THE state-run Chronicle newspaper ran a story under the headline: “Studio 7 linked to NUST demo,” suggesting that the Voice if America hosted radio station paid students to destroy property during a demonstration at the Bulawayo campus on Wednesday. The state newspaper, dare I say, is plumbing the depths of incredulity on this one. It’s just like saying that aliens have landed in Lobengula Street. (The full Chronicle article is republished below if not just for its entertainment value.)
One is reminded of a story the paper ran on 22 April 2002 claiming that the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) was planning to bomb landmark buildings in Bulawayo. The veracity of that story was subject to an embarrassing retraction late last year, a sad legacy of the demented brand of journalism nurtured by former Government spin doctor Jonathan Moyo at Zimpapers.
The story has all the hallmarks of having been being cooked then planted. The reason is open to speculation. The main issue here is of a newspaper that insults our intelligence with such kind of hogwash. Let us look at the demerits of the story. For one, none of the quoted sources are identified by name. Based as it is on mere speculation without a semblance of verification, the story should not have seen the light of day. Unless of course, the hand of the editor was forced.
The ‘Studio 7 employees based in the city’ are not identified either. Who are they? Shouldn’t they be arrested? Can we really expect Brian Chitembwe to follow up on his story? For a paper whose reputation for investigative journalism borders from zero to none, I wouldn’t place my bets on it. The paper also implies that students at NUST are so dumb that they have to be influenced by 'outside forces' for them to act on issues of their welfare. Such a claim can only be used to raise the stakes so as to justify the high-handedness with which the demo was suppressed by internal security.
While the destruction of property should be roundly condemned, the circumstances that led to that unfortunate incident should be a matter requiring full investigation. One cannot rule out provocation or the mishandling of an otherwise routine event on the University’s calendar. Demonstrations at NUST are an annual ritual and students usually disperse peacefully after being addressed by the authorities. This time around, they were denied that opportunity for reasons that are yet to be revealed.
An independent inquiry should examine all aspects if not to allay any fears or suspicions among those involved. That includes the claim that most of those arrested were ‘soft targets,’ minding their own business when caught up in the melee. Or claims that are yet to be substantiated, that students were merely a Trojan horse for militant colleagues who came in from the University of Zimbabwe in Harare to foment trouble. Such an inquiry would also emphasise the need for a comprehensive crisis plan for the university.
And to claim that a nameless opposition party could also have been behind the disturbances! Come on! We have heard that one played before and is so out of tune. That story was certainly not headline material if you ask me. In fact, it should not have been published at all. Those assertions are baseless until verified and substantiated. You can not take hearsay and publish it as authentic testimony. Any journalist with elementary training should tell you that.
Dr Thomas Muller, a British physician got it right when he said, “Get the facts, or the facts will get you. And when you get them, get them right, or they will get you wrong.” But then who at the Chronicle is listening? Your guess is just as good as mine.
And now, the story...
Studio 7 linked to NUST demo
By Brian Chitemba (The Chronicle 17 February 2006)
A pirate radio station, Studio 7 allegedly paid National University of Science and Technology students to stage violent demonstrations at the campus on Wednesday, Chronicle has learnt.
Sources at the university told this newspaper yesterday that Studio 7 employees based in the city held a meeting with the students on Wednesday morning.During the meeting they allegedly bought beer and gave money to some of the students so that they could lead the protests.
A source said the students were urged to cause unrest in order for the anti-Government pirate radio station to discredit the State in its bulletins.
Following the meeting, the students went on a rampage and destroyed property worth billions of dollars at the administration block on the pretext that they were not happy with the increase of fees from $3 million to between $30 million and $90 million.
“According to our investigations, the students were paid to destroy property at the institution. The students were used by anti-Government elements bent on tarnishing the image of the country,” said the source.
“The students held a meeting on Wednesday between 10 am and 11am and from the hall they stormed the administration block demanding to be addressed by the Vice-Chancellor Professor Lindela Ndlovu. The meeting had been called to discuss the issue of fees hikes. What’s disturbing is that some of the students were quoted by Studio 7 on Wednesday night saying negative things about the Government.”
The source said investigations also revealed an opposition party had a hand in the demonstrations.“We are still gathering information but we believe a certain opposition party might have played a big role in mobilising the students to be rowdy,” he said.
The source said the students had no reason to protest because the university had not sent them home for failing to pay fees.
Convoluted utter rubbish or what? You tell me.
Friday, February 17, 2006
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Tanzania bans the Mini. Are we next?
THE old geezers in Tanzania have banned the mini skirt. It had to come sometime. They claim that the very liberal fashion item causes of AIDS. Really? While I won’t go into the temerity or otherwise of that argument, may I be allowed to pause to think deeply over the dire ramification the move will be to the entire male species. Coming as it does on the eve of Valentine’s Day was in extreme bad taste to say the least.Now let me get this straight. All those years ago the loin cloth was just about the only thing that separated women (and men) from being lashed for indecent exposure. Ogling wasn't even an issue until the missionaries ambled over with their sweet talk about morals and civilisation. Talk about double standards. They even had problems convincing the locals that they were half naked...or is it half dressed?
What really seems to be the problem? Some nerd hypothesised the link between rape and the wearing of mini-skirts. I will be the first to admit that there are perverts prowling the streets who are turned into raving sex maniacs at the slightest sight of thigh. No, not chicken thigh stupid! My beef is on why they have punish the rest of us just because some demented misfits fail to contain their wild urges? But to link the mini to the spread of HIV really takes the cake.
Mini-skirts may admittedly pose a traffic hazard. Then the road safety chaps have to quantify the number of car accidents that are the direct result of drivers being distracted by women wearing minis. That, I am sad to say, is yet to happen. I have read somewhere that there are women who try to influence the outcome of their driving tests by wearing skimpies. Well, the silence from the direction of the Driving Instructors and Inspectors Association on this allegation is certainly deafening. This assumes that there is a propensity among males to stop thinking rationally at the sight of an exposed part of the female anatomy. Really!
The billion Zimbabwe dollar question is; why do ladies choose to wear minis? To show more leg of course! Interestingly enough they still go through all those motions of trying to pull the miniscule item clothing back over their exposed legs, creating more attention in the process. Its all part of the act if you ask me. Ask the feminists and they will tell you that they are exercising one of their basic freedoms – the freedom of expression; the freedom to expose themselves! Which explains why the old men of Tanzania are so worked up. Its not anyone's fault that they are over the hill. Try Viagra, for God's sake!
Not that I mind at all. I have to endure many a elbow in the ribcage as I take too long a glance at a perfect specimen...in the company of the wife. In our language there is a saying; A brave warrior dies in the thick of the battle! Count me among the war veterans. My eyes refuse to follow clear instructions every time. Like every hot blooded male, I have to admit that they do make the environment look more interesting in a manner of speaking. They add a bit of – eh – ouch! More colour!
Today’s woman is daring enough to take the risk in the name of fashion. Pity they now have to contend with Mother Grundy in Tanzania. In Zimbabwe, we await the inevitable with a sore heart (and ribs) indeed.
Friday, February 10, 2006
"The Wheels have certainly come off!"
Latest media reports (Friday 10 February 2006) indicate that President Thabo Mbeki's patience with Zimbabwe have surely run thin. In an interview with the SABC last Sunday, Mbeki showed a degree of impatience with events north of the border with South Africa and even went on to hint that the power outages and the reported directive to SA oil companies to cut supplies to Harare were "certainly part of that pressure, but more by the law of unintended consequences than hard design."
"If this (the shortages) illustrates the extent of their reliance on South Africa, then it is all good and well," Mbeki is quoted as saying quite omniously for the Mugabe regime.
For long, many Zimbabweans and South Africans have criticised the South African president's so-called "quiet diplomacy." Among them, former Zimbabwe information guru turned opposition MP, Jonathan Moyo waded into the fray fresh from his ignominious fall from the Zanu PF gravy train. Here I republish that article written last year coutersy of Trevor Ncube's Mail and Guardian. I advise that you also read my earlier article, "Lest We Forget..." to give a bit of context as to where Jonathan Moyo is coming from.
What is Thabo Mbeki trying to achieve?
By Jonathan Moyo Mail and Guardian ©2005
11 August 2005
President Thabo Mbeki and his government are desperately trying to limit public embarrassment over the widely publicised political conditions they have reportedly attached to an emergency bail-out for President Robert Mugabe. They should have followed the diplomatic principle enunciated by classical Greek dramatist Euripides - that a foreign ally need not own the land it seeks to help.
In fairness, there is no evidence that Mbeki wants to own Zimbabwe. But there are many indications that he wants to own the solution to the Zimbabwean crisis.
Mbeki's so-called "quiet diplomacy" has now become a very loud affair. For the first time his efforts to broker a solution to the Zimbabwean quagmire are at risk of irretrievably crumbling, with far--reaching consequences for South Africa's capacity to influence regional and continental affairs. It seems Mugabe has once more outfoxed Mbeki in a high-stakes diplomatic standoff over the resolution of the crisis that has dogged the latter's presidency since 1999.
Through his outburst earlier this week against South African calls for him to open new dialogue with the opposition, the Zimbabwean president has opportunistically put himself in a win-win position over the loan debacle. Either his beleaguered Zanu-PF government will ultimately get the loan sought from South Africa, with the usual financial securities but without the reported political conditions attached to it, or South Africa will not grant the loan because of Mugabe's rejection of the political conditions. In the latter case, Mbeki will be exposed as a duplicitous Machiavellian who conveniently waves the pan-African solidarity flag while using methods that smack of imperialism against a desperate neighbour and comrade in need.
The way the political conditionality was reported in the South African media over the weekend did not help Mbeki. There was an authoritative ring to the coverage that the South African government had given Mugabe and Zanu-PF a week to sign up to a series of tough reforms that included talking to the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), adopting a new constitution with the agreement of the MDC, repealing media and security laws, undoing the negative consequences of the recent land reform programme and holding fresh elections. Clearly, the reports had been planted or leaked by government sources.
In diplomacy, whether quiet or loud, parties committed to the attainment of well-defined objectives in sensitive negotiations do not leak or plant media reports before agreement has been reached.
To do so guarantees the collapse of negotiations. Mugabe's outburst against the reported political conditionality could have been avoided by keeping the tricky aspects of the horse-trading under wraps until the necessary signatures were appended.
Why, then, did the leaks happen? Perhaps those responsible were mischievous elements in, or associated with, the South African government, who did not want the loan deal successfully concluded from the outset. The leak could also have come from the International Monetary Fund, or even Zimbabwean government officials who wanted to ensure that the deal went nowhere because they are profiting from the crisis.
From the outset, the Zimbabwean government's position was that any loan would be a purely financial transaction with the usual guarantees and securities put up by the central banks and treasuries of the two nations, without a political trade-off.
Two recent statements by Mbeki must have reinforced Mugabe's belief that South Africa was on his side and would not try to force political concessions from him. In one case, he said the Zimbabwean government had not undertaken a meaningful land reform programme in the 1980s and early 1990s because African states, through Tanzania's Mwalimu Nyerere, persuaded Mugabe not to scare South African whites before the end of apartheid and the attainment of democracy in South Africa.
As Mugabe has said this all along, this must have been music to his ears.
On another occasion, Mbeki said the debt owed by Zimbabwe was legitimate and had nothing to do with corruption. Debt had started accumulating soon after independence in 1980 when the Zimbabwe government embarked on education and health reforms to redress racial imbalances.
If Mbeki understood these two fundamental issues, Mugabe reasoned, he would be the last to turn a straightforward loan request into a diplomatic trap using the political conditions all Third World countries detest. This is why in his outburst this week, Mugabe referred to Mbeki and the ANC government as "those we expected to know better".
Mbeki's diplomatic initiative to resolve the Zimbabwean political and economic crisis has been conspicuous by its lack of clear and well-defined objectives that can be measured in determining the initiative's failure or success.
What exactly does he want to achieve? What are the objectives of "quiet diplomacy"? Is he trying to bring the MDC to power, to keep Zanu-PF in power, or get Zanu-PF and the MDC to form a coalition government, or what?
"Getting Zimbabweans to resolve their own problems by talking to each other" is not an objective worthy of a diplomatic onslaught. You can get Zimbabweans to talk to each other without agreeing on anything until the cows come home. You can also get Zanu-PF and the MDC to agree to a coalition government where a few MDC leaders become ministers or deputy ministers. This, too, would not lead to any changes in Zimbabwe's national governance or policies, except that MDC ministers would effectively become Zanu-PF.
Some Zanu-PF old-guard elements, supported by some MDC leaders, want Mugabe arm-twisted into accepting the reported political conditions, with a reform time-table that would involve him retiring in 2008 and scrapping presidential elections due then in order to hold them together with parliamentary elections in 2010. At that stage, a new constitution agreed between Zanu-PF and the MDC would come into effect, while 2008 to 2010 would be a transitional period presided over by Joyce Mujuru as caretaker president and Zanu-PF's presidential candidate in 2010.
This too would not resolve the ongoing crisis in terms of the objectionable policies that are bleeding Zimbabwe.
If Mbeki's quiet diplomacy seeks any of the above, the contradictions exposed by the loan debacle are certain to be its graveyard. This is because the Zimbabwean crisis has become wider and deeper than Mbeki's noisy quiet diplomacy can deal with. Zimbabweans have lost all hope not just in Mugabe and Zanu-PF, but also in Morgan Tsvangirai and the MDC. They are looking for an ideological and policy alternative to ensure that Zimbabwe will never again be a colony, never again be a tyranny and never again be a basket case.
Jonathan Moyo is a Zimbabwean MP and Robert Mugabe's former information chief
Moyo: That was then ...
"There is no food crisis in Zimbabwe. There is no food crisis in Bulawayo." -- September 22 2004
"Where the army is deployed, people should not expect a picnic." -- On the deployment of the army against civilians, April 11 2003
"Mercenaries of any kind, whether carrying the sword or the pen, must and will be exposed, and they will suffer the full consequences of the law." -- March 11 2004
"Next time you send us a letter, we will put it in the dustbin and we have concluded that you do not deserve to be taken seriously." -- In a reply to a letter of complaint by Reporters Sans Frontires after the arrest of journalists in Zimbabwe, April 17 2002
"It is absolutely unreasonable to suggest that because we have undertaken to curb violence that there should be no single person throwing a stone in Zimbabwe. We're talking about Zimbabwe, not heaven." -- On pre-election violence, March 3 2002
"Thomas Jefferson said it was better to have newspapers without government. He was very, very wrong. It is far better to have government without newspapers." -- February 1 2002
"If the apartheid press expects us to treat them with kid gloves and allow them to roam around our country, then they don't understand where they are." -- On the South African media, December 19 2001
"When a political party has no loyalty, then it should not expect to be treated fairly." -- On denying media access to the opposition MDC, October 4 2004
"It is clear to anyone who can read the writing on the wall that Zanu-PF is the future." -- July 31 2001
"An article is not a bible where you have written the truth once and for all and for all time, and the environment is frozen. One has to look at the context." -- On his metamorphosis from critic to Mugabe apologist, March 1 2001
"A passport is a privilege and not a right." -- On the withdrawal of passports of government critics, February 16 2001
"If this (the shortages) illustrates the extent of their reliance on South Africa, then it is all good and well," Mbeki is quoted as saying quite omniously for the Mugabe regime.
For long, many Zimbabweans and South Africans have criticised the South African president's so-called "quiet diplomacy." Among them, former Zimbabwe information guru turned opposition MP, Jonathan Moyo waded into the fray fresh from his ignominious fall from the Zanu PF gravy train. Here I republish that article written last year coutersy of Trevor Ncube's Mail and Guardian. I advise that you also read my earlier article, "Lest We Forget..." to give a bit of context as to where Jonathan Moyo is coming from.
What is Thabo Mbeki trying to achieve?
By Jonathan Moyo Mail and Guardian ©2005
11 August 2005
President Thabo Mbeki and his government are desperately trying to limit public embarrassment over the widely publicised political conditions they have reportedly attached to an emergency bail-out for President Robert Mugabe. They should have followed the diplomatic principle enunciated by classical Greek dramatist Euripides - that a foreign ally need not own the land it seeks to help.
In fairness, there is no evidence that Mbeki wants to own Zimbabwe. But there are many indications that he wants to own the solution to the Zimbabwean crisis.
Mbeki's so-called "quiet diplomacy" has now become a very loud affair. For the first time his efforts to broker a solution to the Zimbabwean quagmire are at risk of irretrievably crumbling, with far--reaching consequences for South Africa's capacity to influence regional and continental affairs. It seems Mugabe has once more outfoxed Mbeki in a high-stakes diplomatic standoff over the resolution of the crisis that has dogged the latter's presidency since 1999.
Through his outburst earlier this week against South African calls for him to open new dialogue with the opposition, the Zimbabwean president has opportunistically put himself in a win-win position over the loan debacle. Either his beleaguered Zanu-PF government will ultimately get the loan sought from South Africa, with the usual financial securities but without the reported political conditions attached to it, or South Africa will not grant the loan because of Mugabe's rejection of the political conditions. In the latter case, Mbeki will be exposed as a duplicitous Machiavellian who conveniently waves the pan-African solidarity flag while using methods that smack of imperialism against a desperate neighbour and comrade in need.
The way the political conditionality was reported in the South African media over the weekend did not help Mbeki. There was an authoritative ring to the coverage that the South African government had given Mugabe and Zanu-PF a week to sign up to a series of tough reforms that included talking to the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), adopting a new constitution with the agreement of the MDC, repealing media and security laws, undoing the negative consequences of the recent land reform programme and holding fresh elections. Clearly, the reports had been planted or leaked by government sources.
In diplomacy, whether quiet or loud, parties committed to the attainment of well-defined objectives in sensitive negotiations do not leak or plant media reports before agreement has been reached.
To do so guarantees the collapse of negotiations. Mugabe's outburst against the reported political conditionality could have been avoided by keeping the tricky aspects of the horse-trading under wraps until the necessary signatures were appended.
Why, then, did the leaks happen? Perhaps those responsible were mischievous elements in, or associated with, the South African government, who did not want the loan deal successfully concluded from the outset. The leak could also have come from the International Monetary Fund, or even Zimbabwean government officials who wanted to ensure that the deal went nowhere because they are profiting from the crisis.
From the outset, the Zimbabwean government's position was that any loan would be a purely financial transaction with the usual guarantees and securities put up by the central banks and treasuries of the two nations, without a political trade-off.
Two recent statements by Mbeki must have reinforced Mugabe's belief that South Africa was on his side and would not try to force political concessions from him. In one case, he said the Zimbabwean government had not undertaken a meaningful land reform programme in the 1980s and early 1990s because African states, through Tanzania's Mwalimu Nyerere, persuaded Mugabe not to scare South African whites before the end of apartheid and the attainment of democracy in South Africa.
As Mugabe has said this all along, this must have been music to his ears.
On another occasion, Mbeki said the debt owed by Zimbabwe was legitimate and had nothing to do with corruption. Debt had started accumulating soon after independence in 1980 when the Zimbabwe government embarked on education and health reforms to redress racial imbalances.
If Mbeki understood these two fundamental issues, Mugabe reasoned, he would be the last to turn a straightforward loan request into a diplomatic trap using the political conditions all Third World countries detest. This is why in his outburst this week, Mugabe referred to Mbeki and the ANC government as "those we expected to know better".
Mbeki's diplomatic initiative to resolve the Zimbabwean political and economic crisis has been conspicuous by its lack of clear and well-defined objectives that can be measured in determining the initiative's failure or success.
What exactly does he want to achieve? What are the objectives of "quiet diplomacy"? Is he trying to bring the MDC to power, to keep Zanu-PF in power, or get Zanu-PF and the MDC to form a coalition government, or what?
"Getting Zimbabweans to resolve their own problems by talking to each other" is not an objective worthy of a diplomatic onslaught. You can get Zimbabweans to talk to each other without agreeing on anything until the cows come home. You can also get Zanu-PF and the MDC to agree to a coalition government where a few MDC leaders become ministers or deputy ministers. This, too, would not lead to any changes in Zimbabwe's national governance or policies, except that MDC ministers would effectively become Zanu-PF.
Some Zanu-PF old-guard elements, supported by some MDC leaders, want Mugabe arm-twisted into accepting the reported political conditions, with a reform time-table that would involve him retiring in 2008 and scrapping presidential elections due then in order to hold them together with parliamentary elections in 2010. At that stage, a new constitution agreed between Zanu-PF and the MDC would come into effect, while 2008 to 2010 would be a transitional period presided over by Joyce Mujuru as caretaker president and Zanu-PF's presidential candidate in 2010.
This too would not resolve the ongoing crisis in terms of the objectionable policies that are bleeding Zimbabwe.
If Mbeki's quiet diplomacy seeks any of the above, the contradictions exposed by the loan debacle are certain to be its graveyard. This is because the Zimbabwean crisis has become wider and deeper than Mbeki's noisy quiet diplomacy can deal with. Zimbabweans have lost all hope not just in Mugabe and Zanu-PF, but also in Morgan Tsvangirai and the MDC. They are looking for an ideological and policy alternative to ensure that Zimbabwe will never again be a colony, never again be a tyranny and never again be a basket case.
Jonathan Moyo is a Zimbabwean MP and Robert Mugabe's former information chief
Moyo: That was then ...
"There is no food crisis in Zimbabwe. There is no food crisis in Bulawayo." -- September 22 2004
"Where the army is deployed, people should not expect a picnic." -- On the deployment of the army against civilians, April 11 2003
"Mercenaries of any kind, whether carrying the sword or the pen, must and will be exposed, and they will suffer the full consequences of the law." -- March 11 2004
"Next time you send us a letter, we will put it in the dustbin and we have concluded that you do not deserve to be taken seriously." -- In a reply to a letter of complaint by Reporters Sans Frontires after the arrest of journalists in Zimbabwe, April 17 2002
"It is absolutely unreasonable to suggest that because we have undertaken to curb violence that there should be no single person throwing a stone in Zimbabwe. We're talking about Zimbabwe, not heaven." -- On pre-election violence, March 3 2002
"Thomas Jefferson said it was better to have newspapers without government. He was very, very wrong. It is far better to have government without newspapers." -- February 1 2002
"If the apartheid press expects us to treat them with kid gloves and allow them to roam around our country, then they don't understand where they are." -- On the South African media, December 19 2001
"When a political party has no loyalty, then it should not expect to be treated fairly." -- On denying media access to the opposition MDC, October 4 2004
"It is clear to anyone who can read the writing on the wall that Zanu-PF is the future." -- July 31 2001
"An article is not a bible where you have written the truth once and for all and for all time, and the environment is frozen. One has to look at the context." -- On his metamorphosis from critic to Mugabe apologist, March 1 2001
"A passport is a privilege and not a right." -- On the withdrawal of passports of government critics, February 16 2001
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)