WHY MBEKI SEEMS "IMPOTENT" ABOUT THE ZIM CRISIS!

Robert Mugabe, Thabo Mbeki and the ANC

Fri, 19 Jan 2007 00:09:00

http://www.zimdaily.com/news/117/ARTICLE/1238/2007-01-19.html

Ivor Waldeck

In order to understand President Mugabe it is necessary to know something about the early history of Zimbabwe.

The Shona tribe that Mugabe is a member of, was terrorised by the (black) settler Ndebele (Matabele) tribe that arrived in Southern Matabeleland from Kwazulu-Natal in about 1840 – a breakaway branch of the Zulu Kingdom in what was then Natal.

As late as 1890, Mugabe’s grandparents would have experienced the wrath of the marauding Matabele impis.

The extremely cruel yearly raids on the Shona by the warlike Matabele, only ceased in 1890 when Rhodes’ pioneer column reached that part of the continent. The new (white) settlers put a stop to the practice.

Historians believe that but for this intervention, the Shona tribe would in all probability have been wiped out. Because of the past tribal history, intense hatred still exists between the two ethnic groupings.

During the war of liberation against the Rhodesians that culminated in independence in 1980, there were two distinct black liberation factions – ZANU (Shona) and ZIPRA (Matabele). On the battlefield, there were many deadly clashes between the two factions.

When Zimbabwe gained independence in 1980, the various military factions including ZANU and ZIPRA, were integrated into the new national army.

Some ZIPRA (Matabele) guerrillas remained in the bush because of mistrust of ZANU (Shona) and others deserted the new army because they feared that their Shona commanders were planning their demise.

There followed a period of insurrection, lawlessness and outright warfare between ZANU and ZIPRA forces. Matabele ZIPRA deserters and their colleagues remaining in the bush, were labelled ‘dissidents’ by Mugabe and were killed wherever they were found – often brutally and in cold blood. Emmerson Mnangagwa, the then Minister of State Security, announced in parliament in February 1984 that 459 ‘bandits’ as he labelled them, had been killed. There is little doubt that many more than that number were eliminated.

Mugabe had meantime called in the communist North Koreans to train the 5-Brigade (1981). He had a sinister motive for doing so.

The 5-Brigade, which was directly answerable to Mugabe, was variously deployed in Matabeleland over the period 1983 to 1984 – ostensibly to locate and destroy ZIPRA ‘dissidents’. Ultimately, in February 1983, some 16000 square kilometres of Southern Matabeleland and an area of the Midlands inhabited by mainly Matabele people, was cordoned off. Soon thereafter a 24-hour curfew was imposed.

No food was allowed into the curfew area and as the region was in the grips of a third drought in a row, thousands of innocent rural people starved to death.

The 5-Brigade then commenced the systematic and indiscriminate elimination of innocent Ndebele men, women and children.

What supposedly started off as a war against ‘dissidents’ ended up as an attempt to crush the Matabele nation – nothing other than a classic case of genocide - more politely referred to as ‘ethnic cleansing’.

This was punishment and retribution for the attacks suffered by the Shona at the hands of the Matabele during he 1840-1890 period. Mugabe’s 5-Brigade wiped out entire villages so that there were no survivors to tell tales – other villagers simply disappeared.

At least 15 000 and possibly as many as 30 000 were killed in the most brutal fashion – the true number may never be known because of the vast area involved and the methods used. Ian Smith, the former Rhodesian Prime Minister in his book ‘The Great Betrayal’, puts the death toll at 30 000.

The 5-Brigade was led by Colonel Perence Shiri - currently commander of the Zimbabwe Air Force.

This inhuman thug daubed ‘The Beast of Bhalagwe’, set up a torture and killing camp in Southern Matabeleland.

Thousands of men, women and children – regardless of age or health – were rounded up and conveyed to this and other camps to be re-educated in typical ‘old style’ communist fashion.

Thousands of innocents were murdered, raped, maimed, beaten or simply disappeared. Horrendous and sickening methods of torture were employed.

Camp detainees were made to dig graves for their colleagues and when the killing rate accelerated, bodies were dumped down disused mine shafts.

The feared Central Intelligence Organisation under the control of Emmerson Mnangagwa (until recently - January 2005 - Mugabe’s heir apparent), then Minister of State Security in Mugabe’s office, was at the forefront of the brutal and sadistic forms of torture and killings.

The ANC had a presence in Zimbabwe at the time these atrocities occurred. There has never been any condemnation by the ANC of the genocide Mugabe perpetrated on his own black population after independence in 1980.

The atrocities committed by the 5-Brigade are well documented especially by the Zimbabwe Catholic Commission of Justice and Peace, in books, articles and reports by several investigative journalists.

Following an international outcry, Mugabe in September 1983, set up a commission of inquiry headed by a lawyer Mr Chihambakwe to investigate the allegations. Although fearful of the repercussions, hundreds of eyewitnesses to the atrocities turned up to give evidence.

Mugabe undertook to make the report of the commission public, but it was suppressed. When taken to court (December 1999) in an effort to force the release of the report he, through his legal representative, claimed that it was lost! Mugabe is no doubt well aware that the report – wherever it is - will be used as evidence to prosecute him for crimes against humanity.

The seizure of white owned commercial farms that commenced in 2000 was and is a desperate attempt to stay in power – his trump and last card in order to secure victory at the 2002 elections.

These politically inspired land seizures led to the deaths of many, and the displacement of some four thousand mainly white commercial farmers and an estimated 1.5 million black farm workers and their families.

Mugabe does not give a jot about the illegality or consequences of his actions. He has brought economic ruin on his country to save his own skin and to remain in power – and not for the ideological reasons he claims.

The seizure of white commercial farms resulted in the commencement of Zimbabwe’s economic collapse.

The suggestion that drought was and is the cause of crop failures has been proved to be a false story put about by Mugabe in order to account for famine in Zimbabwe. Craig Richardson (Associate Professor of Economics at Salem College in the United States) in a comprehensive independent report tabled at the United Nations, proves conclusively that the only ‘drought’ in recent times was in 2001-2002.

Rainfall for that season was only 22 percent below the 50-year average, and in late 2001 dams throughout Zimbabwe were reported full and the stored water available to agriculture.

The resettled black farmers planted few crops either then or thereafter - leading to famine, which persists in 2006.

Mbeki’s statement to the American press (June 2005) that the famine in Zimbabwe is due to the drought is a distortion of the truth – yet another indication of his support for his despotic and tyrannical friend.

According to a World Bank report on Zimbabwe (February 2005) the redistribution of 80% white commercial farmland to the landless poor, has resulted in 70% of Zimbabwe’s 11.6 million people living below the poverty line.

The admission (London Daily Telegraph January 2006) by the Mugabe government that its seizure of white-owned farms has benefited fewer than 10% of black Zimbabweans promised new futures as commercial landowners, establishes Mugabe’s destruction of agriculture and the resultant famine.

The Zimbabwe Land Ministry report declares that a third of the land given to these new farmers is lying idle, nothing was happening on another 11% and 30% was classed as ‘under-utilised’.

The resettlement scheme has benefited only 4 867 people while 1.5 million black farm workers and their families were kicked off white owned farms.

Mbeki’s glib acceptance of lies propagated by Mugabe concerning the land grab and his June 2003 prediction that by June 2004 the Zimbabwe crises would be resolved - sold to the British and Americans as the objective of his “quiet diplomacy” - are but further examples of the lengths to which Mbeki is prepared to go to support his tyrannical friend and dictator.

Mbeki should be aware that knowingly repeating lies put about by Mugabe will ultimately question his credibility.

So why is it that President Mbeki, the ANC and other black African leaders are tolerant of this despot – described by Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu as “the archetypal African dictator”.

Why is the killing of black people by a black tyrant (the label given to Mugabe by non other than former President Nelson Mandela), seemingly acceptable to them and most of black Africa.

It is a historical fact that the ANC and both Zimbabwean liberation movements were instructed in Marxist/Leninist ideology either in Moscow or in China. Mbeki, a loyal member of the Communist party when in exile (as was his father), received instruction at the Lenin School in Moscow. Mugabe has put into practice what the Red Chinese taught him at the Nanking Military Academy.

Mugabe even produced his version of the “Thoughts Of Mao” – containing typical Marxist rhetoric. His ‘Youth Militia’ – the ‘Green Bombers’ trained to kill terrorise and disrupt those who oppose him - are reminiscent of Mao’s youthful ‘Red Guard’ that terrorised the Chinese population during the Cultural Revolution.

Mugabe and Mbeki have, according to international political commentators, both put into practice the Lenin doctrine of ‘Democratic Centralism’ learnt from their respective Communist masters – a Marxist/Socialist system whereby all important policy decisions are taken by an ‘inner circle’ or ‘politburo’ rendering the parliamentary process sterile – the antithesis of any truly democratic system of government.

In order to carry out his policies, Mbeki surrounds himself with individuals such as Essop Pahad - an ardent communist - who broadcast Soviet propaganda from Prague during Moscow’s hey day, and described the Soviet Union’s August 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia as “ the Fraternal Assistance”.

It is no secret that not many years ago the ANC would have encouraged Mugabe to dispossess and kill white farmers – which was after all one of the objectives of the ANC in South Africa.

Other of Mugabe’s actions would also have received the ANC’s enthusiastic support, and I suspect that many of his actions and utterances still do – like Foreign Affair’s consistent and public support for his land grab policy, and Mbeki’s mischievous blaming (December 2003) of Britain for the Zimbabwe land crises – in support of lies put about by Mugabe.

Most importantly Mugabe, also not many years ago, actively supported the ANC’s war effort in South Africa. ANC cadres were trained in Zimbabwe and supplied with ammunition, weapons and explosives, with which to carry out their work in South Africa.

Mugabe often reminds the ANC of the part he played in their struggle – no doubt the ANC’S “hour of need” Mbeki so often refers to.

Mbeki’s lack of firm action against Mugabe can only be due to the historical and ideological backgrounds they share – which is a bad omen for South Africa.

Mbeki could have and still can bring Mugabe to heel by simply threatening to close the border, and if necessary, restrict trade and the flow of essentials supplies to Zimbabwe – a successful ploy John Vorster and Henry Kissinger used to force the Rhodesians to end their war and accept the principle of majority rule.

And what of the broken agreement Mugabe made with Mbeki and the presidents of Mozambique (Chisano)and Namibia (Nujoma) at the Victoria Falls in 2000 when he undertook to remove the war veterans from occupied white commercial farms within a month.

There was no comment from the tripartite when Mugabe, within the same month, reneged on his undertakings – just a supportive silence.

One wonders just what Mbeki’s real agenda is because the world might well conclude that Mbeki’s indifference to Mugabe’s human rights violations will be seen as laying the groundwork for future human rights violations in South Africa – an observation (December 2003) made by the Anglican Archbishop Emeritus, Desmond Tutu.

Former South African Nobel Peace Laureate President F W de Klerk warns (January 2006) on his de Klerk Foundation website, that in the published Mbeki “second decade of liberation” plan, the ANC intends to take over the country’s assets and violate property rights currently protected under the constitution.

The ANC has already resolved to dispense with the ‘willing buyer, willing seller’ principle relating to the acquisition of white owned farms, and replacing it with acquisition by expropriation should the government’s valuations be refused.

A Bill currently before the South African parliament (February 2006), seeks to give the Minister of Justice the final “authority over the administration and budget of all courts”.

The General council of the Bar of SA (January 2006) is concerned that the executive is taking over the functions of the judiciary. In August 2006 a judge of the South African High Court warned of a looming constitutional crises because the ANC has ignored high court orders – a clear sign that the ANC (like the Mugabe regime) considers itself to be the lawmaker.

Desmond Tutu’s observation concerning the possibility of future human rights violations in South Africa seems ominously prophetic.

Helen Suzman, a former staunch supporter of the ANC and anti-apartheid activist, concludes (London Weekly Telegraph May 2004) “Mbeki and other black African leaders support Mugabe’s actions in effectively kicking the white man out of Zimbabwe”.

She accuses Mbeki of supporting the Mugabe’s anti - white stance “Mugabe has done that to the whites, and I think that is exactly what Mbeki admires about him”. And further “Do not think for a moment that Mbeki is not anti-white – he is, most definitely”.

Mbeki and other black African leaders, who applaud Mugabe for kicking out the whites, have clearly not stopped to think that the ultimate victims are the black citizens of Zimbabwe.

South Africa and the region will, I fear, in the final analysis, pay the price for protecting a despicable and cruel tyrant who only remains in power through cheating, lying, killing, torturing, gagging, starving and intimidating opponents, formulating laws controlling the media which are regularly tightened, and prohibiting opposition meetings and demonstrations – the political practises of communist Eastern Europe of the 1960’s.

The ANC and most other black African leaders indulgently refer to Mugabe’s uncivilised methods as ‘African Style Democracy’. In December 2004 at the ZANU-PF conference held in Harare, the Secretary General of the ANC Henry Magothi praised Mugabe and his policies and said that the ANC and people of South Africa are confident that ZANU-PF “as a party of revolution, will continue to play a leading role in the political and economic independence of Zimbabwe”.

It is this unqualified praise and acceptance of Mugabe’s draconian policies which concerns the free democratic world and which Archbishop Emeritus, Desmond Tutu, warns might be regarded by the free world as “laying the groundwork for future human rights violations in South Africa”.

This watering down of genuine democratic principles was again applied to the 2005 Zimbabwean elections which could not be ruled free and fair even by the South African observer mission which could only described them as “reflecting the will of the people”.

When asked (April 2005) why he chose not to declare the elections ‘free and fair’ the delegation head Minister Membathisi Mdladlana retorted - “We see no reason to follow anybody else’s culture”.

Mugabe’s (June 2005) cruel displacement affecting some 2.4 million urban black citizens (UN Tibaijufa report para 3.2.3) by destroying shanty homes and businesses, is according to some observers, designed to drive disaffected urban voters to the famine-hit countryside – where his political support base is - for political re-education and to prevent a popular uprising.

Despite the August 2005 report of the United Nations special envoy Anna Tibaijufa condemning Mugabe’s actions, Mbeki the ANC and the African Union, maintain their silence as they regard the matter as an ‘internal matter for Zimbabwe’.

Mugabe’s statement that trillions of Zimbabwe dollars are to be spent on re-housing the dispossessed is just another lie, and clearly just a ruse to placate his critics and satisfy his African supporters.

The civilized world by contrast sees Mugabe as an illegitimate leader of an illegitimate government, and unlike the ANC, regards the outcome of the March 2005 parliamentary elections as rigged.

The international community insists on a new round of internationally supervised elections in Zimbabwe.

United States Secretary of Sate, Colin Powell, is on record as saying (September 2002) that there must be regime change in Zimbabwe and his successor Condoleezza Rice, regards Zimbabwe as an “outpost of tyranny” (January 2005) - an observation which Mbeki, in unqualified support of his tyrannical friend, objected to.

The American Ambassador to Zimbabwe, Christopher Dell in a speech to the Africa University of Zimbabwe on the 02 November 2005, had this to say about America’s Zimbabwe policy “… only when Zimbabwe’s government restores the rule of law, conducts free and fair elections, puts military and police forces under effective civilian control, repeals repressive legislation, and commits to an equitable, legal, and transparent land reform program will we support financial support for the government of Zimbabwe”.

Mugabe, over a twenty-six year period, has employed terror tactics against all those he regards as a threat.

He planned, instigated, committed or otherwise aided and abetted a campaign of violence directed against the civilian population of Zimbabwe. He has to stay in power because he knows that as soon as he loses the protection of his office, he and others of his regime will, if justice is to prevail, have to stand trial at The Hague for genocide and crimes against humanity.

World leaders must surely come to realise that Mbeki’s “quiet diplomacy” is a charade – described by those opposing Mugabe in Zimbabwe as “an act of blatant deception”. Mbeki (London May 2006) is reported as now relying on the United Nations to unravel the mess in Zimbabwe. The fact that he did not comment on his government’s failed “quiet diplomacy” policy, gives grist to the perception that it was a charade and designed to deceive.

Zimbabwe sinks further and further into the abyss while the concerned world looks on, and Mbeki, with measured arrogance born of absolute power, looks the other way.

By IVOR WALDECK

Email - goodhopepark@worldonline.co.za

I was a judicial officer in Zimbabwe until 1983. After independence inquest dockets were passed to me in 1982, which revealed that the National Army or other government forces were murdering ZIPRA ‘dissidents’. I was threatened with detention if I, as was my judicial duty to do, held public inquests into the deaths. I still have these dockets in my possession.

After 22 years in the Department of Justice, I resigned and left Zimbabwe in 1983 because I could not work for a government that after independence, engaged in the cold blooded murder of its own citizens.

It is remarkable how few people know the real story about Mugabe and just how murderous, tyrannical and evil he is. It is mainly the black people of that country who have suffered because Mugabe has to retain the reigns of power in order to survive politically.

The whites were pawns in the game and the Matabele killed in their thousands because of ethnicity and their political opposition to him. Mugabe has brought shame on the African continent and his country to its economic knees with an inflation rate in May 2006 of 1000+% (and climbing), and the life expectancy of the population falling from one of the highest in Africa to one of the worst in the world - men 37 women 34 (World Health Organisation report 2006).

The liberators of Sub-Saharan Africa have shown themselves to be incapable of democratic governance – because democracy would have seen them voted out of office.

In May 2006 the ANC ousted from power in local government elections in Cape Town, led a campaign of violence against the newly elected Mayor of Cape Town. Liberators will not tolerate being voted out of power, and this seemingly minor episode is a timely warning of things to come.

Liberation governments have turned corrupt and rely on brute force to remain in power and to retain the spoils. Commentators have expressed surprise at how quickly corruption has, within ten short years, spread to the upper echelons of the ANC government “… it is alarming that official corruption, that constant scourge of post-colonial Africa, has seemingly taken root so soon after democratic elections, and may have reached into the very highest levels of government” (Editorial – British Weekly Telegraph - June 2005).

Since June 2005 there has been a marked increase in crime involving the ANC. High profile figures have been convicted, and the prosecution or intended prosecution of twenty-three ANC members of parliament for theft and fraud involving public funds have come before the courts. Crimes involving violence have escalated alarmingly.

The official crime statistics for the 2005/2006 period catalogues 18 793 murders (50 a day), 20 533 attempted murders, 54 926 rapes – 23 453 involving children (42%), 119 726 robberies involving aggravating circumstances, 74 723 common robberies, 4 873 robberies of business premises and 9 391 of residential premises, 12 825 ‘carjackings’ and 385 cash in transit heists that more often than not involve extreme violence. It is generally believed that the authorities have manipulated the crime statistics in order to claim a reduction in crime trends.

A disturbing aspect of crime statistics over the years is the fact that since the ANC came into power, over 1 500 white farmers have been murdered on their farms.

Some of these murders were sadistic and cruel in the extreme, and many believe that they were and are politically motivated - the objective being to drive white farmers off the land. The policy is succeeding, as the most dangerous occupation in South Africa is being a white farmer.

The history of Sub-Saharan Africa is replete with examples of liberation governments that have used chaotic situations involving criminality, to cower the populace and drive out those who they regard as opponents of the system. The Marxist socialist Eastern bloc countries of the sixties were masters of this technique.

Another ominous sign is the firm control the ANC has on the broadcasting media that it uses for propaganda purposes. It also actively prevents the opinions of those who oppose the ANC from being aired or screened. These are actions which can usually be attributed to dictatorships.

In April 2006 the ANC secretary-general Kgalema Motlanthe led a delegation to Cuba – to be followed by a visit to China – to study the relationship between party and state.

Both the Cuban and Chinese communist parties are single party systems that are repressive and undemocratic. It is disturbing that the ANC hierarchy should want to learn anything from either of the two countries where human rights abuses are legend. The implications are ominous for South Africa.

The truth about Mugabe, Mbeki and the ANC, is a story that must be told and spread far and wide, as it would be tragic if Mugabe escapes punishment for his wrong-doing, and South Africa via the ANC, is permitted to travel the same route Zimbabwe and every other liberation government in Sub-Saharan Africa has travelled.

The United Nations must urgently be urged to respond and act.