could read this article in full, you do not qualify to comment on the suggestion made.

1. Many good stories to tell, limited and skeptical platform to tell them

The first reason behind my suggestion for a state-run (not state-controlled) newspaper is that the new South African government, in its 13 years in office, has made great strides that have gone unnoticed because there is a limited platform through which such strides can be communicated to the people. In instances where this limited platform is utilised, the level of skepticism overwhelms the good news.

The same government, in the same period of time it has been in office, has also failed to do better in many critical areas, particularly in lowering the numbers of the unemployed, improving the standard and quality of education in public schools and distributing land equitably amongst racial groups. Where these shortcomings were observed, the privately-owned media has failed to provide thought-provoking analysis and useful recommendations.

People who are educated and experienced enough to provide the high level of intellectual debate we need are not given the platform to do so. Much of the newspaper spaces are occupied by lazy, half-baked columnists who do not read enough. They make incoherent and reactionary comments on the state of our young nation. The less said about our mostly junior, equally half-baked and lazy journalists, the better.

For all its sins, the ruling African National Congress (ANC) was correct in its 2005 series, The Sociology of Public Discourse in South Africa, when it stated: “The challenge intellectually to define the future of our country has been and will remain as demanding and bruising as has been the continuing challenge practically to change South Africa into a democratic, non-racial, non-sexist and prosperous homeland for all our people”.

Our media practitioners, particularly journalists and their editors (however denial they can be), also face the same “demanding and bruising” challenge to change our country. Unfortunately, many of them never admit that they need as much transformation as the rest of the society they live in. Worse still, they seem to have added the word “transformation” to the category of vulgar words. They want transformation almost everywhere, except in the mythical Tenth Province they live in.

2. The privately-owned media are not development-oriented

Secondly, I would like to use as an example the joint efforts of the Department of Education and some media houses in the education recovery plan following the recent public sector strike.
The introduction of the very useful “Study Mate” supplement to help learners catch-up with their studies is one classic example of how newspapers can contribute to the development of our country. Unfortunately, many of the privately-owned newspapers lack initiative and are in a bad habit of waiting for government to come up with ideas on nation-building partnerships.

The private newspaper industry is dominated by people who are good at pointing out the bad and the ugly in government, but do not ask them what they are doing to further develop the country they also live in (hence their mythical Tenth Province). Many of our newspaper editors are excellent finger-pointers.

Under normal circumstances, our jounalists won't go, for example, to the poverty-stricken Sekhukhune District Municipality in the Limpopo Province unless they are following the Preisdent on an imbizo. Our journalists pretend to be innovative and investigative, but, in reality, they are mostly scandal-mongering, narrow-focussed and just shoddy in their reporting.

I know that the ANC has pronounced itself on the issue of a state-owned newspaper before, saying that they want to leave the space open for independent voices. That's fine when you have media personnel who provide food for thought and see themselves as part of the society they write about. We do not have such media here in South Africa, which is why I believe government must again lead the way, just as it leads journalists into areas of our country they would ordinarily not go to.

We need a state-run newspaper to challenge stereotypes and provide a different, fresh perspective -- a newspaper with learned commentators, a paper that will be written mostly by the doers as opposed to the privately-owned newspapers that are written by the talkers. We need a state-owned newspaper to keep our lazy journalists and their half-baked columnist colleagues on their toes.

To Khutsong residents: You're not more South African

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 13 August 2007

Grade 12 pupils in Khutsong were this past weekend taken to a camp in Taung, in the North West Povince, where they are expected to catch-up on their school work, following months of school boycott.

All the drama follows uprisings in their township related to government’s decision to place their area under the administration of the North West Provincial Government.

The ugly situation in Khustong, which is attributed to the demarcation saga, is very sad if one considers the damage the dispute has brought not only to public property, but also to the future of learners in that area.

Those responsible for the chaos are setting a dangerous precedent, encouraging the use of force and disruptions to the smooth running of the country. Clearly, the people are being misled, and the misleader/s is/are getting away with murder.

What kind of a country are we living in, where children are denied access to education because the people of the area in which they live are embroiled in a conflict with government on demarcation issues? This is pure lawlessness. It is really disgusting.

How special are the people of Khutsong when it comes to service delivery? Whoever is responsible for the chaos (all in the name of “service delivery”) must know that all of South Africa ’s people, from Cape Town to Musina, have the same needs as they. They are not more South African than the rest of us.

In the municipality where I come from, the Greater Sekhukhune District Municipality in the Limpopo Province , people are in dire need of the very basic of services, ranging from clean water, electricity, tarred roads to schools. Most parts of Khutosng have all of that, but look what they are doing? It is shameful.

Not so long ago, black people were out on the streets, fighting for equal rights, amongst them the right to education. Today, 13 short years down the line, the same black people are out on the streets, preventing their own children from attending school. How quickly things change!

The prevention of learners from attending school is totally unbecoming in a country where the number of educated black people with post-graduate qualifications is still unacceptably low, where pass rate amongst Grade 12 learners went down last year.

Former President Nelson Mandela once described education as “the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world”. Clearly, the people responsible for the chaos in Khutsong do not share the same view.

It is one thing to blame government for lack of proper consultation. It is quite another thing to make young children bear the high cost of such blame game and disagreements.

Because of the showdown between the so-called concerned residents and government, taxpayers' money is now being used to transport and accommodate children far away from the parental supervision they still need.

Imagine the sort of environment the learners have been moved to. Imagine adolescents staying in a camp far away from their parents. Instead of producing the good academic results they have been relocated to produce at the end of the year, some learners will produce positive pregnancy tests. All this because they have been forced out of their area by the very adults they are supposed to learn from.

All those responsible for preventing Khutsong learners from going to shcool must not only be ashamed of themselves, but they must also be held accountable for their highly disruptive behaviour. Shame on them.

Why question Africa's contribution to development?

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 06 August 2007

In his book, “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa”, Walter Rodney says: “In order to understand present economic conditions in Africa, one needs to know why it is that Africa has realised so little of its natural potential, and one also needs to know why so much of its present wealth goes to non-Africans who reside for the most part outside of the continent”.

Rodney continues thus: “When the ‘experts’ from capitalist countries do not give a racist explanation [of why Africa remains underdeveloped despite its wealth of natural resources], they nevertheless confuse the issue by giving as causes of underdevelopment the things which really are consequences. For example, they would argue that Africa is in a state of backwardness as a result of lacking skilled personnel to develop”.

In essence, Rodney decries the over-simplification of Africa’s underdevelopment – the very deficiency Janine Grobler succumbs to in his response to my letter, “Picture Africa without the West’s interference” (The Star, 06 August 2007).

Grobler’s argument that “the West would like to leave Africa to its own devices, simply because it costs them too much and nothing seems to change” would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious and so often repeated without denunciation.

Far from costing the West too much, Africa has always been the engine behind the West’s development. Through the slave trade, Africans have shed tears and blood to lift Europe and North America out of poverty and underdevelopment.

It is one thing to think, as Grobler does, that Africa is a burden to the West and the rest of the world. It is quite another thing to imagine the West without the slave trade, Africa ’s oil and mineral resources.

Europeans obtained much of their wealth from Africa without paying a cent. Rodney puts it aptly when he says: “When citizens of Europe own the land and the mines of Africa , this is the most direct way of sucking the African continent”.

It is one thing to imagine Africa without Westerners, but what about the West without Africans? Think about it. Think about the cheap labour that Europe enjoyed through the slave trade. Think about the looting of resources and the raping of Africa ’s women. All at no cost to Europe !

Today we Africans are expected to rise to the heights to which Europe and other parts of the world have risen. But, can we invade Europe and loot its natural resources, enslave her people, all at no cost to us? Can we own land in Europe and have Europeans camping in shacks out of the cities in their own countries?

We Africans have neither the capacity nor the will to develop at the expense of the West. We may be ridiculed for failing to emerge out of undemocratic governance, corruption and power-hunger, but these are just symptoms of the greater imperialist project to which we have been subjected for many decades.

Blaming the West for our underdevelopment may not help us, but when loyalists of the Western empire continue blame us for slow progress or sheer backwardness without any reference to historic facts, we must refuse to bow our heads in shame.

The several civil wars still going on in some parts of Africa (such as Dafur in Sudan and Mogadishu in Somalia) are not wars for war’s sake. After all, there is no fun in killing each other. Our wars have a long history, and this is the same history that we are urged not to refer to in analysing our continent.

There is no question or doubt about the many positive contributions that Europe and North America made to Africa, and so should be no question about the positive contributions that Africa made (and continues to make) to Europe and North America .

The West might have “pumped billions into the [African] continent, written off debt, saved the masses from starving” as Grobler argues, but what about Africa ’s contributions to the West? Why all the silence about Africa ’s immeasurable contributions to the West and the rest of the world.

We may be having despots, civil wars and corruption in Africa but, again, what about the West? Look at the recent or current ugliest wars in the world and ask yourself who was involved. Look at Irag , Afghanistan , Lebanon , Israel and Palestine . Is Africa involved or responsible?

In as much as we Africans have problems, the West has its own. And there are some problems that we can solve without lectures from the West, in as much as there are many problems the West can solve without Africa .

One of those problems we Africans can solve is the Zimbabwean problem. We can’t allow ourselves to be pushed around, to be shouted at on the urgency of “regime change”.