The West want Bashar to end violence in Syria. Yet they know very well that Bashar can not stop them from arming the rebels to continue the violence!! It is like accusing a fireman of failing to put out a fire while pouring petrol on it.
There is no way people who are arming one side of the conflict can be said to want an end to the violence. If the West want the violence in Syria to end, then my foot is growing on my forehead. It can simply not be true.
One possible explanation is that the West is trying to distabilise Syria as much as they can in order to leave her weak and less of a challenge to Israel. Other than that there is completely no logic to their actions. Syria is not a major oil producer, like Libya or Iraq, where having a weak government can make it easier to loot the oil.
Where violence has not been fanned by outside sponsorship, like Jordan and Egypt, the governments have largely been able to maintain order. Even Bahrain was able to restore order despite spirited protests by an oppressed majority. Where governments have lost control, it is because of Western sponsorship of the violence. It is a classical tool and imperialism and colonialism - divide and rule.
The countries that have faced serious instability, Libya and Syria have only done so because of outside sponsorship of the violence. These are also the countries were the ordinary populations have suffered the most from the effects of violence. Therefore it would be farfetched to think that those sponsoring the violence care about the ordinary people of those countries. They don't.
Perhaps the worst hypocrisy is when Western governments accuse Russia of arming the government while they themselves are busy arming the rebels or encouraging those arming the rebels. As the 25 year civil war in Angola showed, pouring arms into either side of a conflict only prolongs the conflict, multiplies the number of deaths and inflames the social and ethnic divisions that would be the primary cause of the conflict.
Just looking at the Arab spring, the largest number of civilian deaths have been suffered in those countries where the West sponsored rebels. Given the large number of think tanks and analysts advising Western governments, it is difficult to imagine that they are not aware of this fact. It is more likely they just don't care. Rather they care more about achieving their political ends.
They ignore the human suffering that is a by-product of their tactics.
The violence in Syria can be significantly reduced today, if the West decide to end their proxy sponsorship of the violence through Sunni governments and Turkey.
Tuesday 31 July 2012
Sunday 29 July 2012
Kirsty Coventry not the only white person in Zimbabwe sport
It is astounding when some people choose to wear their ignorance on the sleeve like a badge of honour.
Yesterday some obscure never-heard-off journalist named Mark O'Toole penned an article in which he claimed our beloved Kirsty Coventry was the only unifying force in Zimbabwe. He of the Toole never bothers to make it clear why he considers Kirsty a unifying force.
I could only imagine that somewhere in the recesses of his mind, Mark had this racist idea that there was some huge divide between blacks and whites of which Kirsty was the last tendon holding things together.
That is the point where Mr O'Toole's parade of ignorance begins. He obviously has little or no knowledge of Zimbabwe's recent sporting landscape. Otherwise he would have known that Zimbabwe's current national cricket team is captained by a well loved white lad name Brendan Taylor.He might also have known that the same team has long list of white players Charles Coventry, Malcolm Waller, Craig Ervine, Sean Williams, Greg Lamb, Keegan Meth, Kyle Jarvis, Ed Rainsford, Ray Price and Graeme Cremer.
I wonder what these lads will think upon learning that they are busy tearing Zimbabwe apart and Kirsty Coventry is the only one holding things together.
Mark also mentions some of Zimbabwe's recent cricketers who fell out with the authorities after bringing political activism to the sport. I would suggest that he go and ask Peter Norman, Tommie Smith and John Carlos what happens when you make a political statement, at a sporting event, that the authorities of the day don't agree with.
Note that I am not passing judgement on Henry Olonga and Andy Flower. All I am saying is that it happens, and only time will tell on which side of history a particular act will fall. I am sure Mark O'Toole knows what judgement the passage of time has bestowed on the three participants from the 1968 Olympics in Mexico. I not saying time will pass the same judgement on the two Zimbambwe cricketers. Sometimes time does not even bother to pass a judgement, only letting things pass into the realm of the forgotten.
I am also not sure why he of the Toole, does not mention other white sports persons who were fetted by the Zimbabwe in recent years. The tennis playing Black siblings - Byron, Wayne and Cara - come to mind.
Yes I will agree that Kirsty brings some very positive news for herself and for her country, Zimbabwe. It seems Mark made a very concious effort to be negative about Zimbabwe even when the situation that presented itself was positive.
Such an overly negative drive by some journalists, is part of the problem in Zimbabwe.
Yesterday some obscure never-heard-off journalist named Mark O'Toole penned an article in which he claimed our beloved Kirsty Coventry was the only unifying force in Zimbabwe. He of the Toole never bothers to make it clear why he considers Kirsty a unifying force.
I could only imagine that somewhere in the recesses of his mind, Mark had this racist idea that there was some huge divide between blacks and whites of which Kirsty was the last tendon holding things together.
That is the point where Mr O'Toole's parade of ignorance begins. He obviously has little or no knowledge of Zimbabwe's recent sporting landscape. Otherwise he would have known that Zimbabwe's current national cricket team is captained by a well loved white lad name Brendan Taylor.He might also have known that the same team has long list of white players Charles Coventry, Malcolm Waller, Craig Ervine, Sean Williams, Greg Lamb, Keegan Meth, Kyle Jarvis, Ed Rainsford, Ray Price and Graeme Cremer.
I wonder what these lads will think upon learning that they are busy tearing Zimbabwe apart and Kirsty Coventry is the only one holding things together.
Mark also mentions some of Zimbabwe's recent cricketers who fell out with the authorities after bringing political activism to the sport. I would suggest that he go and ask Peter Norman, Tommie Smith and John Carlos what happens when you make a political statement, at a sporting event, that the authorities of the day don't agree with.
Note that I am not passing judgement on Henry Olonga and Andy Flower. All I am saying is that it happens, and only time will tell on which side of history a particular act will fall. I am sure Mark O'Toole knows what judgement the passage of time has bestowed on the three participants from the 1968 Olympics in Mexico. I not saying time will pass the same judgement on the two Zimbambwe cricketers. Sometimes time does not even bother to pass a judgement, only letting things pass into the realm of the forgotten.
I am also not sure why he of the Toole, does not mention other white sports persons who were fetted by the Zimbabwe in recent years. The tennis playing Black siblings - Byron, Wayne and Cara - come to mind.
Yes I will agree that Kirsty brings some very positive news for herself and for her country, Zimbabwe. It seems Mark made a very concious effort to be negative about Zimbabwe even when the situation that presented itself was positive.
Such an overly negative drive by some journalists, is part of the problem in Zimbabwe.
Friday 20 July 2012
Foreign travel cost outstrips service delivery
Recently I posted, on this blog, my reasons why I believe that the EU should extend travel sanctions to ALL of Zimbabwe's politicians.
According to Zimbabwe's finance minister, the travel bill far outstrips service delivery bills from health and education ministries. Now that we have it from the horse's mouth I hope people will understand how serious the problem is.
This amount is enough to give each of Zimbabwe's 235 000 civil servants a salary raise of $50 a month for 12 months. Alternatively the money is enough to invest about $3 million in each of Zimbabwe's districts, improving roads, schools, health services and fighting crime (the scourge of stock-theft has nearly wiped out some rural livelihoods)
Remember this is only the cost of travel. There are other numerous unnecessary cost imposed on us by our bloated executive, filled by people with the 'let me eat with my friends' mentality.
Zimbabwe is not a poor country. However us ordinary people can only benefit from her wealth, if it is utilized responsibly by those we elect into power.
Using $157 million for lackadaisical sojourns to foreign lands is the furthest thing for responsible use of our abundant resources.
|
=========================
http://www.newzimbabwe.com/news-8539-Foreign+travel+bill+tops+US$157+million/news.aspx
| Foreign travel bill tops US$157 million | ||||||||
Biti revealed the cost of the government's globe-trotting as he presented a mid-term fiscal review to Parliament that downgraded growth prospects for the economy and included spending cuts of up to 10 per cent as well as a jump in tax rates. He said a major factor in the government’s budget going off the rails was the cost of foreign travel with officials spending more than $157 million on international trips since 2009. "Another elephant in the living room is foreign travel. This is an area where we have to take action,” he said and admitted that the benefits of the foreign trips did not match their cost. Biti said spending on foreign travel outstripped the non-wage budget allocations for essential ministries like health and education. "Expenditures on foreign travel remain disproportionate to expenditures on more essential services such as health, education, social protection, infrastructure development and support to agriculture,” he said. Over the six months between January and June this year, the government used US$20 million on foreign travel while spending on education and health not related to salaries for state workers was just over US$5 million and about US$13 million respectively. “While it is necessary that Zimbabwe is represented at regional and international events, essential services will have to take priority, while foreign trips will need to be further managed downwards,” Biti said. “I, therefore, re-emphasise the importance of containing the foreign travel expenditures within allocations in line with measures announced in the 2012 National Budget, which include managing foreign trips, limiting the size of delegations and adhering to Treasury per diem rates. “(However I would like to) acknowledge the support from the Principals and further count on their assistance in this area. Measures are also being considered towards containment of costs of airfares, including forward purchase of air tickets.” |
Thursday 19 July 2012
No Mr Hain, not your kind of sanctions
Just a week ago I was busy calling for EU travel sanctions to be extended to all of Zimbabwe's ministers. My reasoning was simple, try to curb government expenditure on travels in order to save more money for services.
Barely a week later a British minister is calling for more sanctions but not of the kind I envisaged. Peter Hain wants to place international companies that do business with Zimbabwe under sanctions. The last thing we Zimbabwean people need is for such threats to investors to be bandied about with such abandon.
These sanctions have the express aim of hindering Zimbabwe's economic activities on the global market and have absolutely no value except to throw as much spanners as the British can into the works of Zimbabwe's economy.
It seems the British aim is to curb Zimbabwe's growing independence of their neo-colonial economic establishment. When British companies were busy looting Zimbabwe, they were facilitating their being listed on such international bourses as the London Stock Exchange.
Of course we know very, very well about the kith and kin factor in British mentality when comes to our rights as Zimbabweans. We witnessed it during Ian Smith's unilateral declaration of independence (UDI). It seems that kith and kin factor is still at play today - if any companies are going to benefit from looting Zimbabwe let it be British kith and kin, that seems to be their thinking.
Why hasn't Peter Hain proposed sanctions on Barclays Bank and Standard Chartered Bank which are the two biggest banks propping up the Zanu-PF run Zimbabwean economy. What about other Western linked companies such as Anglo American, Zimplats, Rio Tinto, Murowa Diamonds, etc which are major players in the Zimbabwe economy. They do pay taxes and royalties some of which find their way to the defense forces don't they? Unless of course Peter Hain has been secretly advising them to evade Zimbabwean taxes.
Even a bat, with all its blindness, can see that the sanctions being proposed by him have got absolutely nothing to do with upholding the rights of Zimbabweans. Rather they are more about putting as many obstacles as possible in the path of challengers to Western domination of the Zimbabwean economy.
Of course they know they cannot stop the process of economic de-colonisation but they obviously want to go out kicking and screaming as much as they can.
The wisdom that, for the long term, it would be better to cooperate and help mitigate against the oppression of the past is lost to them.
My opinion has got nothing to do with taking sides in Zimbabwe politics. All our politicians are crooks, cheats and embezzlers as far as I am concerned. They are going into politics not to provide services to us and uphold our rights, but rather to get rich as quickly as they can.
Our politicians by themselves, have done a lot of damage to Zimbabwe as it is. But then you do not burn down your entire village because you don't like the headman. Where will you and your on family live if the village is gone.
I will never agree to measures that destroy Zimbabwe, while purporting to be targeting Mugabe. You do not burn down the granary to get rid of the rats. We do not want to rebuild Zimbabwe from scratch after Mugabe is gone. We want to have a country fully functioning, including having a strong defense force.
We do not want a Libya scenario. With NATO help, the Libyans destroyed law and order because they didn't like Gadhafi. Aren't they being run by lawless militias now?
Barely a week later a British minister is calling for more sanctions but not of the kind I envisaged. Peter Hain wants to place international companies that do business with Zimbabwe under sanctions. The last thing we Zimbabwean people need is for such threats to investors to be bandied about with such abandon.
These sanctions have the express aim of hindering Zimbabwe's economic activities on the global market and have absolutely no value except to throw as much spanners as the British can into the works of Zimbabwe's economy.
It seems the British aim is to curb Zimbabwe's growing independence of their neo-colonial economic establishment. When British companies were busy looting Zimbabwe, they were facilitating their being listed on such international bourses as the London Stock Exchange.
Of course we know very, very well about the kith and kin factor in British mentality when comes to our rights as Zimbabweans. We witnessed it during Ian Smith's unilateral declaration of independence (UDI). It seems that kith and kin factor is still at play today - if any companies are going to benefit from looting Zimbabwe let it be British kith and kin, that seems to be their thinking.
Why hasn't Peter Hain proposed sanctions on Barclays Bank and Standard Chartered Bank which are the two biggest banks propping up the Zanu-PF run Zimbabwean economy. What about other Western linked companies such as Anglo American, Zimplats, Rio Tinto, Murowa Diamonds, etc which are major players in the Zimbabwe economy. They do pay taxes and royalties some of which find their way to the defense forces don't they? Unless of course Peter Hain has been secretly advising them to evade Zimbabwean taxes.
Even a bat, with all its blindness, can see that the sanctions being proposed by him have got absolutely nothing to do with upholding the rights of Zimbabweans. Rather they are more about putting as many obstacles as possible in the path of challengers to Western domination of the Zimbabwean economy.
Of course they know they cannot stop the process of economic de-colonisation but they obviously want to go out kicking and screaming as much as they can.
The wisdom that, for the long term, it would be better to cooperate and help mitigate against the oppression of the past is lost to them.
My opinion has got nothing to do with taking sides in Zimbabwe politics. All our politicians are crooks, cheats and embezzlers as far as I am concerned. They are going into politics not to provide services to us and uphold our rights, but rather to get rich as quickly as they can.
Our politicians by themselves, have done a lot of damage to Zimbabwe as it is. But then you do not burn down your entire village because you don't like the headman. Where will you and your on family live if the village is gone.
I will never agree to measures that destroy Zimbabwe, while purporting to be targeting Mugabe. You do not burn down the granary to get rid of the rats. We do not want to rebuild Zimbabwe from scratch after Mugabe is gone. We want to have a country fully functioning, including having a strong defense force.
We do not want a Libya scenario. With NATO help, the Libyans destroyed law and order because they didn't like Gadhafi. Aren't they being run by lawless militias now?
Wednesday 18 July 2012
The tribal undertones to the Malema saga
South Africa is made up of two major ethnic groups.
Sotho, Tswana and Pedi (also referred to as Northern Sotho) are closely related tribes of South Africa with the languages being mutually intelligible, almost like Shona dialects.
The Zulu, Xhosa, Swazi and Ndebele are the Nguni based languages also mutually intellible.
The Sotho mainly occupy the Free State province, the Tswana are in the North West (bordering Botswana) and the Pedi are in Limpopo centred around Polokwane.
The Xhosa are Eastern Cape, the Zulu in kwaZulu-Natal (as if that needs an explanation), the Swazi and Ndebele in Mpumalanga.
The Venda and Shangaani (Tsonga) are relatively small groups who many South Africans associate with Zimbabweans and Mozambicans anyway. They are unlikely to have much of a decisive impact on the South African political landscape.
Julius Malema a Pedi is backing Kgalema Motlante said to be a Tswana with roots in the North West, born in Alexandra and brought up in Johannesburg, for President. He is also loudly backing Fikile Mbalula from the Free State (Sotho) for post of secretary general.
On the other side current Secretary General is Gwede Mantashe a Xhosa allied to Jacob Zuma a Zulu.
In short the ANC leadership battle is largely split along Sotho-Nguni lines. The ANC top six are reportedly split in half themselves.
From talking to my fellow workers here I gather that there is little love lost for Zulu's as they are perceived to have been used by the dying apartheid regime in the early 90s (the so called Third Force) to butcher their fellow blacks in a bid to weaken the ANC.
Until the election of Zuma, Zulus almost always backed their tribal based Inkatha Freedom Party. Whites backed their own tribal party the Democratic Alliance. The ANC was for everyone else. It looks like the ANC took a conscious decision to bring in Jacob Zuma to try attract Zulus. They succeeded, kwaZulu-Natal is now the ANC biggest province. It remains to be seen whether the trend will extend beyond Zuma's tenure.
Until the ANC made the decision to appoint Zuma, many people thought that no Zulu would lead SA because of the 1990s Third Force killings. While the appointment of Zuma (SA Presidents are appointed by a majority in Parliament not directly elected) seems to have brought in the Zulus from the cold, it seems they are drifting together with the Xhosas and other Nguni speaking tribes.
The first two Presidents of South Africa, Mandela and Mbeki were Xhosas. Particularly during Mbeki's later years, there were already muffled grumbles about Xhosas 'taking all the power for themselves'. Apparently the push for Motlante is driven by the feeling that it is now time for a non-Nguni after 20 years of Nguni leadership.
It looks like the ANC is headed to be split along ethnic lines over the Malema issue. The ANC structures in Limpopo and Mpumalanga have signaled that they are backing the Malema camp. He addressed an ANC Women's League meeting in Polokwane where he was referred to as 'our son' who 'will remain with us throughout' indicating that Malema is going nowhere.
To me it looks like Zuma's personal battle for survival might just exacerbate the tribal fault lines in South African society.
It may not have been wise for Zuma to pull out all the stops in his battle to silence Malema, even though he is doing it to try and ensure a second term for himself, not for tribal reasons. He also does not seem to have statesman like magnanimity and stoicism. His mocking of Malema, and by extension his backers, by quiping "it's cold outside the ANC" is a case in point.
A man who has fallen once is the one who throws the hardest punch because he doesn't want to fall again. Zuma himself is an example of how a man throws very hard punches once he gets up from a fall. Look how he felled Mbeki.
There is also a disturbing tendency which sees those who express opposition to Zuma being descended upon by government agencies. The Limpopo government headed by a key Malema ally was taken to task by the finance ministry for practices that seem to be also common in other provinces. Malema himself is now being investigated by the tax revenue services as well as an elite police unit. To me it rings bells of Mugabe opponents being investigated by the various arms of government including the CIO.
Famed for the prowess of his loins, Zuma's marriage practices may also not be good for unifying South Africa. All his wives and the women who he is publicly known to have bedded are Zulus. How could it be possible that for a man who has spend much of his time in Gauteng where Tswana and Sotho communities are numerous, has never laid his eye on a woman from another ethnicity whom he could have fancied?
For centuries the marriage practices of leaders have been known to unify or divide communities. In African culture it was quite common to exchange brides to cement ties between kingdoms or communities. Zuma seems to be taking brides from one community only.
The era of Zuma ambitions could prove to be the most damaging for the ANC. The way he challenged for leadership against Mbeki has already seen a split in the ANC. COPE was formed precisely because Zuma/Mbeki power struggle.
The way Mbeki was recalled was widely seen to have been a deliberate humiliation. The ANC was saved from loosing support in the Xhosa heartland, Eastern Cape only by Mandela's cool head. He came out in support of the ANC which was treated as a signal by Xhosas to remain with the ANC.
Now Zuma's battle to for a second term has pitted him against a popular and very loud-mouthed youngster who many see as a proxy for a powerful faction within the ANC. The ANC are extremely lucky that the power struggle that happened in COPE, after they split away, may have dampened the appetite for another split. But they should never assume that a second split won't happen.
What there can be no doubt about is that the fate of the ANC will mirror the fate of South Africa. By dint of the fact that the ANC represents the vast majority of South Africans, it's fortunes or misfortunes will rub off onto to the country in a big way. The fact that the ANC seems headed for trouble means that South Africa is headed for trouble.
There is no chance that the DA will grow from being a largely white tribal party in time to take over from the ANC, that is if the DA will grow at all. Never mind their efforts to woo black voters by elevating a rather buxom young lady whose only notable attribute is a near-perfect English accent.
She is a member of what in Zimbabwe would be derisively referred to as the 'nose brigade', people who speak with a nasal twang in attempts to imitate European accents. South Africans are even more derisive of black people who merely mostly speak English (as I have personally discovered on many occasions) let alone with a European accent. It is considered being a show-off and pompous.
The ANC is a cross roads where they need a very skilled navigator. I don't think many people realize the significance of Mangaung as the cross roads where the ANC's, and South Africa's, future is going to be made or broken.
It is a conference where not only factions of the ANC are pitted against each other, but one where revenge and tolerance will also be fighting their own unannounced battle. If revenge wins, then the ANC and South Africa are headed for trouble.
Sotho, Tswana and Pedi (also referred to as Northern Sotho) are closely related tribes of South Africa with the languages being mutually intelligible, almost like Shona dialects.
The Zulu, Xhosa, Swazi and Ndebele are the Nguni based languages also mutually intellible.
The Sotho mainly occupy the Free State province, the Tswana are in the North West (bordering Botswana) and the Pedi are in Limpopo centred around Polokwane.
The Xhosa are Eastern Cape, the Zulu in kwaZulu-Natal (as if that needs an explanation), the Swazi and Ndebele in Mpumalanga.
The Venda and Shangaani (Tsonga) are relatively small groups who many South Africans associate with Zimbabweans and Mozambicans anyway. They are unlikely to have much of a decisive impact on the South African political landscape.
Julius Malema a Pedi is backing Kgalema Motlante said to be a Tswana with roots in the North West, born in Alexandra and brought up in Johannesburg, for President. He is also loudly backing Fikile Mbalula from the Free State (Sotho) for post of secretary general.
On the other side current Secretary General is Gwede Mantashe a Xhosa allied to Jacob Zuma a Zulu.
In short the ANC leadership battle is largely split along Sotho-Nguni lines. The ANC top six are reportedly split in half themselves.
From talking to my fellow workers here I gather that there is little love lost for Zulu's as they are perceived to have been used by the dying apartheid regime in the early 90s (the so called Third Force) to butcher their fellow blacks in a bid to weaken the ANC.
Until the election of Zuma, Zulus almost always backed their tribal based Inkatha Freedom Party. Whites backed their own tribal party the Democratic Alliance. The ANC was for everyone else. It looks like the ANC took a conscious decision to bring in Jacob Zuma to try attract Zulus. They succeeded, kwaZulu-Natal is now the ANC biggest province. It remains to be seen whether the trend will extend beyond Zuma's tenure.
Until the ANC made the decision to appoint Zuma, many people thought that no Zulu would lead SA because of the 1990s Third Force killings. While the appointment of Zuma (SA Presidents are appointed by a majority in Parliament not directly elected) seems to have brought in the Zulus from the cold, it seems they are drifting together with the Xhosas and other Nguni speaking tribes.
The first two Presidents of South Africa, Mandela and Mbeki were Xhosas. Particularly during Mbeki's later years, there were already muffled grumbles about Xhosas 'taking all the power for themselves'. Apparently the push for Motlante is driven by the feeling that it is now time for a non-Nguni after 20 years of Nguni leadership.
It looks like the ANC is headed to be split along ethnic lines over the Malema issue. The ANC structures in Limpopo and Mpumalanga have signaled that they are backing the Malema camp. He addressed an ANC Women's League meeting in Polokwane where he was referred to as 'our son' who 'will remain with us throughout' indicating that Malema is going nowhere.
To me it looks like Zuma's personal battle for survival might just exacerbate the tribal fault lines in South African society.
It may not have been wise for Zuma to pull out all the stops in his battle to silence Malema, even though he is doing it to try and ensure a second term for himself, not for tribal reasons. He also does not seem to have statesman like magnanimity and stoicism. His mocking of Malema, and by extension his backers, by quiping "it's cold outside the ANC" is a case in point.
A man who has fallen once is the one who throws the hardest punch because he doesn't want to fall again. Zuma himself is an example of how a man throws very hard punches once he gets up from a fall. Look how he felled Mbeki.
There is also a disturbing tendency which sees those who express opposition to Zuma being descended upon by government agencies. The Limpopo government headed by a key Malema ally was taken to task by the finance ministry for practices that seem to be also common in other provinces. Malema himself is now being investigated by the tax revenue services as well as an elite police unit. To me it rings bells of Mugabe opponents being investigated by the various arms of government including the CIO.
Famed for the prowess of his loins, Zuma's marriage practices may also not be good for unifying South Africa. All his wives and the women who he is publicly known to have bedded are Zulus. How could it be possible that for a man who has spend much of his time in Gauteng where Tswana and Sotho communities are numerous, has never laid his eye on a woman from another ethnicity whom he could have fancied?
For centuries the marriage practices of leaders have been known to unify or divide communities. In African culture it was quite common to exchange brides to cement ties between kingdoms or communities. Zuma seems to be taking brides from one community only.
The era of Zuma ambitions could prove to be the most damaging for the ANC. The way he challenged for leadership against Mbeki has already seen a split in the ANC. COPE was formed precisely because Zuma/Mbeki power struggle.
The way Mbeki was recalled was widely seen to have been a deliberate humiliation. The ANC was saved from loosing support in the Xhosa heartland, Eastern Cape only by Mandela's cool head. He came out in support of the ANC which was treated as a signal by Xhosas to remain with the ANC.
Now Zuma's battle to for a second term has pitted him against a popular and very loud-mouthed youngster who many see as a proxy for a powerful faction within the ANC. The ANC are extremely lucky that the power struggle that happened in COPE, after they split away, may have dampened the appetite for another split. But they should never assume that a second split won't happen.
What there can be no doubt about is that the fate of the ANC will mirror the fate of South Africa. By dint of the fact that the ANC represents the vast majority of South Africans, it's fortunes or misfortunes will rub off onto to the country in a big way. The fact that the ANC seems headed for trouble means that South Africa is headed for trouble.
There is no chance that the DA will grow from being a largely white tribal party in time to take over from the ANC, that is if the DA will grow at all. Never mind their efforts to woo black voters by elevating a rather buxom young lady whose only notable attribute is a near-perfect English accent.
She is a member of what in Zimbabwe would be derisively referred to as the 'nose brigade', people who speak with a nasal twang in attempts to imitate European accents. South Africans are even more derisive of black people who merely mostly speak English (as I have personally discovered on many occasions) let alone with a European accent. It is considered being a show-off and pompous.
The ANC is a cross roads where they need a very skilled navigator. I don't think many people realize the significance of Mangaung as the cross roads where the ANC's, and South Africa's, future is going to be made or broken.
It is a conference where not only factions of the ANC are pitted against each other, but one where revenge and tolerance will also be fighting their own unannounced battle. If revenge wins, then the ANC and South Africa are headed for trouble.
Saturday 14 July 2012
The EU should extend travel sanctions on Zimbabwe politicians
Ever since their inception I have been against the so called targeted sanctions against Zanu-PF officials. I have made my reasons clear why I think they are far from targeted. For example they have achieved the almost total eradication of aid to Zimbabwe except for token aid meant to maintain the façade that they are targeted.
When it was announced that the EU was reviewing them with the possibility that they would be completely removed, should therefore have been good news to me.
Then it suddenly occured to me that all of the 70+ public funds leeches that I have been complaining about ever-since the day their agreement to share seats on the gravy train was announced are going to be free to travel to Europe (including the famed Ingirendi) using money that is meant to provide services for me and other ordinary Zimbabweans.
You can be guaranteed that they will take along with them huge entourages encompassing wives, relatives (vazukuru unlimited), casual forgotten liaisons (Loreta Nyathi style), casual intimate girlfriends (Jonathan Kadzura style), instantly divorced wives and all other sorts of hangers on (leeches leeched upon leeches). Kitchen cabinets, bedroom cabinets, war cabinets and even chiverevere naye kumatanga (kraal) cabinets will all have opportunities to catch a free ride once in a while.
All that travel is going to by financed (by hook and crook if necessary) from public coffers meant to provide services to us poor Zimbabweans who have been reduced to taking each other to clinics in wheelbarrows. What does that mean to us. The cake is not growing bigger. So it obviously means less services to us.
No the EU must not lift any more travel sanctions. It must extend them to all politicians including the MDC ones in order to help us minimize the misuse of public money. And this time they better make them really targeted.
When it was announced that the EU was reviewing them with the possibility that they would be completely removed, should therefore have been good news to me.
Then it suddenly occured to me that all of the 70+ public funds leeches that I have been complaining about ever-since the day their agreement to share seats on the gravy train was announced are going to be free to travel to Europe (including the famed Ingirendi) using money that is meant to provide services for me and other ordinary Zimbabweans.
You can be guaranteed that they will take along with them huge entourages encompassing wives, relatives (vazukuru unlimited), casual forgotten liaisons (Loreta Nyathi style), casual intimate girlfriends (Jonathan Kadzura style), instantly divorced wives and all other sorts of hangers on (leeches leeched upon leeches). Kitchen cabinets, bedroom cabinets, war cabinets and even chiverevere naye kumatanga (kraal) cabinets will all have opportunities to catch a free ride once in a while.
All that travel is going to by financed (by hook and crook if necessary) from public coffers meant to provide services to us poor Zimbabweans who have been reduced to taking each other to clinics in wheelbarrows. What does that mean to us. The cake is not growing bigger. So it obviously means less services to us.
No the EU must not lift any more travel sanctions. It must extend them to all politicians including the MDC ones in order to help us minimize the misuse of public money. And this time they better make them really targeted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)