Britain’s arrogance in dealing with the Zimbabwe problem points to one thing: Mugabe’s rivals have abandoned diplomacy in favour of propaganda
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 11 October 2007
After failing to resolve tensions with their fiercest African rival – Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe – through diplomatic means, the British and United States governments have resorted to an aggressive propaganda campaign.
According to Peter Mavuma, a British-based Zimbabwean journalist, “[The Western media] have a single-minded preoccupation with demonising Zimbabwe and propping up the opposition, especially Morgan Tsvangirai [the leader of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC)], well above his station.” (1)
In the latest episode, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has threatened to boycott the forthcoming European Union-Africa Summit if Mugabe attends, arguing that Mugabe’s presence at the summit will divert attention from important agenda items.
By starting the controversy over who may attend and who may not, Brown himself has already diverted attention from important matters to be discussed at the summit. So he wanted to be the first one to divert attention from the work of the EU-Africa summit?
Various observes around the world may differ on the approach needed in solving the political crisis and economic meltdown in Zimbabwe, but one aspect appreciated by both sides is that something needs to be done to return Zimbabwe to normality.
It’s just strange how senior British politicians want to discuss the Zimbabwean situation without their Zimbabwean counterparts. This amounts to gossip diplomacy, intended mainly to cause mistrust amongst African leaders.
According to media reports, Brown’s government would be comfortable with a Zimbabwean delegation as long as it excludes President Mugabe. So that Brown can talk down to the Zimbabweans?
Once described by South African political commentator Patrick Lawrence as a “wily and increasingly unpredictable octogenarian president,” (3) Mugabe’s refusal to submit to external and internal pressure has irked his rivals, most notably the British, Americans and Australians.
Talk of “targeted sanctions” against top Zimbabwean officials is misleading. How targeted are the sanctions when international companies are encouraged to disinvest from Zimbabwe, when the United States has adopted a law (Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act) that legalises external meddling in the affairs of a sovereign state?
In June, United States ambassador to Zimbabwe, Christopher Dell, predicted that Zimbabwe’s inflation rate would reach 1.5 million % by the end of year 2007. (2) At the time of Dell’s prediction, non-official figures put Zimbabwe’s inflation rate at around 10 000%. How that figure would jump to 1.5 million % within six months remains a mystery!
In another misleading development, British ambassador to South Africa, Paul Boateng, was recently on the SABC current affairs programme, Interface, emphasising his government’s supposed commitment to an “African solution” to the problems in Zimbabwe. Yet the current diplomatic stand-offs are not started by Africans, not even the economic sanctions!
This “African solutions” gospel is meant primarily to stupefy the African community. Practically, Africa’s former colonial masters want to keep remote-controlling the continent. They even want to determine who is fit to rule which part of Africa and who is not. Surely that should be left to us Africans?
If Britain and her fellow western allies believe that Mugabe is the problem in Zimbabwe, why does it seem unwise to have Mugabe in attendance at forums such as the EU-Africa summit? Why prioritise a propaganda campaign in the media whilst the subject of the campaign, Mugabe, is available for talks on a face-to-face level?
References:
1. Mavunga, Peter. “Media hype more Western froth and bubble,” New African, Zimbabwe Special Issue, Summer 2007, page 66.
2. Dell, Christopher. “US predicts regime change in Zimbabwe as hyperinflation destroys the economy,” The Guardian, 22 June 2007.
3. Lawrence, Patrick. “Mugabe risks more than displacement in a coup,” Zimbabwe Independent opinion section, 29 June 2007.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
'Madibeng, are you a unionist?'
An edited copy of my article, “Our companies are laws unto themselves,” (Pro-Africa Analysis, 05 October 2007), was published on the letters’ section of the News24 website under the headline, “Deaths go unnoticed” (MyNews24, 09 October 2007). The following are readers’ reactions to the article as published by News24:
1. Those who agree that big companies are laws unto themselves say:
1.1. Companies are only concerned about the bottom line. The executives get fat bonuses and little thought is given to the miners who risk their lives on a daily basis. - Jennifer
1.2. You make a very good point, but the fact is that our justice system has effectively totally collapsed. Even if a trial (either crime OR workplace-issue) makes it to court, it'll drag on forever, costing law-abiding citizens tax money.. and in the end the sentence imposed on the purpetrator will be waay lenient. – Juan
2. Those who disagree say:
2.1. Excuse me, 300 people die a YEAR in work related accidents in SA and this is very upsetting,but nobody forces these people to work down the mines,its a dangerous job and they do get paid more money for the danger.How could you possibly relate this to 500 violent deaths or 1200 reported rapes a WEEK,of people who have no choice and just happen to be in the wrong place or sometimes just hanging around their own home?The GOLD mining industry is one of South Africa's few forex earners leave it alone. - me
2.2. Not the only deaths in SA that go unnoticed, so do a lot of deaths in suburbs and on farms. Unfortunately if you can't stop the thug on the street with your police force, you won't be able to stop big companies from doing the same. Start small, be effective and you will reach the high level offenders. – Sun
2.3. Madibeng, is jy so effe 'gebriek'? It is a mine. How safe can you be when you are hundreds of metres beneath the surface. Some jobs are inherently dangerous. My father spent time in mining, as have some of my friends. There are horror stories, but it comes with the job. You fail to appreciate that ALL the workers came up safely thanks to the efforts of the rescue workers. Where there are geniune working environment abuses the state should definitely step in but don't whinge about nonsense. - European-African
2.4. You sound like a unionist - you want jobs and growth but you also want strict safety standards. The fact is big companies employ people who would otherwise be "poor individual criminals or small township gangs". as long as there is minning and major infrastructure development - there will be casualties. At the moment we are chock full of both. You comparing our reasonable rate of mining or constructions incidents to the ridiculous crime rate is so COSATU like... - Fern
2.5. It's terrible that deaths happen at work sites. We're all pleased that these 3000 workers had fresh air and survived their time under. Yet I'm surprised that you feel this is of the same importance than crime? These workers know the risks everyday they go down the shafts. Crime is about people coming into your house and killing you, countrywide. How can you possibly relate the two? Government by companies - you sure? Who are the 'people' holding EVERYONE to ransom with violent strikes. – MJ
2.6. Good article but I was under the impression that miners belong to unions to which they pay a fee...and what do the union's do about the safety issue of workers or are they also to busy enjoying the benefits rolling in to their coffers... - SB
2.7. That some die while @ work, but like others have said, how safe can it be working in a mine underground, Yes maybe there must be better settlements in the event of a death/injury, but thats unfair for me to say cuz i don't know the amount offered.What i do know,is that mining is a very hazardous occupation & i would assume that u get paid extra for the danger involed.. but heh what do i know... - skarr..
1. Those who agree that big companies are laws unto themselves say:
1.1. Companies are only concerned about the bottom line. The executives get fat bonuses and little thought is given to the miners who risk their lives on a daily basis. - Jennifer
1.2. You make a very good point, but the fact is that our justice system has effectively totally collapsed. Even if a trial (either crime OR workplace-issue) makes it to court, it'll drag on forever, costing law-abiding citizens tax money.. and in the end the sentence imposed on the purpetrator will be waay lenient. – Juan
2. Those who disagree say:
2.1. Excuse me, 300 people die a YEAR in work related accidents in SA and this is very upsetting,but nobody forces these people to work down the mines,its a dangerous job and they do get paid more money for the danger.How could you possibly relate this to 500 violent deaths or 1200 reported rapes a WEEK,of people who have no choice and just happen to be in the wrong place or sometimes just hanging around their own home?The GOLD mining industry is one of South Africa's few forex earners leave it alone. - me
2.2. Not the only deaths in SA that go unnoticed, so do a lot of deaths in suburbs and on farms. Unfortunately if you can't stop the thug on the street with your police force, you won't be able to stop big companies from doing the same. Start small, be effective and you will reach the high level offenders. – Sun
2.3. Madibeng, is jy so effe 'gebriek'? It is a mine. How safe can you be when you are hundreds of metres beneath the surface. Some jobs are inherently dangerous. My father spent time in mining, as have some of my friends. There are horror stories, but it comes with the job. You fail to appreciate that ALL the workers came up safely thanks to the efforts of the rescue workers. Where there are geniune working environment abuses the state should definitely step in but don't whinge about nonsense. - European-African
2.4. You sound like a unionist - you want jobs and growth but you also want strict safety standards. The fact is big companies employ people who would otherwise be "poor individual criminals or small township gangs". as long as there is minning and major infrastructure development - there will be casualties. At the moment we are chock full of both. You comparing our reasonable rate of mining or constructions incidents to the ridiculous crime rate is so COSATU like... - Fern
2.5. It's terrible that deaths happen at work sites. We're all pleased that these 3000 workers had fresh air and survived their time under. Yet I'm surprised that you feel this is of the same importance than crime? These workers know the risks everyday they go down the shafts. Crime is about people coming into your house and killing you, countrywide. How can you possibly relate the two? Government by companies - you sure? Who are the 'people' holding EVERYONE to ransom with violent strikes. – MJ
2.6. Good article but I was under the impression that miners belong to unions to which they pay a fee...and what do the union's do about the safety issue of workers or are they also to busy enjoying the benefits rolling in to their coffers... - SB
2.7. That some die while @ work, but like others have said, how safe can it be working in a mine underground, Yes maybe there must be better settlements in the event of a death/injury, but thats unfair for me to say cuz i don't know the amount offered.What i do know,is that mining is a very hazardous occupation & i would assume that u get paid extra for the danger involed.. but heh what do i know... - skarr..
Friday, October 5, 2007
Our companies are laws unto themselves
We’re quick to target petty offenders whilst our mega companies continue to get away with murder
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 05 October 2007
The accident at Harmony Gold’s Erlandsrand Mine that saw over 3000 mine workers trapped under the surface has once again brought the subject of workplace safety to the fore of public debate.
Our company executives often list crime as one of the impediments to doing business comfortably in South Africa. Some of them have gone as far as attempting to launch publicity stunts to get government’s attention to the crime problem.
Remember the First National Bank (FNB) and its botched campaign aimed at flooding the office of the president with anti-crime letters from Sunday Times readers?
Campaigns against the high levels of crime in South Africa are unquestionably justified, considering the insecurity that we feel with violent criminals roaming the streets. Nobody disputes the danger that we all are due to the high levels of crime in our country.
However, the high levels of deaths and serious injuries that people suffer due to unsafe working environments such as mines often go unnoticed; and, even if noticed, the culprits (firm owners and chief executives) seem immune from any form of legal action.
We are very quick to demand justice when those endangering our lives are poor individual criminals or small township gangs. The big corporations, which do not comply with safety requirements at their workplaces, continue to get away with murder.
It’s as if our legal system was introduced specifically to shield grand offenders from the smaller and financially inferior citizens. The corporations (and not the people) shall rule!
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 05 October 2007
The accident at Harmony Gold’s Erlandsrand Mine that saw over 3000 mine workers trapped under the surface has once again brought the subject of workplace safety to the fore of public debate.
Our company executives often list crime as one of the impediments to doing business comfortably in South Africa. Some of them have gone as far as attempting to launch publicity stunts to get government’s attention to the crime problem.
Remember the First National Bank (FNB) and its botched campaign aimed at flooding the office of the president with anti-crime letters from Sunday Times readers?
Campaigns against the high levels of crime in South Africa are unquestionably justified, considering the insecurity that we feel with violent criminals roaming the streets. Nobody disputes the danger that we all are due to the high levels of crime in our country.
However, the high levels of deaths and serious injuries that people suffer due to unsafe working environments such as mines often go unnoticed; and, even if noticed, the culprits (firm owners and chief executives) seem immune from any form of legal action.
We are very quick to demand justice when those endangering our lives are poor individual criminals or small township gangs. The big corporations, which do not comply with safety requirements at their workplaces, continue to get away with murder.
It’s as if our legal system was introduced specifically to shield grand offenders from the smaller and financially inferior citizens. The corporations (and not the people) shall rule!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
