The inconvenient truths about the West and Zimbabwe


WAY FORWARD: Arthur Mutambara

•In this article, MDC leader Arthur Mutambara looks at the difficulties in implementing the September 15 GPA, the unhelpfulness of western interventions in Zimbabwe's domestic politics while interrogating existing strategies for achieving democracy in Zimbabwe:


THE year 2008 was a very difficult one for us as a nation. Since the inconclusive harmonised elections held on March 29, there has been a political impasse in our land. The country has been without a legitimate government. Our economy has virtually collapsed, while disease and starvation are ravaging our people. Hopelessness and despair characterise and define the national psyche. There has been complete leadership failure across the board, within Zimbabwe, in the region and in the international community.
As we start a new year, let us reflect on some of the major debates that are shaping our politics as we exit 2008. Of particular interest in this treatise are the uncomfortable realities and challenges that sometimes we shy away from confronting. In particular we seek to slay that elephant in the national living room: How ignorant and unstrategic external involvement in the Zimbabwean discourse does more harm than good.

We seek to argue that in the year 2008, brazen and crass Western shenanigans have actually undermined the opposition and strengthened Robert Mugabe. More importantly, it is our submission that the uninformed and reckless foreign policy positions of Western governments, in particular the US and the UK, have negatively impacted our national interest. Zimbabweans have to clearly understand this for our collective fortunes to be different in the year 2009.

The ‘Mugabe Must Go’ Chorus

As we exited 2008, in the month of December, there was a crescendo of demands for the departure of Mugabe from the political stage. There is nothing new and creative in this Mugabe must go mantra. The trouble is that many people and institutions on this track suffer from the disease of the heart being in the right place, while the mind is not being applied. One needs both a good heart and a good mind.

Some of us have been singing the Mugabe must go mantra for the past 21 years, to no avail. Incidentally, Western governments disagreed with us in 1988 when we turned against the Zanu PF regime. Now they patronise us, as if they understand why Mugabe must go, better than us, his Zimbabwean victims.

We have been fighting Mugabe for two decades, where have you been America and Europe? Why did you support Mugabe in the late 1980’s when we were opposing him? Why did you actively back him during Gukurahundi? We never heard you say ‘Mugabe must go’ during that period. Instead you gave him prestigious awards on both sides of the Atlantic.

We can understand it if your defence is that you are slow learners and late bloomers where our matters are concerned. We can accept that. But it then also means you must take your cue from us who understand the Zimbabwean terrain better. You must accept that you are essentially ignorant, unstrategic, and hence ineffective where African matters are concerned. While you seek to assist us in our struggles for change, your brazen behaviour effectively undermines us and strengthens our opponents. You must listen to us and not the other way round.

The December 2008 ‘Mugabe must go’ chorus was as pathetic as it was both unimaginative and predictable. It started with Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga, Bishop John Sentamu and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, in that order. As soon as they were done, David Milliband and Condi Rice came in to support the “many” voices of African leaders. Thereafter, it was Gordon Brown, George Bush, Sarkozy, and Merkel. Then every European leader and their grandmother joined in, supporting the “many” voices of African leaders. To crown it all, there was an incompetent dash to the UN Security Council, where everything came crumbling down: what an embarrassing non-event. Why was anyone surprised by this unmitigated failure? Was there ever a method in the madness? What was to be the logical conclusion of the chorus?

First and foremost there was no African leader who had spoken. So whom, were the Western leaders purporting to support? Soon after Odinga spoke, he was contradicted by his own Foreign Minister. This means he was not speaking on behalf of Kenya or President Kibaki. Bishop Sentamu does not speak for any African country. Well, the same for Tutu; he is a good African who speaks for no African nation. For him to be effective he should work on convincing the South African political leadership to adopt his views.

Interesting enough, even the usually reckless and unimaginative Ian Khama was not part of the African voices. So when these American and European leaders went into chorus, who were they supporting? In a continent of 53 countries, the US and UK could not convince a single African President to be part of their elegant chorus.

If the Western leaders were indeed just supporting themselves, why did they lie that they were supporting voices of African leaders? If they care about what African leaders think, why did they not spend enough time convincing the real African leaders of the correctness of Western positions and thereafter, have the African leaders speak first?

Surely if, for example, Presidents Kgalema Motlanthe, Armando Geubuza, José Eduardo dos Santos, Jakaya Kikwete and Mwai Kibaki had taken a particular collective position on Zimbabwe, and Western governments had come in to support them, there would have been some traction.

But no, the Western powers chose to create their own pseudo African leaders, and then force a world chorus. This was sure to fail. Beyond the chorus, there was no real strategy to resolve the crisis in Zimbabwe. There was no specific action that the US and the UK were going to take after the chorus. Would it not have been logical to back the slogans with both procedural plans and proper African buy-in?

It seems the rationale was that Mugabe was just going to fall off the Zimbabwe political stage because of the deafening sound of Western leaders repeating the same meaningless message. How pathetic! Well, shame on them for trivialising the legitimate struggle of our people.

The Avenues through which Mugabe Can Go

There are three ways Mugabe can be removed from the Presidency and leadership of Zimbabwe: (1) use of violence or arms of war (2) peaceful mass uprising or demonstrations (3) free and fair elections.

The use of violence to drive out Mugabe has been suggested in certain quarters. What has not been done is an interrogation of what form this will take, its meaning, consequences and the aftermath. One way a violent overthrow can be envisaged is to have American and British troops invade Zimbabwe as they did in Iraq. Of course they can get rid of Mugabe that way.

However, Western forces will have to bleed on Zimbabwean soil in the process. It will not be a walk in the park. After the US misadventure in Somalia, where American marines were slaughtered in the streets of Mogadishu, the debate in the US Senate was very instructive. The key sentiment was quite unequivocal, “That entire country of Somalia is not worth a single American life. We should never allow American lives to be lost in defence of these worthless African countries.”

That was the attitude then. Has anything changed? Jendayi Frazer, Condi Rice and George Bush, are you now ready to bleed in pursuit of African freedom and prosperity? If you are not prepared to have US marines killed in Zimbabwe, please just shut up on the issue of military intervention to remove Mugabe.

Let us assume for a minute that these Western leaders are serious players and not just careless talkers. They can then actually bring their troops into Zimbabwe and get the job done. After Mugabe is gone the Saddam way, what happens next? What has US military intervention produced in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do we have democratic outcomes in these countries? Are they peaceful, democratic and prosperous nations? Why would the Zimbabwean outcome be any different? If not, then why should this even be considered as an option?

In terms of foreign armies invading Zimbabwe, it is only Western nations that are worth analysing as we have attempted above. Only two African countries, Botswana and Kenya, have expressed an appetite for physical confrontation with Zimbabwe. We will not even dignify Botswana’s posturing with too much discussion. They have no army but an incompetent police force which has no capacity to invade a desert much less a country with Zimbabwe’s military experience. Raila Odinga does not speak for the Kenyan government, so the analysis ends there. If only he could start by convincing his own government, we will have more to say about the efficacy of his utterances.

The other version of violence that can certainly topple Mugabe is an armed struggle waged by Zimbabweans themselves in the same way that ZANLA and ZIPRA executed war against Ian Smith. How feasible and practical is this proposition at this point in time and within the geopolitical context of the SADC region? Is it even a desirable alternative for the people of Zimbabwe? We believe there are no affirmative responses to either of these questions.

The second possible method by which Mugabe can be deposed is through peaceful mass uprisings or demonstrations. Do we have the capacity as Zimbabweans to execute these? What do the gallant efforts of the NCA and WOZA teach us. How many of us join their brave marches? How many Zimbabweans joined the soldiers when they went on the rampage on the streets of Harare?

It is clear that the appetite for an ‘Orange Revolution’ in Zimbabwe has still to be developed, before a mass uprising becomes a realistic platform to drive Mugabe out. Our politicians within the opposition movement also have to be ready to assume the sacrifices that this option entails. Where political leaders go into hiding at the slightest threat of persecution, we fail to see how this option can be brought to fruition.

This leaves us with the third and only avenue for the departure of Mugabe, that is, through free and fair elections. The question then becomes how do we achieve a free and fair election in Zimbabwe? Certainly not through demanding harmonised elections today which will be conducted under June 27 conditions. Needless to say, in such a plebiscite, Mugabe will capture the Presidency and the current combined opposition majority in Parliament will be completely reversed.

Let us be strategic. Our people and country are not election ready at the moment. We need to go through a transitional period in which we resolve the humanitarian crisis afflicting our people, carry out national healing, begin economic recovery, and more importantly adopt a new people-driven democratic constitution. This is the bridge that Zimbabwe needs in its march to democracy. After that, we can then carry out free and fair elections. If Mugabe participates in those elections, he will be defeated. This is the only practical way that will lead to Mugabe’s departure.

The Global Political Agreement of September 15, 2008, seeks to facilitate such a possibility. Folks, this is as good as it gets. Unfortunately, Mugabe will have to be part of the transition, as we explain in the next section. Brown and Bush must get over their foolish, uninformed and unstrategic obsession with Mugabe going today. If they cannot explicitly articulate how they are going to remove him, they should please just back off, and allow our country to move on. We have to save Zimbabwean lives that are being lost needlessly.

Why Mugabe Cannot Go Away Through Talks

The election results from March 29, 2008, produced no outright winner both in Parliament and at the Presidency. The June 27 re-run was an illegitimate farce, so we are stuck with the March inconclusive outcome. As democrats, we must accept that this means that Mugabe and his party are as much a factor as Tsvangirai and his party are.

Short of a new set of elections or change of leadership by their parties, it means neither Tsvangirai nor Mugabe can be negotiated away. On what basis can we have a negotiated agreement that excludes Robert Mugabe? If we accept the March results as legitimate, he is a leader of a party which has 99 MPs vs. 100 for MDC-T, 30 Senators vs. 24 for MDC-T. He came second to Tsvangirai, 43.2% vs. 47.8%. More importantly Mugabe currently possesses the Presidency of Zimbabwe, yes illegitimately. Well, at law they say that possession is 90% of ownership.

The fact that Mugabe has this power of incumbency is the reason why Arthur Mutambara is still on trial in the Supreme Court, Tendai Biti has treason charges around his neck, activists are being abducted, and Morgan Tsvangirai, the Prime Minister-designate, had a torrid time getting a passport. This means Mugabe is in charge of the Zimbabwean State. Given this reality on the ground, and the electoral outcome of March 29, 2008, (which because of our lack of strategic thinking we have all sanitised as a legitimate outcome), it is foolishness to think that you can negotiate Mugabe out of power, and somehow miraculously achieve a power sharing arrangement that excludes him.

In terms of democratic practice it will be unjust, and in terms of real politick it will be impossible. Oh yes, on the basis of the March 29 results, Mugabe should be part of any power sharing transitional authority in Zimbabwe, since he is President of a Party well represented in both legislative houses, and he came second in the inconclusive Presidential race. We might not like these democratic circumstances, but we have to live with that reality.

Politics is an art of the possible, as Bismarck once famously said. In the current Zimbabwean political landscape, the possibilities belong to both Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai. They need each other. We can debate the specific role that Mugabe should play. For now that debate was settled by Mugabe, Tsvangirai and Mutambara when they signed the Global Political Agreement (GPA). Mugabe is President-designate and Morgan Tsvangirai is Prime Minister-designate. But, are we saying that GPA is the only show in town? No, absolutely not.
Alternative Frameworks to the GPA

A lot of debates and thinking has gone into crafting alternatives to the agreement of September 15, 2008. Unfortunately, it has been a comedy of errors and unsophisticated hallucinations. Even well respected international bodies like the International Crisis Group (ICG) have been found miserably wanting. Renowned conflict resolution experts, civic society leaders and Western pundits have shown astonishing lack of creativity and imagination.

The starting point in establishing an alternative path for Zimbabwe consists of grasping a clear understanding of why we are having challenges in implementing the current GPA. The new formulation must then robustly illustrate how it will avoid these current challenges. Beyond this, the efficacy, process details, timelines and milestones of any new strategy must then be clearly articulated. None of the critics of the current GPA has even begun to do any of the above.

Among a number of obstacles to consummation, the major challenge we have faced in executing the Zimbabwean GPA is the inability to achieve sufficient buy-in from the two major protagonists in the political impasse: Zanu PF and MDC-T. They are the critical players in any national transitional discussion, because any agreed arrangement will require legal effect through a constitutional amendment in parliament. Such a change will require a two thirds majority which can only be achieved by the participation of both Zanu PF and MDC-T, as a minimum requirement.

None of the proposals from the ICG, the civic society groups (both national and regional), or the arrogant and ignorant international community has addressed this simple challenge: How are you going to ensure that both MDC-T and Zanu PF will embrace your new grand proposal? If one or both of them do not accept your framework what are you going to do? Please, this is commonsensical. Anyone seeking to resolve the Zimbabwean crisis democratically and within the laws of Zimbabwe must apply their mind to this critical success factor: the show stopper.

The busy bodies at the ICG and in civic society do not even have the capacity to appreciate the existence of the problem, much less the intellect to develop the requisite solution. We are not saying it is impossible to develop an alternative negotiated framework to the September GPA. We are emphasising that it will require good and rigorously working minds to come up with one.

The reasons why we insist on fixing and then implementing the current flawed and imperfect GPA is because at some point the buy-in between the two key protagonist was achieved through the signatures of the MOU on July 21, 2008, and the GPA on September 15, 2008. Yes, there are disagreements now, but there are two agreed reference points. The key players and their teams have been actively negotiating the political impasse from March 29, 2008, and now four months after signing the GPA there are still implementation challenges.

Yes, this is bad and regrettable. However, let us be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. If we adopt a completely new process, how and when are we going to convince the two key players to start working towards an MOU? Are you going to get that MOU signed soon, and after that how much time will be required to get to a new GPA of sorts? Furthermore, while we embark on these new processes that require time and resources what will be happening to the suffering people of Zimbabwe, the collapsed economy, and the destroyed industrial base? Given the hardened positions of the two protagonists at the moment, can you even begin to sell the new path to them?

The most bizarre, irritating and clearly ineffective critics of the current GPA are those that premise their proposals by denouncing one of the two key protagonists. Usually it is Mugabe and his Zanu PF who are dismissed. How do you even conceptualise a negotiated outcome without the involvement of the Zanu PF group? We thought it was common cause that you do not make peace with your friends, but with your opponents.

One would expect someone of Jendayi Frazer’s stature to understand all this. How does she say that the US supports the negotiated power sharing, but insists that Mugabe must not be involved? Making these statements while defying the consistent advice that she received from all the South African leaders that she interacted with means that Frazer is insulting the SA leadership at every level. By this disrespectful conduct, she is humiliating both SADC and the AU.

In this situation, with respect to the US-proposed dialogue framework, who will be the principals, negotiators, facilitators and guarantors? South Africa is the only country with leverage on Zimbabwe. To bring any kind of change in Zimbabwe you have to work with SA, and not insult or humiliate them. Anyone serious about the Zimbabwean agenda must grasp this.

Jendayi, I assume that she is supportive of Mr Tsvangirai and she wants him to succeed. Does she actually have any respect for him? He signed the GPA in which Mugabe is designated as the President. Is it that she thinks Mr. Tsvangirai does not know what is good for him and therefore she has to lead him every step of the way?

By the way, it is not true that the US government supported the agreement when it was signed. For the record, both the US and the UK were opposed to the GPA from the beginning. They did not like the fact that Mugabe was both Head of State and Chairman of Cabinet, and they despised the GPA positions on land reform and sanctions. Everyone knows this. We are not children.

The US and the UK are now taking advantage of the delay in implementation of the agreement to savage and destroy the GPA. Do Frazer and her government have a workable alternative framework to the current GPA, together with an enforcement mechanism? And what is this that she said about the weakness and incompetence of her favorite GPA principal? Did she not say the following; “Tsvangirai is too weak and incompetent for us to allow him to be in an inclusive government with Mugabe. He will be completely outmaneuvered. Tsvangirai is not as strong as Odinga. If he was, we would have allowed him to get into the GNU with Mugabe?”

How can she possibly say such insulting remarks about her favorite opposition leader? With friends like these, who needs enemies? Incidentally, did she share her views about Tsvangirai with him? Why not? Anyway, who is she to allow or disallow African leaders? Does the US government have locus standi to do this? From where does she derive such legal, political or moral authority? Would a reverse scenario where international players seek to influence US politics be acceptable to the US?

Jendayi, can’t you see that you are ruining the opposition you seek to assist, and strengthening Mugabe that you seek to destroy? You are foolishly confirming everything that Mugabe has said about the opposition: that we are puppets. Moreover, Mugabe’s strengths are Africa, Pan-Africanism and anti-Imperialism. Any foreign policy that undermines African leaders and African institutions plays right into Mugabe’s game plan. Why can’t Western diplomats master these basics? Why do we have a premonition that most of the destructive grandstanding by Western governments is meant for their domestic constituencies?

More specifically, US foreign policy is always characterised by double standards, hypocrisy and dishonesty all rooted in the pursuit of US permanent interests. We seriously hope that incoming US President Obama and his new team will depart from this ignorant, ruinous and ineffective foreign policy that effectively undermines its intended beneficiaries, strengthens the targeted villains, while blighting the US standing in the World.

Things have to change in 2009. We are not naïve. We know that the general thrust of the US foreign policy objective is largely independent of both the individual who is the US President and the Party they belong to. However, we hope the policy execution, nuances and tactics will be different. Zimbabweans have great expectations.

Collapse of the Mugabe Regime

It is clear that the Mugabe regime will not collapse because of economic decay, mass starvation or epidemics such as cholera. The formal economy collapsed way back when. The regime survives on the informal sector and through rent-seeking behaviours. Yes, ordinary people are perishing and will continue to do so, but the regime will not collapse. Can we all come to grips with this?

The diamonds of Chiadzwa, the Platinum Mines, and assistance from friendly nations such as DRC, Angola, China and Russia will see the regime pull through another 5-10 years. Of course this will be at major cost to the population. Zimbabweans should care about this.

However, to the external players that suggest that we must wait for the collapse of the regime at any cost, the needless loss of life in pursuit of the departure of Mugabe is a small price to pay. After all, the lives lost are Black lives which are not equivalent to White lives. Since September 15, 2008, we have had Western governments encouraging the continuation of suffering and death of our people in the misguided belief that this will lead to the collapse of the Mugabe regime. Well, this will not happen, and our people are dying in vain. All Zimbabwean leaders must understand this.

We must collectively take responsibility for the calamity afflicting our country. In particular, Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai are equally culpable for the failure to work together. They are effectively working against the interests of their supporters and the generality of our citizenry. The two leaders are more concerned about a misguided power play executed at the expense of Zimbabwean lives. They have blood on their hands. The US and UK governments who are specifically undermining SADC efforts to establish an inclusive government in Zimbabwe are complicit in this crime against humanity.

In the case of these Western governments, they are driven by racism and utter disrespect for African lives. As Africans, our position is that not a single Zimbabwean life should be used as a stick to inflict pain on Robert Mugabe. People’s lives are too important to be used as ineffective political tools and weapons. We all know that Mugabe will not collapse because of cholera, mass starvation and a collapsed economy, so why are we supporting this ineffective strategy?

Nevertheless, let us deceive ourselves for a moment and assume the game plan works and the Mugabe regime actually collapses through the existing crisis. Why are we assuming that such a demise of Mugabe will lead to a democratic outcome? We saw what happened in Guinea when their dictator died. Did the opposition take over? Nope. If the Mugabe regime collapses, it is most likely that the army will take over. Some ambitious and gutsy colonel or general will step in. Our democratisation processes will, resultantly, regress at least 10 years.

There is absolutely no way Tsvangirai and his Party will be the beneficiaries of the collapse of Robert Mugabe. Quite to the contrary, the Zanu PF regime will make sure they collapse together with Tsvangirai and MDC-T. Do the current abductions, confessions and dubious trials of activists mean anything to anyone? MDC-T will not exist after the demise of Mugabe. I hope Tsvangirai understands this in no uncertain terms. I wish our brazen and unintelligent Western friends will do more listening and thinking.

This Mugabe must collapse strategy is not in the best interest of Zimbabwe. A regime change agenda achieved through a scorched earth policy is not what we need in our country. It will not benefit anyone. As Zimbabweans, we should think seriously about options that will allow us to continue to build, brick by brick, our democratic institutions.

Opportunity for a New Beginning

The year 2009 presents us with an opportunity for a new beginning. However, for this to be achieved, we have to learn some difficult lessons from inconvenient truths. We have to do things differently. We must embrace self-criticism as part of our best practices, and adopt an interrogative and questioning attitude to all stakeholders, including those that purport to support our struggles and our national interest.

In the struggle for a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Zimbabwe, it is not enough to be right. It is not enough to be a victim or to have the higher moral authority. The victims must behave well. Those with moral high ground must be driven by principles and values. Those on the right side of history must be thoughtful and strategic. Those that support victims of despotic regimes must apply their analytical skills. Good heart, bad mind will not cut it.

In all this, we must always put the people first. We must cherish servant leadership. Only then can we succeed. While external players and events affect our country, we must take responsibility for our own circumstances. We should be at the centre of our struggles and be the drivers of our nation building processes. We must have enough leadership strength to define and determine both the terms of reference and frameworks through which foreigners participate in the affairs of our nation.

In 2009, Zimbabweans must set the agenda and own the rules of the game. We must be masters of our own destiny. The critique of external influences that has been proffered should not be used to absolve us as citizens. We as Zimbabweans, created the current socio-political and economic crisis, and we will be the primary drivers and developers of the sustainable answers. And yes, a people do get a government that they deserve. Let us all be the change we wish to see in the year 2009.

Arthur G.O. Mutambara is president of MDC

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/mutambara4.19221.html

Les vérités incommodes au sujet de l'ouest et du Zimbabwe
Automatically translated into French thanks to WorldLingo
Les vérités incommodes au sujet de la MANIÈRE d'ouest et


du Zimbabwe EXPÉDIENT : Arthur Mutambara

•En cet article, le Chef Arthur Mutambara de MDC regarde les difficultés en mettant en application le 15 septembre GPA, l'unhelpfulness des interventions occidentales dans la politique domestique du Zimbabwe tout en interrogeant des stratégies existantes pour réaliser la démocratie au Zimbabwe :


L'année 2008 était très difficile pour nous comme nation. Depuis que les élections harmonisées peu concluantes se sont tenues le 29 mars, il y a eu une impasse politique dans notre terre. Le pays a été sans gouvernement légitime. Notre économie s'est pratiquement effondrée, alors que la maladie et la famine ravagent nos personnes. Le désespoir et le désespoir caractérisent et définissent la psyche nationale. Il y a eu échec complet de conduite d'un bout de l'affaire à l'autre, dans le Zimbabwe, dans la région et dans la communauté internationale.
Comme nous commençons une nouvelle année, laissez-nous réfléchissent sur certaines des discussions principales qui forment notre politique pendant que nous annulons 2008. D'intérêt particulier pour ce traité sont les réalités inconfortables et des défis ces parfois nous lançons loin de la confrontation. En particulier nous cherchons à massacrer cet éléphant dans la salle de séjour nationale : Comment la participation externe ignorante et unstrategic dans le discours zimbabwéen fait plus de mal que bon.

Nous cherchons à arguer du fait qu'en l'année 2008, les shenanigans occidentaux d'airain et grossiers ont miné réellement l'opposition et le Robert renforcé Mugabe. D'une manière primordiale, c'est notre soumission que les positions non informées et insouciantes de politique étrangère des gouvernements occidentaux, en particulier les USA et le R-U, ont négativement effectué notre intérêt national. Les Zimbabwéens doivent clairement comprendre ceci pour que nos fortunes collectives soient différents en l'année 2009.

Le `Mugabe doit aller' choeur

pendant que nous annulions 2008, en décembre, il y avait un crescendo des demandes du départ de Mugabe à l'étape politique. Il y a rien de neuf et créateur dans ce Mugabe doit aller incantation. La difficulté est que beaucoup de gens et établissements sur cette voie souffrent de la maladie du coeur étant dans le bon endroit, alors que l'esprit n'est pas appliqué. On a besoin d'un bon coeur et d'un bon esprit.

Certains d'entre nous avaient chanté Mugabe doivent aller incantation pendant les 21 dernières années, en vain. Par ailleurs, les gouvernements occidentaux étaient en désaccord avec nous en 1988 où nous nous sommes retournés contre le régime de Zanu pf. Maintenant ils patronise nous, comme si ils comprennent pourquoi Mugabe doit disparaître, meilleur que nous, ses victimes zimbabwéennes.

Nous aviez-vous combattu Mugabe pendant deux décennies, où avez-vous été l'Amérique et l'Europe ? Pourquoi avez-vous soutenu Mugabe vers la fin des années 80 où nous nous opposions à lui ? Pourquoi l'avez-vous activement soutenu pendant le Gukurahundi ? Nous n'avons jamais entendu que vous dire le `Mugabe devez aller' pendant cette période. Au lieu de cela vous lui avez donné les récompenses prestigieuses des deux côtés de l'Océan atlantique.

Nous pouvons le comprendre si votre défense est que vous êtes les étudiants lents et les défaites en retard où nos sujets sont concernés. Nous pouvons accepter cela. Mais il alors également des moyens vous doit prendre votre sélection de nous qui comprennent le terrain zimbabwéen mieux. Vous devez accepter que vous êtes essentiellement ignorant, unstrategic, et par conséquent inefficace où des sujets africains sont concernés. Tandis que vous cherchez à nous aider dans nos luttes pour le changement, votre comportement d'airain nous mine efficacement et renforce nos adversaires. Vous devez écouter nous et pas le contraire.

Le `Mugabe du décembre 2008 doit aller' choeur était aussi pathétique qu'il était dénué d'imagination et prévisible. Il a commencé par le premier ministre kenyan Raila Odinga, évêque John Sentamu et archevêque Desmond Tutu, dans cet ordre. Dès qu'ils ont été faits, David Milliband et riz de Condi sont entrés pour soutenir les « beaucoup de » voix des chefs africains. Ensuite, c'était Gordon Brown, George Bush, Sarkozy, et Merkel. Puis chaque chef européen et leur grand-mère se sont joints dedans, soutenant les « beaucoup de » voix des chefs africains. Pour le couronner tout, il y avait un tiret incompétent au Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU, où tout est venu s'émiettant vers le bas : quel non-événement embarrassant. Pourquoi est-ce que n'importe qui a été étonné par cet échec non mitigé ? Y avait-il jamais une méthode dans la folie ? Quel était d'être la conclusion logique du choeur ?

En premier lieu il n'y avait aucun chef africain qui avait parlé. Ainsi qui, les chefs occidentaux prétendaient-ils soutenir ? Peu après qu'Odinga ait parlé, il a été contredit par son propre ministre des affaires étrangères. Ceci signifie qu'il ne parlait pas au nom du Kenya ou du Président Kibaki. Évêque Sentamu ne parle pour aucun pays africain. Bien, les mêmes pour Tutu ; il est un bon Africain qui parle pour aucune nation africaine. Pour qu'il soit efficace il devrait travailler à convaincre la conduite politique sud-africaine d'adopter ses vues.

Intéressant assez, même habituellement l'insouciant et le dénué d'imagination Ian Khama n'étaient pas une partie des voix africaines. Ainsi quand ces chefs américains et européens sont entrés dans le choeur, qui étaient eux soutenant ? Dans un continent de 53 pays, les USA et le R-U n'ont pas pu convaincre un président africain simple de faire partie de leur choeur élégant.

Si les chefs occidentaux étaient en effet justes se soutenant, pourquoi se sont-ils trouvés que ils soutenaient des voix des chefs africains ? S'ils s'inquiètent de quels chefs africains pensent, pourquoi n'ont-ils pas passé assez de temps convainquant les vrais chefs africains de l'exactitude des positions occidentales et ensuite, de faire parler aux chefs africains d'abord ?

Sûrement si, par exemple, les Présidents Kgalema Motlanthe, Armando Geubuza, DOS de José Eduardo Santos, Jakaya Kikwete et Mwai Kibaki avaient pris une position collective particulière sur le Zimbabwe, et les gouvernements occidentaux étaient entrés pour les soutenir, il y aurait eu de la traction.

Mais le non, les puissances occidentales a choisi de créer leurs propres pseudo chefs africains, et puis force un choeur du monde. C'était sûr d'échouer. Au delà du choeur, il n'y avait aucune vraie stratégie pour résoudre la crise au Zimbabwe. Il n'y avait aucune mesure spécifique que les USA et le R-U allaient prendre après le choeur. N'aurait-il pas été logique de soutenir les slogans avec des plans procéduraux et l'Africain approprié achètent-ils ?

Il semble que le raisonnement était que Mugabe était aller juste tomber l'étape politique du Zimbabwe en raison du bruit assourdissant des chefs occidentaux répétant le même message sans signification. Comment pathétique ! Bien, honte sur eux pour trivialising la lutte légitime de nos personnes.

Les avenues par lesquelles Mugabe peut passer

là sont trois manières que Mugabe peut être enlevé de la présidence et de la conduite du Zimbabwe : (1) utilisation de violence ou bras de soulèvement ou de démonstrations de masse paisible de la guerre (2) (3) librement et élections justes.

L'utilisation de la violence de chasser Mugabe a été suggérée dans certains quarts. What has not been done is an interrogation of what form this will take, its meaning, consequences and the aftermath. L'one-way qu'un renversement violent peut être envisagé est d'avoir les troupes américaines et britanniques envahir le Zimbabwe comme elles ont fait en Irak. Naturellement ils peuvent se débarasser de Mugabe de cette façon.

Cependant, les forces occidentales devront saigner sur le sol zimbabwéen dans le processus. Ce ne sera pas une promenade en parc. Après le mésaventure des USA en Somalie, où des marines américaines ont été abattues dans les rues de Mogadiscio, la discussion dans le sénat des USA était très instructive. Le sentiment principal était tout à fait clair, « qui le pays entier de la Somalie n'est pas en valeur une seule vie américaine. Nous devrions ne jamais accorder les vies américaines être perdus à la défense de ces pays africains sans valeur. »

C'était l'attitude alors. Est-ce que quelque chose a changé ? Jendayi Frazer, riz de Condi et George Bush, êtes-vous maintenant prêt à saigner à la poursuite de la liberté et de la prospérité africaines ? Si vous n'êtes pas disposé à avoir des marines des USA tuées au Zimbabwe, svp juste fermé sur la question de l'intervention militaire pour enlever Mugabe.

Supposons pendant une minute que ces chefs occidentaux sont les joueurs sérieux et les causeurs négligents non simplement. Ils peuvent alors réellement introduire leurs troupes dans le Zimbabwe et obtenir le travail fait. Après que Mugabe soit allé la manière de Saddam, que se produit après ? Que l'intervention militaire des USA a-t-elle produit en Irak et en Afghanistan ? Avons-nous des résultats démocratiques dans ces pays ? Sont-ils des nations paisibles, démocratiques et prospères ? Pourquoi les résultats zimbabwéens seraient-ils différents ? Est-ce que sinon, alors pourquoi ceci devrait même être considéré comme option ?

En termes d'armées étrangères envahissant le Zimbabwe, c'est seulement des nations occidentales qui valent la peine d'analyser car nous avons essayé ci-dessus. Seulement deux pays africains, Botswana et Kenya, ont exprimé un appétit pour la confrontation physique avec le Zimbabwe. Nous ne finirons pas même le Botswana posant avec trop de discussion. Ils n'ont aucune armée mais une force incompétente de police qui n'a aucune capacité d'envahir un désert beaucoup moin'un pays avec une expérience militaire du Zimbabwe. Raila Odinga ne parle pas pour le gouvernement kenyan, ainsi les extrémités d'analyse là. Si seulement il pourrait commencer par convaincre son propre gouvernement, nous aurons plus à dire au sujet de l'efficacité de ses expressions.

L'autre version de la violence qui peut certainement renverser Mugabe est une lutte armée faite par Zimbabweans eux-mêmes de la même manière que ZANLA et ZIPRA ont exécuté la guerre contre Ian Smith. Combien faisable et pratique est cette proposition en ce moment à temps et dans le contexte géopolitique de la région de SADC ? Est-ce même une alternative souhaitable pour le peuple du Zimbabwe ? Nous croyons qu'il n'y a aucune réponse affirmative à non plus de ces questions.

La deuxième méthode possible par laquelle Mugabe peut être déposé est par les soulèvements ou les démonstrations de masse paisibles. Avons-nous la capacité comme Zimbabwéens d'exécuter ces derniers ? Ce qui font les efforts vaillants du NCA et du WOZA nous enseignent. Combien est-ce que d'entre nous joignent le leur bravent mars ? Combien de Zimbabwéens ont joint les soldats quand ils sont allés sur le saccage sur les rues de Harare ?

Il est clair que l'appétit pour une révolution orange de `' au Zimbabwe ait toujours pour être développé, avant qu'un soulèvement de masse devienne une plateforme réaliste pour conduire Mugabe dehors. Nos politiciens dans le mouvement d'opposition doivent également être prêts à assumer les sacrifices que cette option nécessite. Là où les chefs politiques entrent dans se cacher à la plus légère menace de la persécution, nous ne voyons pas comment cette option peut être apportée à la fructification.

Ceci laisse nous avec le tiers et seulement l'avenue pour le départ de Mugabe, c'est-à-dire, par des élections libres et justes. La question devient alors comment nous réalisons une élection libre et juste au Zimbabwe ? Certainement pas en exigeant les élections harmonisées aujourd'hui qui seront conduites sous le 27 juin conditionne. Inutile de dire, dans un tel plébiscite, Mugabe capturera la présidence et la majorité combinée courante d'opposition au Parlement sera complètement renversée.

Soyons stratégiques. Nos personnes et pays ne sont pas élection prête à l'heure actuelle. Nous devons passer par une période de transition l'où nous résolvons la crise humanitaire affligeant nos personnes, effectuons curatif national, commençons le rétablissement économique, et adoptons d'une manière primordiale une nouvelle constitution démocratique personne-conduite. C'est le pont dont le Zimbabwe a besoin dans sa marche à la démocratie. Après celle, nous pouvons alors effectuer des élections libres et justes. Si Mugabe participe à ces élections, il sera défait. C'est la seule manière dont pratique mènera à Mugabe le départ.

L'accord politique global du 15 septembre 2008, recherches de faciliter une telle possibilité. Les gens, ceci sont aussi bons qu'il obtient. Malheureusement, Mugabe devra faire partie de la transition, comme nous expliquons dans la prochaine section. Le brun et le Bush doivent obtenir au-dessus de leur hantise idiote, non informée et unstrategic avec Mugabe allant aujourd'hui. S'ils ne peuvent pas explicitement articuler comment ils vont l'enlever, ils devraient satisfaire juste dégagent, et permettent à notre pays de passer. Nous devons sauver les vies zimbabwéennes qui sont perdues inutilement.

Pourquoi Mugabe ne peut pas passer loin par des entretiens

les résultats d'élection à partir du 29 mars 2008, produit aucun gagnant pure au Parlement et à la présidence. La réexécution du 27 juin était une farce illégitime, ainsi nous sommes coincés avec les résultats peu concluants de mars. Comme démocrates, nous devons accepter que ceci signifie que Mugabe et sa partie sont autant un facteur que Tsvangirai et sa partie sont.

Court d'un nouvel ensemble d'élections ou de changement de la conduite par leurs parties, il signifie que ni Tsvangirai ni Mugabe ne peut être négocié loin. Sur quelle base pouvons-nous avoir un accord négocié qui exclut Robert Mugabe ? Si nous acceptons mars résulte comme légitime, il est un chef d'une partie contre laquelle a 99 MPs 100 pour MDC-T, 30 sénateurs contre 24 pour MDC-T. Il est venu en second lieu à Tsvangirai, 43.2% contre 47.8%. D'une manière primordiale Mugabe possède actuellement la présidence du Zimbabwe, oui d'une manière illégitime. Bien, à la loi ils disent que la possession est 90% de la propriété.

Le fait que Mugabe a cette puissance de titularisation est la raison pour laquelle Arthur Mutambara est toujours sur l'épreuve dans la cour suprême, Tendai Biti a des frais de trahison autour de son cou, des activistes sont enlevés, et Morgan Tsvangirai, le principal Ministre-indiquent, ont eu un temps torride obtenir un passeport. Ceci signifie que Mugabe est responsable de l'état zimbabwéen. Donné cette réalité sur la terre, et les résultats électoraux du 29 mars 2008, (qu'en raison de notre manque stratégique de pensée nous tous avons aseptisés comme résultats légitimes), c'est sottise pour penser que vous pouvez négocier Mugabe hors de la puissance, et réalise de façon ou d'autre miraculeuxment un arrangement de partage de puissance qui l'exclut.

En termes de pratique démocratique il sera injuste, et en termes de vrai politick il sera impossible. Oh oui, sur la base du 29 mars résulte, Mugabe devrait faire partie de n'importe quelle autorité transitoire de partage de puissance au Zimbabwe, puisqu'il est président d'une partie bien représentée dans les deux maisons législatives, et il est venu en second lieu dans la course présidentielle peu concluante. Nous ne pourrions pas aimer ces circonstances démocratiques, mais nous devons vivre avec cette réalité.

La politique est un art du possible, comme Bismarck une fois célèbre dit. Dans le paysage politique zimbabwéen courant, les possibilités appartiennent à Robert Mugabe et Morgan Tsvangirai. Ils s'ont besoin. Nous pouvons discuter le rôle spécifique que Mugabe devrait jouer. Pour maintenant que la discussion a été arrangée par Mugabe, Tsvangirai et Mutambara quand ils ont signé l'accord politique global (GPA). Mugabe est Président-indiquent et Morgan Tsvangirai est principal Ministre-indiquent. Mais, disons-nous que GPA est la seule exposition en ville ? Non, absolument pas.
Les cadres alternatifs à beaucoup

de GPA de discussions et de pensée est entrés dans des solutions de rechange de ouvrage à l'accord du 15 septembre 2008. Malheureusement, c'a été un comédie des erreurs et des hallucinations peu sophistiquées. Même des corps internationaux respectés par bien comme le groupe international de crise (ICG) se sont avérés vouloir malheureux. Les experts en matière renommés de résolution de conflit, les chefs civiques de société et les pandits occidentaux ont montré le manque étonnant de créativité et d'imagination.

Le point de départ en établissant un chemin alternatif pour le Zimbabwe se compose saisir un arrangement clair de pourquoi nous avons des défis en mettant en application le GPA courant. La nouvelle formulation doit alors robuste illustrer comment elle évitera ces défis courants. Beyond this, the efficacy, process details, timelines and milestones of any new strategy must then be clearly articulated. None of the critics of the current GPA has even begun to do any of the above.

Among a number of obstacles to consummation, the major challenge we have faced in executing the Zimbabwean GPA is the inability to achieve sufficient buy-in from the two major protagonists in the political impasse: Zanu PF and MDC-T. They are the critical players in any national transitional discussion, because any agreed arrangement will require legal effect through a constitutional amendment in parliament. Such a change will require a two thirds majority which can only be achieved by the participation of both Zanu PF and MDC-T, as a minimum requirement.

None of the proposals from the ICG, the civic society groups (both national and regional), or the arrogant and ignorant international community has addressed this simple challenge: How are you going to ensure that both MDC-T and Zanu PF will embrace your new grand proposal? If one or both of them do not accept your framework what are you going to do? Please, this is commonsensical. Anyone seeking to resolve the Zimbabwean crisis democratically and within the laws of Zimbabwe must apply their mind to this critical success factor: the show stopper.

The busy bodies at the ICG and in civic society do not even have the capacity to appreciate the existence of the problem, much less the intellect to develop the requisite solution. We are not saying it is impossible to develop an alternative negotiated framework to the September GPA. We are emphasising that it will require good and rigorously working minds to come up with one.

The reasons why we insist on fixing and then implementing the current flawed and imperfect GPA is because at some point the buy-in between the two key protagonist was achieved through the signatures of the MOU on July 21, 2008, and the GPA on September 15, 2008. Yes, there are disagreements now, but there are two agreed reference points. The key players and their teams have been actively negotiating the political impasse from March 29, 2008, and now four months after signing the GPA there are still implementation challenges.

Yes, this is bad and regrettable. However, let us be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. If we adopt a completely new process, how and when are we going to convince the two key players to start working towards an MOU? Are you going to get that MOU signed soon, and after that how much time will be required to get to a new GPA of sorts? Furthermore, while we embark on these new processes that require time and resources what will be happening to the suffering people of Zimbabwe, the collapsed economy, and the destroyed industrial base? Given the hardened positions of the two protagonists at the moment, can you even begin to sell the new path to them?

The most bizarre, irritating and clearly ineffective critics of the current GPA are those that premise their proposals by denouncing one of the two key protagonists. Usually it is Mugabe and his Zanu PF who are dismissed. How do you even conceptualise a negotiated outcome without the involvement of the Zanu PF group? We thought it was common cause that you do not make peace with your friends, but with your opponents.

One would expect someone of Jendayi Frazer’s stature to understand all this. How does she say that the US supports the negotiated power sharing, but insists that Mugabe must not be involved? Making these statements while defying the consistent advice that she received from all the South African leaders that she interacted with means that Frazer is insulting the SA leadership at every level. By this disrespectful conduct, she is humiliating both SADC and the AU.

In this situation, with respect to the US-proposed dialogue framework, who will be the principals, negotiators, facilitators and guarantors? South Africa is the only country with leverage on Zimbabwe. To bring any kind of change in Zimbabwe you have to work with SA, and not insult or humiliate them. Anyone serious about the Zimbabwean agenda must grasp this.

Jendayi, I assume that she is supportive of Mr Tsvangirai and she wants him to succeed. Does she actually have any respect for him? He signed the GPA in which Mugabe is designated as the President. Is it that she thinks Mr. Tsvangirai does not know what is good for him and therefore she has to lead him every step of the way?

By the way, it is not true that the US government supported the agreement when it was signed. For the record, both the US and the UK were opposed to the GPA from the beginning. They did not like the fact that Mugabe was both Head of State and Chairman of Cabinet, and they despised the GPA positions on land reform and sanctions. Everyone knows this. We are not children.

The US and the UK are now taking advantage of the delay in implementation of the agreement to savage and destroy the GPA. Do Frazer and her government have a workable alternative framework to the current GPA, together with an enforcement mechanism? And what is this that she said about the weakness and incompetence of her favorite GPA principal? Did she not say the following; “Tsvangirai is too weak and incompetent for us to allow him to be in an inclusive government with Mugabe. He will be completely outmaneuvered. Tsvangirai is not as strong as Odinga. If he was, we would have allowed him to get into the GNU with Mugabe?”

How can she possibly say such insulting remarks about her favorite opposition leader? With friends like these, who needs enemies? Incidentally, did she share her views about Tsvangirai with him? Why not? Anyway, who is she to allow or disallow African leaders? Does the US government have locus standi to do this? From where does she derive such legal, political or moral authority? Would a reverse scenario where international players seek to influence US politics be acceptable to the US?

Jendayi, can’t you see that you are ruining the opposition you seek to assist, and strengthening Mugabe that you seek to destroy? You are foolishly confirming everything that Mugabe has said about the opposition: that we are puppets. Moreover, Mugabe’s strengths are Africa, Pan-Africanism and anti-Imperialism. Any foreign policy that undermines African leaders and African institutions plays right into Mugabe’s game plan. Why can’t Western diplomats master these basics? Why do we have a premonition that most of the destructive grandstanding by Western governments is meant for their domestic constituencies?

More specifically, US foreign policy is always characterised by double standards, hypocrisy and dishonesty all rooted in the pursuit of US permanent interests. We seriously hope that incoming US President Obama and his new team will depart from this ignorant, ruinous and ineffective foreign policy that effectively undermines its intended beneficiaries, strengthens the targeted villains, while blighting the US standing in the World.

Things have to change in 2009. We are not naïve. We know that the general thrust of the US foreign policy objective is largely independent of both the individual who is the US President and the Party they belong to. However, we hope the policy execution, nuances and tactics will be different. Zimbabweans have great expectations.

Collapse of the Mugabe Regime

It is clear that the Mugabe regime will not collapse because of economic decay, mass starvation or epidemics such as cholera. The formal economy collapsed way back when. The regime survives on the informal sector and through rent-seeking behaviours. Yes, ordinary people are perishing and will continue to do so, but the regime will not collapse. Can we all come to grips with this?

The diamonds of Chiadzwa, the Platinum Mines, and assistance from friendly nations such as DRC, Angola, China and Russia will see the regime pull through another 5-10 years. Of course this will be at major cost to the population. Zimbabweans should care about this.

However, to the external players that suggest that we must wait for the collapse of the regime at any cost, the needless loss of life in pursuit of the departure of Mugabe is a small price to pay. After all, the lives lost are Black lives which are not equivalent to White lives. Since September 15, 2008, we have had Western governments encouraging the continuation of suffering and death of our people in the misguided belief that this will lead to the collapse of the Mugabe regime. Well, this will not happen, and our people are dying in vain. All Zimbabwean leaders must understand this.

We must collectively take responsibility for the calamity afflicting our country. In particular, Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai are equally culpable for the failure to work together. They are effectively working against the interests of their supporters and the generality of our citizenry. The two leaders are more concerned about a misguided power play executed at the expense of Zimbabwean lives. They have blood on their hands. The US and UK governments who are specifically undermining SADC efforts to establish an inclusive government in Zimbabwe are complicit in this crime against humanity.

In the case of these Western governments, they are driven by racism and utter disrespect for African lives. As Africans, our position is that not a single Zimbabwean life should be used as a stick to inflict pain on Robert Mugabe. People’s lives are too important to be used as ineffective political tools and weapons. We all know that Mugabe will not collapse because of cholera, mass starvation and a collapsed economy, so why are we supporting this ineffective strategy?

Nevertheless, let us deceive ourselves for a moment and assume the game plan works and the Mugabe regime actually collapses through the existing crisis. Why are we assuming that such a demise of Mugabe will lead to a democratic outcome? We saw what happened in Guinea when their dictator died. Did the opposition take over? Nope. If the Mugabe regime collapses, it is most likely that the army will take over. Some ambitious and gutsy colonel or general will step in. Our democratisation processes will, resultantly, regress at least 10 years.

There is absolutely no way Tsvangirai and his Party will be the beneficiaries of the collapse of Robert Mugabe. Quite to the contrary, the Zanu PF regime will make sure they collapse together with Tsvangirai and MDC-T. Do the current abductions, confessions and dubious trials of activists mean anything to anyone? MDC-T will not exist after the demise of Mugabe. I hope Tsvangirai understands this in no uncertain terms. I wish our brazen and unintelligent Western friends will do more listening and thinking.

This Mugabe must collapse strategy is not in the best interest of Zimbabwe. A regime change agenda achieved through a scorched earth policy is not what we need in our country. It will not benefit anyone. As Zimbabweans, we should think seriously about options that will allow us to continue to build, brick by brick, our democratic institutions.

Opportunity for a New Beginning

The year 2009 presents us with an opportunity for a new beginning. However, for this to be achieved, we have to learn some difficult lessons from inconvenient truths. We have to do things differently. We must embrace self-criticism as part of our best practices, and adopt an interrogative and questioning attitude to all stakeholders, including those that purport to support our struggles and our national interest.

In the struggle for a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Zimbabwe, it is not enough to be right. It is not enough to be a victim or to have the higher moral authority. The victims must behave well. Those with moral high ground must be driven by principles and values. Those on the right side of history must be thoughtful and strategic. Those that support victims of despotic regimes must apply their analytical skills. Good heart, bad mind will not cut it.

In all this, we must always put the people first. We must cherish servant leadership. Only then can we succeed. While external players and events affect our country, we must take responsibility for our own circumstances. We should be at the centre of our struggles and be the drivers of our nation building processes. We must have enough leadership strength to define and determine both the terms of reference and frameworks through which foreigners participate in the affairs of our nation.

In 2009, Zimbabweans must set the agenda and own the rules of the game. We must be masters of our own destiny. The critique of external influences that has been proffered should not be used to absolve us as citizens. We as Zimbabweans, created the current socio-political and economic crisis, and we will be the primary drivers and developers of the sustainable answers. And yes, a people do get a government that they deserve. Let us all be the change we wish to see in the year 2009.

Arthur G.O. Mutambara is president of MDC

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/mutambara4.19221.html

Las verdades incómodas sobre el oeste y el Zimbabwe
Automatically translated into Spanish thanks to WorldLingo
Las verdades incómodas sobre la MANERA del oeste y


de Zimbabwe REMITEN: Arturo Mutambara

•En este artículo, el líder Arturo Mutambara del MDC mira las dificultades en poner el 15 de septiembre en ejecución GPA, el unhelpfulness de intervenciones occidentales en las políticas domésticas de Zimbabwe mientras que interroga a las estrategias existentes para alcanzar democracia en Zimbabwe:


El año 2008 era muy difícil para nosotros como nación. Puesto que las elecciones armonizadas poco concluyentes celebradas el 29 de marzo, ha habido una callejón sin salida política en nuestra tierra. El país ha estado sin un gobierno legítimo. Nuestra economía se ha derrumbado virtualmente, mientras que la enfermedad y el hambre ravaging a nuestra gente. La desesperación y la desesperación caracterizan y definen la psique nacional. Ha habido falta completa de la dirección a través del tablero, dentro de Zimbabwe, en la región y en la comunidad internacional.
Como comenzamos un Año Nuevo, déjenos reflejan en algunos de los discusiones principales que están formando nuestra política mientras que damos salida a 2008. De interés particular en este tratado están las realidades incómodas y los desafíos esos arrojamos a veces lejos del enfrentamiento. Particularmente intentamos matar ese elefante en la sala de estar nacional: Cómo la implicación externa ignorante y unstrategic en el discurso de Zimbabwean hace más daño que bueno.

Intentamos discutir que en el año 2008, los shenanigans occidentales descarados y crass han minado realmente a la oposición y a Roberto consolidado Mugabe. Más importantemente, es nuestra sumisión que las posiciones mal informadas e imprudentes de la política extranjera de gobiernos occidentales, particularmente los E.E.U.U. y el Reino Unido, negativamente han afectado nuestro interés nacional. Zimbabweans tiene que entender claramente esto para que nuestras fortunas colectivas sean diferente en el año 2009.

El `Mugabe debe ir' estribillo

mientras que dimos salida a 2008, en el mes de diciembre, había un crescendo de las demandas para la salida de Mugabe de la etapa política. Hay nada nuevo y creativo en este Mugabe debe ir mantra. El apuro es que mucha gente e instituciones en esta pista sufren de la enfermedad del corazón que está en el lugar derecho, mientras que la mente no se está aplicando. Uno necesita un buen corazón y una buena mente.

Algunos de nosotros han estado cantando el Mugabe deben ir mantra por los últimos 21 años, inútilmente. Incidentemente, los gobiernos occidentales discreparon con nosotros en 1988 en que dimos vuelta contra el régimen de Zanu PF. Ahora ellos patronise nosotros, como si entiendan porqué Mugabe debe ir, mejor que nosotros, sus víctimas de Zimbabwean.

¿Nosotros ha estado luchando Mugabe por dos décadas, dónde usted ha sido América y Europa? ¿Por qué usted apoyó Mugabe en los últimos años 80 en que lo oponíamos? ¿Por qué usted lo movió hacia atrás activamente durante Gukurahundi? Nunca oímos que usted decir el `Mugabe debe ir' durante ese período. En lugar usted le dio concesiones prestigiosas en ambos lados del Atlántico.

Podemos entenderlo si su defensa es que usted es principiantes lentos y los últimos bloomers donde se refieren nuestras materias. Podemos aceptar eso. Pero entonces también los medios usted debe tomar su señal de nosotros que entiendan el terreno de Zimbabwean mejor. Usted debe aceptar que usted es esencialmente ignorante, unstrategic, y por lo tanto ineficaz donde se refieren las materias africanas. Mientras que usted intenta asistirnos en nuestras luchas para el cambio, su comportamiento descarado nos mina con eficacia y consolida a nuestros opositores. Usted debe escuchar nosotros y no el contrario.

El `Mugabe del diciembre de 2008 debe ir' estribillo era tan pathetic como era unimaginative y fiable. Comenzó con el primer ministro Raila Odinga, obispo Juan Sentamu y arzobispo Desmond Tutu de Kenyan, en esa orden. Tan pronto como fueran hechos, David Milliband y el arroz de Condi vinieron adentro apoyar las “muchas” voces de líderes africanos. Después de eso, era Gordon Brown, George Bush, Sarkozy, y Merkel. Entonces cada líder europeo y su abuela ensamblaron adentro, apoyando las “muchas” voces de líderes africanos. Para coronarlo todo, había una rociada incompetente al consejo de seguridad de la O.N.U, adonde vino todo desmenuzándose abajo: qué no-acontecimiento embarazoso. ¿Por qué cualquier persona fue sorprendida por esto unmitigated falta? ¿Había siempre un método en la locura? ¿Cuál era ser la conclusión lógica del estribillo?

Sobre todo no había líder africano que había hablado. ¿Tan quién, los líderes occidentales pretendían apoyar? Pronto después de que Odinga hablara, a su propio Ministro de Asuntos Exteriores lo contradijo. Esto significa que él no hablaba a nombre de Kenia o de presidente Kibaki. Obispo Sentamu no habla para ningún país africano. Bien, iguales para Tutu; él es un buen africano que habla para ninguna nación africana. Para que él sea eficaz él debe trabajar en el convencimiento de la dirección política del africano del sur que adopte sus opiniones.

Interesando bastantes, incluso el Ian generalmente imprudente y unimaginative Khama no era parte de las voces africanas. ¿Tan cuando estos líderes americanos y europeos entraron estribillo, que eran ellos que apoyaban? En un continente de 53 países, los E.E.U.U. y el Reino Unido no podían convencer a un solo presidente africano que sea parte de su estribillo elegante.

¿Si los líderes occidentales eran de hecho justos apoyándose, por qué mintieron que apoyaban voces de líderes africanos? ¿Si cuidan sobre qué líderes africanos piensan, por qué no pasaron bastante tiempo convenciendo a los líderes africanos verdaderos de la corrección de posiciones occidentales y después de eso, para hacer que los líderes africanos hablen primero?

Seguramente si, por ejemplo, presidentes Kgalema Motlanthe, Armando Geubuza, DOS Santos, Jakaya Kikwete y Mwai Kibaki de José Eduardo hubieran tomado una posición colectiva particular respecto a Zimbabwe, y los gobiernos occidentales habían venido adentro apoyarlos, habría habido algo de tracción.

Pero no, las energías occidentales eligió crear a sus propios pseudo líderes africanos, y después fuerza un estribillo del mundo. Esto era seguro fallar. Más allá del estribillo, no había estrategia verdadera para resolver la crisis en Zimbabwe. No había acción específica que los E.E.U.U. y el Reino Unido iban a tomar después del estribillo. ¿No habría sido lógico mover hacia atrás los lemas con planes procesales y el africano apropiado compra?

Se parece que el análisis razonado era que Mugabe era el ir justo a bajar de la etapa política de Zimbabwe debido a el sonido deafening de los líderes occidentales que repetían el mismo mensaje sin setido. ¡Cómo es pathetic! Bien, vergüenza en ellos para trivialising la lucha legítima de nuestra gente.

Las avenidas a través de las cuales Mugabe puede pasar

allí son tres maneras que Mugabe se puede quitar de la presidencia y de la dirección de Zimbabwe: (1) uso de la violencia o brazos 2) de la sublevación de la guerra (o demostraciones totales pacíficas (3) libres y elecciones justas.

El uso de la violencia de expulsar a Mugabe se ha sugerido en ciertos cuartos. What has not been done is an interrogation of what form this will take, its meaning, consequences and the aftermath. Una forma que un derrocamiento violento puede ser considerado es tener tropas americanas y británicas invadir Zimbabwe como hicieron en Iraq. Por supuesto pueden conseguir librados de Mugabe esa manera.

Sin embargo, las fuerzas occidentales tendrán que sangrar en el suelo de Zimbabwean en el proceso. No será una caminata en el parque. Después del misadventure de los E.E.U.U. en Somalia, en donde mataron a los infantes de marina americanos en las calles de Mogadishu, el discusión en el senado de los E.E.U.U. era muy instructivo. El sentimiento dominante era absolutamente inequívoco, “que el país entero de Somalia no es digno de una sola vida americana. Debemos nunca permitir que las vidas americanas sean perdidas en defensa de estos países africanos sin valor.”

Ésa entonces era la actitud. ¿Cualquier cosa ha cambiado? ¿Jendayi Frazer, arroz de Condi y George Bush, es usted listo ahora sangrar en búsqueda de la libertad y de la prosperidad africanas? Si usted no está preparado para tener infantes de marina de los E.E.U.U. matados en Zimbabwe, por favor justo cerrado para arriba en la aplicación la intervención militar para quitar Mugabe.

Asumamos por un minuto que estos líderes occidentales son jugadores serios y transmisores descuidados no justos. Pueden entonces realmente traer a sus tropas en Zimbabwe y conseguir el trabajo hecho. ¿Después de que se vaya Mugabe la manera de Saddam, qué sucede después? ¿Qué la intervención militar de los E.E.U.U. ha producido en Iraq y Afganistán? ¿Tenemos resultados democráticos en estos países? ¿Son naciones pacíficas, democráticas y prósperas? ¿Por qué el resultado de Zimbabwean sería diferente? ¿Si no, entonces por qué se debe esto incluso considerar como opción?

En términos de ejércitos extranjeros que invaden Zimbabwe, es solamente las naciones occidentales que valen el analizar pues hemos procurado arriba. Solamente dos países africanos, Botswana y Kenia, han expresado un apetito para la confrontación física con Zimbabwe. Incluso no dignificaremos Botswana posturing con demasiada discusión. No tienen ningún ejército sino una fuerza incompetente del policía que no tenga ninguna capacidad de invadir un desierto mucho menos un país con la experiencia militar de Zimbabwe. Raila Odinga no habla para el gobierno de Kenyan, tan los extremos del análisis allí. Si solamente él podría comenzar convenciendo su propio gobierno, tendremos más a decir sobre la eficacia de sus elocuciones.

La otra versión de la violencia que puede derribar ciertamente Mugabe es una lucha armada emprendida por Zimbabweans ellos mismos de la misma forma que ZANLA y ZIPRA ejecutaron guerra contra Ian Smith. ¿Cómo factible y práctico es este asunto a este punto a tiempo y dentro del contexto geopolítico de la región de SADC? ¿Es incluso un alternativa deseable para la gente de Zimbabwe? Creemos que no hay respuestas afirmativas a tampoco de estas preguntas.

El segundo método posible por el cual Mugabe puede ser depuesto está con sublevaciones o demostraciones totales pacíficas. ¿Tenemos la capacidad como Zimbabweans de ejecutar éstos? Qué hacen los esfuerzos galantes del NCA y del WOZA nos enseñan. ¿Cuántos de nosotros ensamblan sus marchas valientes? ¿Cuánto Zimbabweans ensambló a soldados cuando fueron en el alboroto en las calles de Harare?

Está claro que el apetito para una revolución anaranjada del `' en Zimbabwe tiene todavía ser desarrollado, antes de que una sublevación total se convierta en una plataforma realista para conducir Mugabe hacia fuera. Nuestros políticos dentro del movimiento de la oposición también tienen que ser listos asumir los sacrificios que esta opción exige. Donde los líderes políticos entran ocultar en la amenaza más leve de la persecución, no podemos ver cómo esta opción se puede traer a la fruición.

Esto deja nos con el tercero y solamente la avenida para la salida de Mugabe, es decir, con elecciones libres y justas. ¿La pregunta entonces se convierte en cómo alcanzamos una elección libre y justa en Zimbabwe? Ciertamente no con exigir las elecciones armonizadas que serán conducidas bajo el 27 de junio condiciona hoy. Innecesario decir, en tal plebiscito, Mugabe capturará la presidencia e invertirán a la mayoría combinada actual de la oposición en el parlamento totalmente.

Seamos estratégicos. Nuestra gente y país no son elección lista en el momento. Necesitamos pasar con un período transitorio en el cual resolvamos la crisis humanitaria que aflige a nuestra gente, realicemos curativo nacional, comencemos la recuperación económica, y adoptemos más importantemente una nueva constitución democrática gente-conducida. Éste es el puente que Zimbabwe necesita en su marzo a la democracia. Después de ésa, podemos entonces realizar elecciones libres y justas. Si Mugabe participa en esas elecciones, lo derrotarán. Ésta es la única manera práctica que conducirá a la salida de Mugabe.

El acuerdo político global del 15 de septiembre de 2008, búsquedas de facilitar tal posibilidad. La gente, ésta es tan buena como consigue. Desafortunadamente, Mugabe tendrá que ser parte de la transición, como explicamos en la sección siguiente. El marrón y Bush deben conseguir sobre su obsesión absurda, mal informada y unstrategic con Mugabe que va hoy. Si no pueden articular explícitamente cómo van a quitarlo, deben satisfacer apenas retroceden, y permiten que nuestro país se mueva encendido. Tenemos que ahorrar las vidas de Zimbabwean que se están perdiendo innecesario.

Porqué Mugabe no puede salir con negociaciones

los resultados de elección a partir del 29 de marzo de 2008, producido ningún ganador absoluto en el parlamento y en la presidencia. El reestreno del 27 de junio era una farsa ilegítima, así que nos pegan con el resultado poco concluyente de marcha. Como demócratas, debemos aceptar que esto significa que Mugabe y su partido son tanto un factor como son Tsvangirai y su partido.

Corto de un nuevo sistema de elecciones o de cambio de la dirección por sus partidos, significa que ni Tsvangirai ni Mugabe se puede negociar lejos. ¿Sobre qué base podemos tener un acuerdo negociado que excluya a Roberto Mugabe? Si aceptamos la marcha resulta como legítimo, él es un líder de un partido contra el cual tenga 99 MPs 100 para MDC-T, 30 senadores contra 24 para MDC-T. Él vino en segundo lugar a Tsvangirai, 43.2% contra 47.8%. Mugabe posee más importantemente actualmente la presidencia de Zimbabwe, sí ilegítimamente. Bien, en la ley dicen que la posesión es el 90% de la propiedad.

El hecho de que Mugabe tiene esta energía del incumbency es la razón por la que Arturo Mutambara todavía está en ensayo en el Tribunal Supremo, Tendai Biti tiene cargas de la traición alrededor de su cuello, están secuestrando a los activistas, y Morgan Tsvangirai, el primero Ministro-señala, tenía un rato del torrid el conseguir de un pasaporte. Esto significa que Mugabe está a cargo del estado de Zimbabwean. Dado esta realidad en la tierra, y el resultado electoral del 29 de marzo de 2008, (que debido a nuestra carencia estratégico del pensamiento todos hemos esterilizado como resultado legítimo), es insentatez para pensar que usted puede negociar Mugabe fuera de energía, y alcanza de alguna manera milagrosamente un arreglo el compartir de energía que lo excluya.

En términos de práctica democrática será injusto, y en términos de politick verdadero será imposible. El Oh sí, en base del 29 de marzo resulta, Mugabe debe ser parte de cualquier autoridad transitoria el compartir de energía en Zimbabwe, puesto que él es presidente de un partido representado bien en ambas casas legislativas, y él vino en segundo lugar en la raza presidencial poco concluyente. Puede ser que no tengamos gusto de estas circunstancias democráticas, pero tenemos que vivir con esa realidad.

La política es un arte del posible, como Bismarck una vez famoso dicha. En el paisaje político actual de Zimbabwean, las posibilidades pertenecen a Roberto Mugabe y Morgan Tsvangirai. Se necesitan. Podemos discutir el papel específico que Mugabe debe desempeñar. Para ahora que el discusión fue colocado por Mugabe, Tsvangirai y Mutambara cuando firmaron el acuerdo político global (GPA). Mugabe es Presidente-señala y Morgan Tsvangirai es primero Ministro-señala. ¿Pero, estamos diciendo que GPA es la única demostración en ciudad? No, absolutamente no.
Los armazones alternativos a los muchos

de GPA de discusiones y de pensamiento han entrado alternativas que hacían a mano al acuerdo del 15 de septiembre de 2008. Desafortunadamente, ha sido una comedia de errores y de alucinaciones sencillas. Incluso han encontrado a los cuerpos internacionales respetados pozo como el grupo internacional de la crisis (ICG) desgraciadamente el desear. Los expertos renombrados de la resolución del conflicto, los líderes cívicos de la sociedad y los pandit occidentales han demostrado la carencia asombrosa de la creatividad y de la imaginación.

El punto de partida en establecer una trayectoria alternativa para Zimbabwe consiste en el agarrar de una comprensión clara de porqué estamos teniendo desafíos en poner el GPA en ejecución actual. La nueva formulación debe entonces robusto ilustrar cómo evitará estos desafíos actuales. Beyond this, the efficacy, process details, timelines and milestones of any new strategy must then be clearly articulated. None of the critics of the current GPA has even begun to do any of the above.

Among a number of obstacles to consummation, the major challenge we have faced in executing the Zimbabwean GPA is the inability to achieve sufficient buy-in from the two major protagonists in the political impasse: Zanu PF and MDC-T. They are the critical players in any national transitional discussion, because any agreed arrangement will require legal effect through a constitutional amendment in parliament. Such a change will require a two thirds majority which can only be achieved by the participation of both Zanu PF and MDC-T, as a minimum requirement.

None of the proposals from the ICG, the civic society groups (both national and regional), or the arrogant and ignorant international community has addressed this simple challenge: How are you going to ensure that both MDC-T and Zanu PF will embrace your new grand proposal? If one or both of them do not accept your framework what are you going to do? Please, this is commonsensical. Anyone seeking to resolve the Zimbabwean crisis democratically and within the laws of Zimbabwe must apply their mind to this critical success factor: the show stopper.

The busy bodies at the ICG and in civic society do not even have the capacity to appreciate the existence of the problem, much less the intellect to develop the requisite solution. We are not saying it is impossible to develop an alternative negotiated framework to the September GPA. We are emphasising that it will require good and rigorously working minds to come up with one.

The reasons why we insist on fixing and then implementing the current flawed and imperfect GPA is because at some point the buy-in between the two key protagonist was achieved through the signatures of the MOU on July 21, 2008, and the GPA on September 15, 2008. Yes, there are disagreements now, but there are two agreed reference points. The key players and their teams have been actively negotiating the political impasse from March 29, 2008, and now four months after signing the GPA there are still implementation challenges.

Yes, this is bad and regrettable. However, let us be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. If we adopt a completely new process, how and when are we going to convince the two key players to start working towards an MOU? Are you going to get that MOU signed soon, and after that how much time will be required to get to a new GPA of sorts? Furthermore, while we embark on these new processes that require time and resources what will be happening to the suffering people of Zimbabwe, the collapsed economy, and the destroyed industrial base? Given the hardened positions of the two protagonists at the moment, can you even begin to sell the new path to them?

The most bizarre, irritating and clearly ineffective critics of the current GPA are those that premise their proposals by denouncing one of the two key protagonists. Usually it is Mugabe and his Zanu PF who are dismissed. How do you even conceptualise a negotiated outcome without the involvement of the Zanu PF group? We thought it was common cause that you do not make peace with your friends, but with your opponents.

One would expect someone of Jendayi Frazer’s stature to understand all this. How does she say that the US supports the negotiated power sharing, but insists that Mugabe must not be involved? Making these statements while defying the consistent advice that she received from all the South African leaders that she interacted with means that Frazer is insulting the SA leadership at every level. By this disrespectful conduct, she is humiliating both SADC and the AU.

In this situation, with respect to the US-proposed dialogue framework, who will be the principals, negotiators, facilitators and guarantors? South Africa is the only country with leverage on Zimbabwe. To bring any kind of change in Zimbabwe you have to work with SA, and not insult or humiliate them. Anyone serious about the Zimbabwean agenda must grasp this.

Jendayi, I assume that she is supportive of Mr Tsvangirai and she wants him to succeed. Does she actually have any respect for him? He signed the GPA in which Mugabe is designated as the President. Is it that she thinks Mr. Tsvangirai does not know what is good for him and therefore she has to lead him every step of the way?

By the way, it is not true that the US government supported the agreement when it was signed. For the record, both the US and the UK were opposed to the GPA from the beginning. They did not like the fact that Mugabe was both Head of State and Chairman of Cabinet, and they despised the GPA positions on land reform and sanctions. Everyone knows this. We are not children.

The US and the UK are now taking advantage of the delay in implementation of the agreement to savage and destroy the GPA. Do Frazer and her government have a workable alternative framework to the current GPA, together with an enforcement mechanism? And what is this that she said about the weakness and incompetence of her favorite GPA principal? Did she not say the following; “Tsvangirai is too weak and incompetent for us to allow him to be in an inclusive government with Mugabe. He will be completely outmaneuvered. Tsvangirai is not as strong as Odinga. If he was, we would have allowed him to get into the GNU with Mugabe?”

How can she possibly say such insulting remarks about her favorite opposition leader? With friends like these, who needs enemies? Incidentally, did she share her views about Tsvangirai with him? Why not? Anyway, who is she to allow or disallow African leaders? Does the US government have locus standi to do this? From where does she derive such legal, political or moral authority? Would a reverse scenario where international players seek to influence US politics be acceptable to the US?

Jendayi, can’t you see that you are ruining the opposition you seek to assist, and strengthening Mugabe that you seek to destroy? You are foolishly confirming everything that Mugabe has said about the opposition: that we are puppets. Moreover, Mugabe’s strengths are Africa, Pan-Africanism and anti-Imperialism. Any foreign policy that undermines African leaders and African institutions plays right into Mugabe’s game plan. Why can’t Western diplomats master these basics? Why do we have a premonition that most of the destructive grandstanding by Western governments is meant for their domestic constituencies?

More specifically, US foreign policy is always characterised by double standards, hypocrisy and dishonesty all rooted in the pursuit of US permanent interests. We seriously hope that incoming US President Obama and his new team will depart from this ignorant, ruinous and ineffective foreign policy that effectively undermines its intended beneficiaries, strengthens the targeted villains, while blighting the US standing in the World.

Things have to change in 2009. We are not naïve. We know that the general thrust of the US foreign policy objective is largely independent of both the individual who is the US President and the Party they belong to. However, we hope the policy execution, nuances and tactics will be different. Zimbabweans have great expectations.

Collapse of the Mugabe Regime

It is clear that the Mugabe regime will not collapse because of economic decay, mass starvation or epidemics such as cholera. The formal economy collapsed way back when. The regime survives on the informal sector and through rent-seeking behaviours. Yes, ordinary people are perishing and will continue to do so, but the regime will not collapse. Can we all come to grips with this?

The diamonds of Chiadzwa, the Platinum Mines, and assistance from friendly nations such as DRC, Angola, China and Russia will see the regime pull through another 5-10 years. Of course this will be at major cost to the population. Zimbabweans should care about this.

However, to the external players that suggest that we must wait for the collapse of the regime at any cost, the needless loss of life in pursuit of the departure of Mugabe is a small price to pay. After all, the lives lost are Black lives which are not equivalent to White lives. Since September 15, 2008, we have had Western governments encouraging the continuation of suffering and death of our people in the misguided belief that this will lead to the collapse of the Mugabe regime. Well, this will not happen, and our people are dying in vain. All Zimbabwean leaders must understand this.

We must collectively take responsibility for the calamity afflicting our country. In particular, Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai are equally culpable for the failure to work together. They are effectively working against the interests of their supporters and the generality of our citizenry. The two leaders are more concerned about a misguided power play executed at the expense of Zimbabwean lives. They have blood on their hands. The US and UK governments who are specifically undermining SADC efforts to establish an inclusive government in Zimbabwe are complicit in this crime against humanity.

In the case of these Western governments, they are driven by racism and utter disrespect for African lives. As Africans, our position is that not a single Zimbabwean life should be used as a stick to inflict pain on Robert Mugabe. People’s lives are too important to be used as ineffective political tools and weapons. We all know that Mugabe will not collapse because of cholera, mass starvation and a collapsed economy, so why are we supporting this ineffective strategy?

Nevertheless, let us deceive ourselves for a moment and assume the game plan works and the Mugabe regime actually collapses through the existing crisis. Why are we assuming that such a demise of Mugabe will lead to a democratic outcome? We saw what happened in Guinea when their dictator died. Did the opposition take over? Nope. If the Mugabe regime collapses, it is most likely that the army will take over. Some ambitious and gutsy colonel or general will step in. Our democratisation processes will, resultantly, regress at least 10 years.

There is absolutely no way Tsvangirai and his Party will be the beneficiaries of the collapse of Robert Mugabe. Quite to the contrary, the Zanu PF regime will make sure they collapse together with Tsvangirai and MDC-T. Do the current abductions, confessions and dubious trials of activists mean anything to anyone? MDC-T will not exist after the demise of Mugabe. I hope Tsvangirai understands this in no uncertain terms. I wish our brazen and unintelligent Western friends will do more listening and thinking.

This Mugabe must collapse strategy is not in the best interest of Zimbabwe. A regime change agenda achieved through a scorched earth policy is not what we need in our country. It will not benefit anyone. As Zimbabweans, we should think seriously about options that will allow us to continue to build, brick by brick, our democratic institutions.

Opportunity for a New Beginning

The year 2009 presents us with an opportunity for a new beginning. However, for this to be achieved, we have to learn some difficult lessons from inconvenient truths. We have to do things differently. We must embrace self-criticism as part of our best practices, and adopt an interrogative and questioning attitude to all stakeholders, including those that purport to support our struggles and our national interest.

In the struggle for a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Zimbabwe, it is not enough to be right. It is not enough to be a victim or to have the higher moral authority. The victims must behave well. Those with moral high ground must be driven by principles and values. Those on the right side of history must be thoughtful and strategic. Those that support victims of despotic regimes must apply their analytical skills. Good heart, bad mind will not cut it.

In all this, we must always put the people first. We must cherish servant leadership. Only then can we succeed. While external players and events affect our country, we must take responsibility for our own circumstances. We should be at the centre of our struggles and be the drivers of our nation building processes. We must have enough leadership strength to define and determine both the terms of reference and frameworks through which foreigners participate in the affairs of our nation.

In 2009, Zimbabweans must set the agenda and own the rules of the game. We must be masters of our own destiny. The critique of external influences that has been proffered should not be used to absolve us as citizens. We as Zimbabweans, created the current socio-political and economic crisis, and we will be the primary drivers and developers of the sustainable answers. And yes, a people do get a government that they deserve. Let us all be the change we wish to see in the year 2009.

Arthur G.O. Mutambara is president of MDC

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/mutambara4.19221.html

Verità inopportune circa l'ovest e lo Zimbabwe
Automatically translated into Italian thanks to WorldLingo
Le verità inopportune circa il SENSO dello Zimbabwe e


di ovest SPEDISCONO: Arthur Mutambara

•In questo articolo, il capo Arthur Mutambara del MDC guarda le difficoltà nell'effettuare il 15 settembre GPA, il unhelpfulness degli interventi occidentali nelle politiche domestiche dello Zimbabwe mentre consultando le strategie attuali per realizzare democrazia nello Zimbabwe:


L'anno 2008 era molto difficile per noi come nazione. Dato che le elezioni armonizzate inconcludenti tenute il 29 marzo, ci è stato un'impasse politica nella nostra terra. Il paese è stato senza un governo legittimo. La nostra economia virtualmente è sprofondato, mentre la malattia e l'inedia stanno devastando la nostra gente. Il Hopelessness e la disperazione caratterizzano e definiscono lo psyche nazionale. Ci è stato guasto completo di direzione attraverso il bordo, in Zimbabwe, nella regione e nella Comunità internazionale.
Come cominci un nuovo anno, lascili riflettono su alcuni dei dibattiti principali che stanno modellando la nostra politica mentre annulliamo 2008. Di interesse particolare in questo trattato sono le realtà scomode e sfide quelle a volte lanciamo via dal confronto. In particolare cerchiamo di slay quell'elefante nella stanza vivente nazionale: Come la partecipazione esterna ignara e unstrategic al discorso di Zimbabwean fa più danno che buon.

Cerchiamo di sostenere che durante l'anno 2008, gli shenanigans occidentali brazen e crass realmente hanno insidiato l'opposizione ed il Robert rinforzato Mugabe. Più d'importanza, è la nostra presentazione che le posizioni non informate e reckless di politica straniera dei governi occidentali, in particolare gli Stati Uniti ed il Regno Unito, negativamente hanno avuto effetto sul nostro interesse nazionale. Zimbabweans deve capire chiaramente questo affinchè le nostre fortune collettive sia differente durante l'anno 2009.

Il `Mugabe deve andare' Chorus

mentre abbiamo annullato 2008, in dicembre, ci era un crescendo delle richieste della partenza di Mugabe dalla fase politica. Ci è niente di nuovo e creativo in questo Mugabe deve andare mantra. La difficoltà è che molte gente ed istituzioni su questa pista soffrono dalla malattia del cuore che è nel giusto posto, mentre la mente non sta applicanda. Uno ha bisogno sia di buon cuore che di buona mente.

Alcuni di noi stanno cantando il Mugabe devono andare mantra per il 21 anno scorsi, inutilmente. Incidentalmente, i governi occidentali sono non stato d'accordo con noi in 1988 in cui ci siamo rivoltati contro il regime di Zanu pf. Ora patronise noi, come se capiscano perchè Mugabe deve andare, migliore di noi, le sue vittime di Zimbabwean.

Noi è stato il combattimento Mugabe per due decadi, dove voi è stato l'America ed Europa? Perchè avete sostenuto Mugabe verso la fine degli anni 80 in cui stavamo opponendolo? Perchè attivamente lo avete sostenuto durante il Gukurahundi? Non ci siamo sentiti mai che dire il `Mugabe dovete andare' durante quel periodo. Invece gli avete dato i premi prestigious da entrambi i lati dell'Atlantico.

Possiamo capirli se la vostra difesa è che siete principianti lenti e bloomers ritardati in cui i nostri argomenti sono interessati. Possiamo accettare quello. Ma allora anche mezzi voi deve prenderci la vostra indicazione che capiscono più meglio il terreno di Zimbabwean. Dovete accettare che siete essenzialmente ignari, unstrategic e quindi inefficace dove gli argomenti africani sono interessati. Mentre cercate di aiutarli nelle nostre lotte per cambiamento, il vostro comportamento brazen li insidia efficacemente e rinforza i nostri avversari. Dovete ascoltare noi e non il contrario.

Il `Mugabe del dicembre 2008 deve andare' chorus era pathetic come era sia unimaginative che prevedibile. Ha cominciato con il Primo Ministro keniano Raila Odinga, Bishop John Sentamu e arcivescovo Desmond Tutu, in quell'ordine. Non appena sono stati fatti, David Milliband ed il riso di Condi sono entrato sostenere “le molte„ voci dei capi africani. Da allora in poi, era Gordon Brown, George Bush, Sarkozy e Merkel. Allora ogni capo europeo e la loro nonna si sono uniti dentro, sostenendo “le molte„ voci dei capi africani. Per crown tutto, ci era un precipitare incompetent al Consiglio di sicurezza di NU, in cui tutto è venuto sbriciolandosi giù: ché non-evento embarrassing. Perchè chiunque è stato sorprendo da questo unmitigated il guasto? Era mai ci un metodo nella follia? Che cosa era essere la conclusione logica del chorus?

In primo luogo non ci era capo africano che aveva parlato. Così chi, i capi occidentali stavano pretendendo di sostenere? Presto dopo che Odinga parlasse, è stato contraddetto dal suo proprio ministro straniero. Ciò significa che non stava parlando a nome del Kenia o del presidente Kibaki. Il Bishop Sentamu non parla per alcun paese africano. Bene, lo stessi per Tutu; è un buon Africano che parla per nessuna nazione africana. Affinchè lui sia efficace dovrebbe lavorare a convincere la direzione politica dell'Africano del sud adottare i suoi punti di vista.

Interessando abbastanza, neppure lo Ian solitamente reckless e unimaginative Khama non faceva parte delle voci africane. Così quando questi capi americani ed europei hanno entrato nel chorus, che erano che sostengono? In un continente di 53 paesi, gli Stati Uniti ed il Regno Unito non hanno potuto convincere un singolo presidente africano fare parte del loro chorus elegante.

Se i capi occidentali fossero effettivamente giusti sostenendosi, perchè si sono trovati che stavano sostenendo le voci dei capi africani? Se si preoccupano per che capi africani pensano, perchè non hanno speso abbastanza tempo convincendo i capi africani reali della precisione delle posizioni occidentali e da allora in poi, fare parlare ai capi africani in primo luogo?

Certamente se, per esempio, i presidenti Kgalema Motlanthe, Armando Geubuza, il DOS Santos, Jakaya Kikwete e Mwai Kibaki del José Eduardo avessero preso una posizione collettiva particolare sullo Zimbabwe ed i governi occidentali erano entrato sostenerli, ci sarebbe stato una certa trazione.

Ma no, le alimentazioni occidentali ha scelto generare i loro propri capi africani pseudi ed allora forza un chorus del mondo. Ciò era sicura venire a mancare. Oltre il chorus, non ci era strategia reale per risolvere la crisi nello Zimbabwe. Non ci era azione specifica che gli Stati Uniti ed il Regno Unito stavano andando intraprendere dopo il chorus. Non sarebbe stato logico sostenere gli slogan con sia i programmi procedurali che l'Africano adeguato compra?

Sembra che la spiegazione razionale era che Mugabe era andare giusto cadere da dalla fase politica dello Zimbabwe a causa del suono deafening dei capi occidentali che ripetono lo stesso messaggio insignificante. Quanto pathetic! Bene, vergogna su loro per trivialising la lotta legittima della nostra gente.

I viali attraverso cui Mugabe può passare

là sono tre sensi che Mugabe può essere rimosso dalla presidenza e dalla direzione dello Zimbabwe: (1) uso della violenza o armi 2) della rivolta di guerra (o dimostrazioni totali pacifiche (3) libere ed elezioni giuste.

L'uso della violenza cacciare Mugabe è stato suggerito in determinati quarti. What has not been done is an interrogation of what form this will take, its meaning, consequences and the aftermath. Il one-way che un overthrow violento può essere previsto è di avere truppe americane e britanniche invadere lo Zimbabwe come hanno fatto in Irak. Naturalmente possono eliminare Mugabe quel senso.

Tuttavia, le forze occidentali dovranno sanguinare sul terreno di Zimbabwean nel processo. Non sarà una camminata nel parco. Dopo il misadventure degli Stati Uniti in Somalia, in cui i fanti di marina americani sono stati macellati nelle vie di Mogadiscio, il dibattito nel senato degli Stati Uniti era molto istruttivo. Il sentimento chiave era abbastanza inequivocabile, “che l'intero paese della Somalia non è degno una singola vita americana. Dovremmo non lasciare mai che le vite americane siano perse in difesa di questi paesi africani senza valore.„

Quello allora era l'atteggiamento. Qualche cosa è cambiato? Jendayi Frazer, riso di Condi e George Bush, siete voi ora aspettare per sanguinare nell'inseguimento della libertà africana e la prosperità? Se non siete preparati per avere fanti di marina degli Stati Uniti uccisi nello Zimbabwe, prego giusto chiuso in su sull'emissione di intervento militare per rimuovere Mugabe.

Supponiamo per un minuto che questi capi occidentali sono giocatori serii e talkers trascurati non giusti. Possono allora realmente introdurre le loro truppe nello Zimbabwe ed ottenere il lavoro fatto. Dopo che Mugabe sia andato il senso del Saddam, che cosa accadrà dopo? Che cosa l'intervento militare degli Stati Uniti ha prodotto Irak e nell'Afghanistan? Abbiamo risultati democratici in questi paesi? Sono nazioni pacifiche, democratiche e prosperose? Perchè il risultato di Zimbabwean sarebbe affatto differente? Se non, allora perchè dovrebbe questo persino essere considerato come opzione?

In termini di eserciti stranieri che invadono lo Zimbabwe, è soltanto nazioni occidentali che valgono la pena di analizzare poichè abbiamo tentato sopra. Soltanto due paesi africani, Botswana e Kenia, hanno espresso un appetito per confronto fisico con lo Zimbabwe. Neppure non dignify il Botswana che posturing con troppa discussione. Non hanno esercito ma una forza incompetent della polizia che non abbia capacità di invadere un deserto molto meno un paese con esperienza militare dello Zimbabwe. Raila Odinga non parla per il governo keniano, così le estremità di analisi là. Se soltanto potesse cominciare convincendo il suo proprio governo, avremo più da dire circa l'efficacia delle sue espressioni.

L'altra versione della violenza che può certamente rovesciare Mugabe è una lotta munita intrapresa da Zimbabweans essi stessi nello stesso senso che ZANLA e ZIPRA hanno eseguito la guerra contro Ian Smith. Quanto fattibile e pratico è questa proposta a questo punto a tempo ed all'interno del contesto geopolitico della regione di SADC? È persino un'alternativa desiderabile per la gente dello Zimbabwe? Crediamo che non ci siano risposte affermative a neanche di queste domande.

Il secondo metodo possibile da cui Mugabe può deposed è con le rivolte o le dimostrazioni totali pacifiche. Abbiamo la capacità come Zimbabweans di eseguire questi? Che cosa fanno gli sforzi gallant del NCA e del WOZA li insegnano. Quanto di noi uniscono loro marzo brave? Quanto Zimbabweans ha unito i soldati quando sono andato sul rampage sulle vie di Harare?

È chiaro che l'appetito per un giro arancione del `' nello Zimbabwe ha ancora essere sviluppato, prima che una rivolta totale si trasformi in in una piattaforma realistica per guidare Mugabe fuori. I nostri politici all'interno del movimento di opposizione anche devono essere aspettano per ammettere i sacrifici che questa opzione richiede. Dove i capi politici entrano nel nascondersi alla minaccia minima del persecution, non riusciamo a vedere come questa opzione può essere portata a compimento.

Ciò lascia noi con il terzo e soltanto il viale per la partenza di Mugabe, cioè con le elezioni libere e giuste. La domanda allora si trasforma in come realizziamo un'elezione libera e giusta nello Zimbabwe? Certamente non through richiedendo le elezioni armonizzate oggi che saranno condotte sotto il 27 giugno condiziona. Inutile per dire, in un tal plebiscito, Mugabe bloccherà la presidenza e la maggior parte unita corrente di opposizione nel Parlamento completamente sarà invertita.

Siamo strategici. La nostri gente e paese non sono elezione aspettano al momento. Dobbiamo passare con un periodo di transizione in où risolviamo la crisi umanitaria che affligge la nostra gente, effettuiamo healing nazionale, cominciamo il miglioramento della situazione economica e più d'importanza adottiamo una nuova costituzione democratica gente-guidata. Ciò è il ponticello di che lo Zimbabwe ha bisogno nel relativo procedere alla democrazia. Dopo quella, possiamo allora effettuare le elezioni libere e giuste. Se Mugabe partecipa a quelle elezioni, sarà sconfitto. Ciò è l'unico senso pratico che condurrà alla partenza del Mugabe.

L'accordo politico globale del 15 settembre 2008, ricerche facilitare una tal possibilità. La gente, questa è buona come ottiene. Purtroppo, Mugabe dovrà fare parte della transizione, come spieghiamo nella sezione seguente. Il colore marrone e Bush devono ottenere sopra la loro ossessione insensata, non informata e unstrategic con Mugabe che va oggi. Se non possono articolare esplicitamente come stanno andando rimuoverli, dovrebbero soddisfare appena recedono e permettono che il nostro paese passi. Dobbiamo conservare le vite di Zimbabwean che stanno perdende inutilmente.

Perchè Mugabe non può passare via con i colloqui

i risultati di elezione dal 29 marzo 2008, prodotto nessun vincitore autentico sia nel Parlamento che alla presidenza. Il 27 giugno rifatto era un farce illegitimate, in modo da siamo attaccati con il risultato inconcludente di marzo. Come carbossimetilazioni, dobbiamo accettare che questo significa che Mugabe ed il suo partito sono tanto un fattore come Tsvangirai ed il suo partito sono.

Corto di nuovo insieme delle elezioni o del cambiamento di direzione dai loro partiti, significa che nè Tsvangirai nè Mugabe può essere negoziato via. Su che base possiamo avere un accordo negoziato che esclude Robert Mugabe? Se accettiamo marzo risulta come legittimo, è un capo di un partito cui ha 99 MPs contro 100 per MDC-T, 30 senatori contro 24 per MDC-T. È venuto in secondo luogo a Tsvangirai, 43.2% contro 47.8%. Mugabe attualmente possiede più d'importanza sì illegitimately la presidenza dello Zimbabwe. Bene, a legge dicono che il possesso è 90% della proprietà.

Il fatto che Mugabe ha questa alimentazione del incumbency è la ragione per la quale Arthur Mutambara è ancora sulla prova nella Corte suprema, Tendai Biti ha spese del treason intorno al suo collo, gli attivisti stanno rapendi e Morgan Tsvangirai, il principale Assistere-indica, si divertito ottenere un passaporto. Ciò significa che Mugabe è incaricato dello Zimbabwean dichiara. Dato questa realtà sulla terra ed il risultato elettorale del 29 marzo 2008, (che a causa della nostra mancanza strategico di pensare tutti abbiamo sterilizzato come risultato legittimo), è foolishness per pensare che possiate negoziare Mugabe da alimentazione ed in qualche modo miraculously realizza una disposizione di compartecipazione di alimentazione che lo esclude.

In termini di pratica democratica sarà unjust ed in termini di politick reale sarà impossibile. L'OH sì, in base al 29 marzo risulta, Mugabe dovrebbe fare parte di tutta l'autorità di transizione di compartecipazione di alimentazione nello Zimbabwe, poiché è presidente di un partito rappresentato bene in entrambe le case legislative ed è venuto in secondo luogo nella corsa presidenziale inconcludente. Non potremmo gradire queste circostanze democratiche, ma dobbiamo vivere con quella realtà.

La politica è un'arte del possibile, come Bismarck una volta famoso detto. Nel paesaggio politico corrente di Zimbabwean, le possibilità appartengono sia a Robert Mugabe che Morgan Tsvangirai. Si hanno bisogno di. Possiamo dibattere il ruolo specifico che Mugabe dovrebbe svolgere. Per ora che il dibattito è stato depositato da Mugabe, da Tsvangirai e da Mutambara quando hanno firmato l'accordo politico globale (GPA). Mugabe è Presidente-indica e Morgan Tsvangirai è principale Assistere-indica. Ma, stiamo dicendo che GPA è l'unica esposizione in città? No, assolutamente non.
Le strutture alternative ai dibattiti

molto ed a pensare di GPA ha entrato nelle alternative di formazione all'accordo del 15 settembre 2008. Purtroppo, è stato una commedia degli errori e dei hallucinations non sofisticati. Anche gli organismi internazionali rispettati pozzo come il gruppo internazionale di crisi (ICG) sono stati trovati misero desiderare. Gli esperti Renowned di risoluzione di conflitto, i capi civici della società ed i pandit occidentali hanno indicato la mancanza astonishing di creatività e di immaginazione.

Il punto di partenza nella stabilizzazione del percorso alternativo per lo Zimbabwe consiste di afferrare una comprensione libera di perchè stiamo avendo sfide nell'effettuare il GPA corrente. La nuova formulazione deve allora robusto illustrare come eviterà queste sfide correnti. Beyond this, the efficacy, process details, timelines and milestones of any new strategy must then be clearly articulated. None of the critics of the current GPA has even begun to do any of the above.

Among a number of obstacles to consummation, the major challenge we have faced in executing the Zimbabwean GPA is the inability to achieve sufficient buy-in from the two major protagonists in the political impasse: Zanu PF and MDC-T. They are the critical players in any national transitional discussion, because any agreed arrangement will require legal effect through a constitutional amendment in parliament. Such a change will require a two thirds majority which can only be achieved by the participation of both Zanu PF and MDC-T, as a minimum requirement.

None of the proposals from the ICG, the civic society groups (both national and regional), or the arrogant and ignorant international community has addressed this simple challenge: How are you going to ensure that both MDC-T and Zanu PF will embrace your new grand proposal? If one or both of them do not accept your framework what are you going to do? Please, this is commonsensical. Anyone seeking to resolve the Zimbabwean crisis democratically and within the laws of Zimbabwe must apply their mind to this critical success factor: the show stopper.

The busy bodies at the ICG and in civic society do not even have the capacity to appreciate the existence of the problem, much less the intellect to develop the requisite solution. We are not saying it is impossible to develop an alternative negotiated framework to the September GPA. We are emphasising that it will require good and rigorously working minds to come up with one.

The reasons why we insist on fixing and then implementing the current flawed and imperfect GPA is because at some point the buy-in between the two key protagonist was achieved through the signatures of the MOU on July 21, 2008, and the GPA on September 15, 2008. Yes, there are disagreements now, but there are two agreed reference points. The key players and their teams have been actively negotiating the political impasse from March 29, 2008, and now four months after signing the GPA there are still implementation challenges.

Yes, this is bad and regrettable. However, let us be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. If we adopt a completely new process, how and when are we going to convince the two key players to start working towards an MOU? Are you going to get that MOU signed soon, and after that how much time will be required to get to a new GPA of sorts? Furthermore, while we embark on these new processes that require time and resources what will be happening to the suffering people of Zimbabwe, the collapsed economy, and the destroyed industrial base? Given the hardened positions of the two protagonists at the moment, can you even begin to sell the new path to them?

The most bizarre, irritating and clearly ineffective critics of the current GPA are those that premise their proposals by denouncing one of the two key protagonists. Usually it is Mugabe and his Zanu PF who are dismissed. How do you even conceptualise a negotiated outcome without the involvement of the Zanu PF group? We thought it was common cause that you do not make peace with your friends, but with your opponents.

One would expect someone of Jendayi Frazer’s stature to understand all this. How does she say that the US supports the negotiated power sharing, but insists that Mugabe must not be involved? Making these statements while defying the consistent advice that she received from all the South African leaders that she interacted with means that Frazer is insulting the SA leadership at every level. By this disrespectful conduct, she is humiliating both SADC and the AU.

In this situation, with respect to the US-proposed dialogue framework, who will be the principals, negotiators, facilitators and guarantors? South Africa is the only country with leverage on Zimbabwe. To bring any kind of change in Zimbabwe you have to work with SA, and not insult or humiliate them. Anyone serious about the Zimbabwean agenda must grasp this.

Jendayi, I assume that she is supportive of Mr Tsvangirai and she wants him to succeed. Does she actually have any respect for him? He signed the GPA in which Mugabe is designated as the President. Is it that she thinks Mr. Tsvangirai does not know what is good for him and therefore she has to lead him every step of the way?

By the way, it is not true that the US government supported the agreement when it was signed. For the record, both the US and the UK were opposed to the GPA from the beginning. They did not like the fact that Mugabe was both Head of State and Chairman of Cabinet, and they despised the GPA positions on land reform and sanctions. Everyone knows this. We are not children.

The US and the UK are now taking advantage of the delay in implementation of the agreement to savage and destroy the GPA. Do Frazer and her government have a workable alternative framework to the current GPA, together with an enforcement mechanism? And what is this that she said about the weakness and incompetence of her favorite GPA principal? Did she not say the following; “Tsvangirai is too weak and incompetent for us to allow him to be in an inclusive government with Mugabe. He will be completely outmaneuvered. Tsvangirai is not as strong as Odinga. If he was, we would have allowed him to get into the GNU with Mugabe?”

How can she possibly say such insulting remarks about her favorite opposition leader? With friends like these, who needs enemies? Incidentally, did she share her views about Tsvangirai with him? Why not? Anyway, who is she to allow or disallow African leaders? Does the US government have locus standi to do this? From where does she derive such legal, political or moral authority? Would a reverse scenario where international players seek to influence US politics be acceptable to the US?

Jendayi, can’t you see that you are ruining the opposition you seek to assist, and strengthening Mugabe that you seek to destroy? You are foolishly confirming everything that Mugabe has said about the opposition: that we are puppets. Moreover, Mugabe’s strengths are Africa, Pan-Africanism and anti-Imperialism. Any foreign policy that undermines African leaders and African institutions plays right into Mugabe’s game plan. Why can’t Western diplomats master these basics? Why do we have a premonition that most of the destructive grandstanding by Western governments is meant for their domestic constituencies?

More specifically, US foreign policy is always characterised by double standards, hypocrisy and dishonesty all rooted in the pursuit of US permanent interests. We seriously hope that incoming US President Obama and his new team will depart from this ignorant, ruinous and ineffective foreign policy that effectively undermines its intended beneficiaries, strengthens the targeted villains, while blighting the US standing in the World.

Things have to change in 2009. We are not naïve. We know that the general thrust of the US foreign policy objective is largely independent of both the individual who is the US President and the Party they belong to. However, we hope the policy execution, nuances and tactics will be different. Zimbabweans have great expectations.

Collapse of the Mugabe Regime

It is clear that the Mugabe regime will not collapse because of economic decay, mass starvation or epidemics such as cholera. The formal economy collapsed way back when. The regime survives on the informal sector and through rent-seeking behaviours. Yes, ordinary people are perishing and will continue to do so, but the regime will not collapse. Can we all come to grips with this?

The diamonds of Chiadzwa, the Platinum Mines, and assistance from friendly nations such as DRC, Angola, China and Russia will see the regime pull through another 5-10 years. Of course this will be at major cost to the population. Zimbabweans should care about this.

However, to the external players that suggest that we must wait for the collapse of the regime at any cost, the needless loss of life in pursuit of the departure of Mugabe is a small price to pay. After all, the lives lost are Black lives which are not equivalent to White lives. Since September 15, 2008, we have had Western governments encouraging the continuation of suffering and death of our people in the misguided belief that this will lead to the collapse of the Mugabe regime. Well, this will not happen, and our people are dying in vain. All Zimbabwean leaders must understand this.

We must collectively take responsibility for the calamity afflicting our country. In particular, Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai are equally culpable for the failure to work together. They are effectively working against the interests of their supporters and the generality of our citizenry. The two leaders are more concerned about a misguided power play executed at the expense of Zimbabwean lives. They have blood on their hands. The US and UK governments who are specifically undermining SADC efforts to establish an inclusive government in Zimbabwe are complicit in this crime against humanity.

In the case of these Western governments, they are driven by racism and utter disrespect for African lives. As Africans, our position is that not a single Zimbabwean life should be used as a stick to inflict pain on Robert Mugabe. People’s lives are too important to be used as ineffective political tools and weapons. We all know that Mugabe will not collapse because of cholera, mass starvation and a collapsed economy, so why are we supporting this ineffective strategy?

Nevertheless, let us deceive ourselves for a moment and assume the game plan works and the Mugabe regime actually collapses through the existing crisis. Why are we assuming that such a demise of Mugabe will lead to a democratic outcome? We saw what happened in Guinea when their dictator died. Did the opposition take over? Nope. If the Mugabe regime collapses, it is most likely that the army will take over. Some ambitious and gutsy colonel or general will step in. Our democratisation processes will, resultantly, regress at least 10 years.

There is absolutely no way Tsvangirai and his Party will be the beneficiaries of the collapse of Robert Mugabe. Quite to the contrary, the Zanu PF regime will make sure they collapse together with Tsvangirai and MDC-T. Do the current abductions, confessions and dubious trials of activists mean anything to anyone? MDC-T will not exist after the demise of Mugabe. I hope Tsvangirai understands this in no uncertain terms. I wish our brazen and unintelligent Western friends will do more listening and thinking.

This Mugabe must collapse strategy is not in the best interest of Zimbabwe. A regime change agenda achieved through a scorched earth policy is not what we need in our country. It will not benefit anyone. As Zimbabweans, we should think seriously about options that will allow us to continue to build, brick by brick, our democratic institutions.

Opportunity for a New Beginning

The year 2009 presents us with an opportunity for a new beginning. However, for this to be achieved, we have to learn some difficult lessons from inconvenient truths. We have to do things differently. We must embrace self-criticism as part of our best practices, and adopt an interrogative and questioning attitude to all stakeholders, including those that purport to support our struggles and our national interest.

In the struggle for a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Zimbabwe, it is not enough to be right. It is not enough to be a victim or to have the higher moral authority. The victims must behave well. Those with moral high ground must be driven by principles and values. Those on the right side of history must be thoughtful and strategic. Those that support victims of despotic regimes must apply their analytical skills. Good heart, bad mind will not cut it.

In all this, we must always put the people first. We must cherish servant leadership. Only then can we succeed. While external players and events affect our country, we must take responsibility for our own circumstances. We should be at the centre of our struggles and be the drivers of our nation building processes. We must have enough leadership strength to define and determine both the terms of reference and frameworks through which foreigners participate in the affairs of our nation.

In 2009, Zimbabweans must set the agenda and own the rules of the game. We must be masters of our own destiny. The critique of external influences that has been proffered should not be used to absolve us as citizens. We as Zimbabweans, created the current socio-political and economic crisis, and we will be the primary drivers and developers of the sustainable answers. And yes, a people do get a government that they deserve. Let us all be the change we wish to see in the year 2009.

Arthur G.O. Mutambara is president of MDC

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/mutambara4.19221.html

Die ungünstigen Wahrheiten über den Westen und den Zimbabwe
Automatically translated into German thanks to WorldLingo
Die ungünstigen Wahrheiten über die Westen und Zimbabwe


WEISE SCHICKEN nach: Arthur Mutambara

•In diesem Artikel betrachtet MDC fap Führer Arthur Mutambara die Schwierigkeiten, wenn er das 15. September GPA, das unhelpfulness der westlichen Interventionen Zimbabwes in den inländischen Politiken einführt, bei der Abfragung der vorhandenen Strategien für das Erzielen von Demokratie in Zimbabwe:


DAS Jahr 2008 war ein sehr schwieriges für uns als Nation. Seit die ergebnislosen harmonisierten Wahlen am 29. März hielten, hat es eine politische Sackgasse in unserem Land gegeben. Das Land ist ohne eine gesetzmaßige Regierung gewesen. Unsere Wirtschaft hat praktisch eingestürzt, während Krankheit und Verhungern unsere Leute ravaging. Hoffnungslosigkeit und Verzweiflung kennzeichnen und definieren die nationale Psyche. Es hat kompletten Führungausfall das allgemeine, innerhalb Zimbabwe, in der Region und in der internationalen Gemeinschaft gegeben.
Wie wir ein neues Jahr beginnen, lassen Sie uns sich reflektieren auf einigen der Hauptdebatten, die unsere Politik formen, während wir 2008 herausnehmen. Vom bestimmten Interesse an dieser Abhandlung sind die unbequemen Wirklichkeiten und die Herausforderungen, die manchmal shy wir diese sind, weg vom Konfrontieren. Insbesondere suchen wir, diesen Elefanten im nationalen Wohnzimmer zu töten: Wie unwissende und unstrategic externe Miteinbeziehung in der Zimbabwean Darlegung mehr Schaden als gut tut.

Wir suchen, zu argumentieren, daß im Jahr 2008, unverschämte und crass westliche shenanigans wirklich die Opposition und den verstärkten Robert Mugabe untergraben haben. Wichtiger, ist es unsere Unterordnung, der die nicht informierten und reckless Positionen der fremden Politik der westlichen Regierungen, insbesondere die US und Großbritannien, negativ unser Staatsinteresse ausgewirkt haben. Zimbabweans müssen dieses offenbar verstehen, damit unsere Kollektivvermögen im Jahr 2009 unterschiedlich sind.

Das `Mugabe muß gehen' Chor,

während wir 2008, im Monat Dezember herausnahmen, es ein Crescendo der Nachfragen nach der Abfahrt von Mugabe vom politischen Stadium gab. Es gibt nichts neues und kreativ in diesem Mugabe muß gehen Beschwörungsformel. Die Mühe ist, daß viele Leute und Anstalten auf dieser Schiene unter der Krankheit des Herzens leiden, das im rechten Platz ist, während der Verstand nicht angewendet wird. Ein benötigt ein gutes Herz und einen guten Verstand.

Einige von uns haben das Mugabe müssen gehen Beschwörungsformel für die letzten 21 Jahre, vergebens gesungen. Übrigens waren westliche Regierungen mit uns 1988 anderer Meinung, als wir gegen das Zanu Leistungsfaktor Regime wendeten. Jetzt sie patronise wir, als ob sie verstehen, warum Mugabe gehen muß, besser als wir, seine Zimbabwean Opfer.

Wir haben Mugabe für zwei Dekaden, wo sind Sie gewesen Amerika und Europa gekämpft? Warum stützten Sie Mugabe Ende der achtziger Jahre, als wir ihm entgegensetzten? Warum unterstützten Sie ihn aktiv während Gukurahundi? Wir hörten nie, daß Sie, `Mugabe zu sagen' während dieser Periode gehen müssen. Stattdessen gaben Sie ihm prestigevolle Preise auf beiden Seiten des Atlantiks.

Wir können es verstehen, wenn Ihre Verteidigung ist, daß Sie langsame Anfänger und späte blühende Pflanzen sind, in denen unsere Angelegenheiten betroffen werden. Wir können das annehmen. Aber es dann auch Mittel Sie muß Ihr Stichwort von uns nehmen, die das Zimbabwean Gelände besser verstehen. Sie müssen annehmen, daß Sie im Wesentlichen unwissend unstrategic sind, und folglich erfolglos, wo afrikanische Angelegenheiten betroffen werden. Während Sie suchen, uns in unseren Kämpfen für änderung zu unterstützen, untergräbt Ihr unverschämtes Verhalten uns effektiv und verstärkt unsere Konkurrenten. Sie müssen zu uns und nicht zur Art und Weise hören.

Das Dezember 2008 `Mugabe muß gehen' Chor war so pathetisch, wie es unimaginative und vorhersagbar war. Es begann mit Kenyan Premierminister Raila Odinga, Bishop John Sentamu und Erzbischof Desmond Tutu, in diesem Auftrag. Sobald sie getan wurden, kamen David Milliband und Condi Reis herein, die „vielen“ Stimmen der afrikanischen Führer zu stützen. Danach war es Gordon Brown, George Bush, Sarkozy und Merkel. Dann verbanden jeder europäische Führer und ihre Großmutter innen und stützten die „vielen“ Stimmen der afrikanischen Führer. Es aller krönen, gab es einen inkompetenten Schlag zum UNO Sicherheit Rat, wohin alles unten zerbröckelnd kam: ein was für peinlicher Nichtfall. Warum wurde jemand durch dieses unmitigated Ausfall überrascht? Gab es überhaupt eine Methode in der Verrücktheit? Was war, die logische Zusammenfassung des Chors zu sein?

In erster Linie gab es keinen afrikanischen Führer, der gesprochen hatte. So wem, behaupteten die westlichen Führer, zu stützen? Bald, nachdem Odinga sprach, wurde er von seinem eigenen Außenminister widersprochen. Dies heißt, daß er nicht im Namen Kenias oder des Präsidenten Kibaki sprach. Bishop Sentamu spricht nicht für irgendein afrikanisches Land. Gut die selben für Tutu; er ist ein guter Afrikaner, der für keine afrikanische Nation spricht. Damit er er sollte arbeiten auf dem Überzeugen der politischen Führung des Südafrikaners, seine Ansichten anzunehmen wirkungsvoll ist.

Genug interessierend, sogar, war der normalerweise reckless und unimaginative Ian Khama nicht Teil der afrikanischen Stimmen. So, als diese amerikanischen und europäischen Führer in Chor einstiegen, die sie stützend waren? In einem Kontinent von 53 Ländern, konnten die US und Großbritannien nicht einen einzelnen afrikanischen Präsidenten überzeugen, ein Teil ihres eleganten Chors zu sein.

Wenn die westlichen Führer in der Tat gerecht waren, stützend, warum lagen sie, daß sie Stimmen der afrikanischen Führer stützten? Wenn sie sich interessieren für, welche afrikanische Führer denken, warum verbrachten sie nicht genügend Zeit, die wirklichen afrikanischen Führer der Korrektheit der westlichen Positionen überzeugend und, die afrikanischen Führer zuerst sprechen danach zu lassen?

Sicher, wenn z.B. Präsidenten Kgalema Motlanthe, Armando Geubuza, José Eduardo DOS Santos, Jakaya Kikwete und Mwai Kibaki eine bestimmte Kollektivposition auf Zimbabwe genommen hatten, und westliche Regierungen waren hereingekommen, sie zu stützen, würde es etwas Zugkraft gegeben haben.

Aber Nr., die westlichen Energien beschloß, ihre eigenen afrikanischen Pseudoführer herzustellen und zwingt dann einen Weltchor. Dieses war sicher auszufallen. Über dem Chor hinaus gab es keine reale Strategie, zum der Krise in Zimbabwe zu beheben. Es gab keine spezifischen Maßnahmen, die die US und Großbritannien waren, nach dem Chor zu ergreifen. Würde es nicht logisch gewesen sein, die Slogans mit Verfahrensplänen zu unterstützen und korrekter Afrikaner kaufen ein?

Es scheint, daß das Grundprinzip war, daß Mugabe gerechtes Gehen war, weg vom Zimbabwe politischen Stadium wegen des deafening Tones der westlichen Führer zu fallen, welche die gleiche bedeutungslose Anzeige wiederholen. Wie pathetisch! Gut Schande auf ihnen für das Trivialising den gesetzmaßigen Kampf unserer Leute.

Die Alleen, die Mugabe dort durchlaufen

kann, sind drei Möglichkeiten, die Mugabe vom Vorsitz und von der Führung von Zimbabwe entfernt werden kann: (1) Gebrauch von Gewalttätigkeit oder Arme des ruhigen Massenaufstiegs oder der Demonstrationen des Krieges (2) (3) frei und angemessene Wahlen.

Der Gebrauch von Gewalttätigkeit, Mugabe zu verjagen ist in bestimmten Vierteln vorgeschlagen worden. What has not been done is an interrogation of what form this will take, its meaning, consequences and the aftermath. One-way, den ein heftiger Overthrow beabsichtigt werden kann, ist, die amerikanischen und britischen Truppen zu haben, Zimbabwe einzudringen, wie sie im Irak taten. Selbstverständlich können sie Mugabe so loswerden.

Jedoch müssen westliche Kräfte auf Zimbabwean Boden im Prozeß bluten. Es ist nicht ein Weg im Park. Nach dem US Mißgeschick in Somalia, in dem amerikanische Marinen in den Straßen von Mogadischu geschlachtet wurden, war die Debatte im US Senat sehr lehrreich. Das Schlüsselgefühl war, „ziemlich unmißverständlich, das gesamtes Land von Somalia nicht wert ein einzelnes amerikanisches Leben ist. Wir sollten nie erlauben, daß amerikanische Leben werden verloren zum Schutze von diesen wertlosen afrikanischen Ländern.“

Die war die Haltung dann. Hat alles geändert? Jendayi Frazer, Condi Reis und George Bush, sind Sie jetzt bereit, in der Verfolgung der afrikanischen Freiheit und des Wohlstandes zu bluten? Wenn Sie nicht vorbereitet werden, die US Marinen zu haben, die in Zimbabwe getötet werden, bitte gerechtes geschlossen auf die Ausgabe der militärischen Intervention, um Mugabe zu entfernen.

Lassen Sie uns für eine Minute annehmen, daß diese westlichen Führer ernste Spieler und nicht gerechte unvorsichtige Talkers sind. Sie können ihre Truppen in Zimbabwe dann wirklich holen und die Arbeit erhalten erledigt. Nachdem Mugabe die Saddam Weise gegangen ist, geschieht was zunächst? Was hat US militärische Intervention im Irak und in Afghanistan produziert? Haben wir demokratische Resultate in diesen Ländern? Sind sie ruhige, demokratische und wohlhabende Nationen? Warum würde das Zimbabwean Resultat irgendein unterschiedlich sein? Wenn nicht, dann warum sollte dieses eine Wahl sogar gehalten werden?

In den fremden Armeen ausgedrückt, die Zimbabwe eindringen, ist es nur westliche Nationen, die sind zu analysieren, da wir oben versucht haben. Nur zwei afrikanische Länder, Botswana und Kenia, haben einen Appetit an körperliche Konfrontation mit Zimbabwe ausgedrückt. Wir nicht sogar zeichnen Botswanas posierend mit zu vieler Diskussion aus. Sie haben keine Armee aber eine inkompetente Polizeikraft, die keine Kapazität hat, eine weniger Wüste viel einzudringen ein Land mit Zimbabwes militärischer Erfahrung. Raila Odinga spricht nicht für die Kenyan Regierung, so die Analyse Enden dort. Wenn nur er beginnen könnte, indem er seine eigene Regierung überzeugte, haben wir mehr, zum über die Wirksamkeit seiner äußerungen zu sagen.

Die andere Version der Gewalttätigkeit, die Mugabe zweifellos stürzen kann, ist ein bewaffneter Kampf, der von Zimbabweans selbst in der gleichen Weise unternommen wird, der ZANLA und ZIPRA Krieg gegen Ian Smith durchführten. Ist diese Angelegenheit an diesem Punkt in der Zeit und innerhalb des geopolitischen Kontextes der SADC Region wie durchführbar und praktisch? Ist es sogar eine wünschenswerte Alternative für die Leute von Zimbabwe? Wir glauben, daß es keine bestätigenden Antworten zu auch nicht dieser Fragen gibt.

Die zweite mögliche Methode, durch die Mugabe abgesetzt werden kann, ist durch ruhige Massenaufstiege oder Demonstrationen. Haben wir die Kapazität als Zimbabweans, diese durchzuführen? Was tun, unterrichten die tapferen Bemühungen des NCA und des WOZA uns. Wieviele von uns verbinden ihre tapferen Märze? Wievieles verband Zimbabweans die Soldaten, als sie auf randalierte auf den Straßen von Harare gingen?

Es ist frei, daß der Appetit an eine `orange Revolution' in Zimbabwe, hat noch entwickelt zu werden, bevor ein Massenaufstieg eine realistische Plattform wird, zum von Mugabe heraus zu fahren. Unsere Politiker innerhalb der Opposition Bewegung müssen bereit auch sein, die Opfer anzunehmen, die diese Wahl zur Folge hat. Wo politische Führer in das Verstecken an der geringfügigsten Drohung der Verfolgung einsteigen, können wir sehen, wie nicht diese Wahl zur Verwirklichung geholt werden kann.

Dieses läßt uns mit dem Third und nur Allee für die Abfahrt von Mugabe, das heißt, durch die freien und angemessenen Wahlen. Die Frage wird dann, wie wir eine freie und angemessene Wahl in Zimbabwe erzielen? Zweifellos nicht durch das Verlangen der harmonisierten Wahlen heute, die unter 27. Juni geleitet werden, bedingt. Unnötig, in solch einer Volksabstimmung, Mugabe nimmt zu sagen den Vorsitz gefangen und die gegenwärtige kombinierte Opposition Majorität im Parlament wird vollständig aufgehoben.

Lassen Sie uns strategisch sein. Unsere Leute und Land sind nicht die Wahl, die im Augenblick bereit ist. Wir müssen eine übergangszeit durchlaufen, in der wir die humanitäre Krise, die unsere Leute beheben betrübt, das nationale Heilend durchführen, Wirtschaftsaufschwung anfangen und wichtiger eine neue Leute-gefahrene demokratische Beschaffenheit annehmen. Dieses ist die Brücke, die Zimbabwe in seinem März zur Demokratie benötigt. Nach der können wir die freien und angemessenen Wahlen dann durchführen. Wenn Mugabe an jenen Wahlen teilnimmt, wird er besiegt. Dieses ist die einzige praktische Weise, die zu Abfahrt Mugabes führt.

Die globale politische Vereinbarung von 15. September 2008, Suchvorgänge, solch eine Möglichkeit zu erleichtern. Völker, dieses ist so gut, wie es erhält. Leider muß Mugabe ein Teil des überganges sein, wie wir im folgenden Abschnitt erklären. Braun und Bush müssen über ihrer dummen, nicht informierten und unstrategic Obsession mit Mugabe erhalten, das heute geht. Wenn sie nicht ausdrücklich artikulieren können, wie sie ihn entfernen werden, sollten sie gerade gefallen sich zurückziehen und lassen unser Land an bewegen. Wir müssen die Zimbabwean Leben speichern, die unnötig verloren werden.

Warum Mugabe nicht Gespräche weg durchlaufen kann

die Wahlergebnisse ab dem 29. März 2008, produziert keinem völligen Sieger im Parlament und am Vorsitz. Die 27. Juni Wiederholung war eine ungesetzliche Farce, also werden wir mit dem März ergebnislosen Resultat gehaftet. Als Demokraten müssen wir annehmen, daß dieses bedeutet, daß Mugabe und seine Partei so viel ein Faktor sind, wie Tsvangirai und seine Partei sind.

Kurz von einem neuen Satz Wahlen oder änderung der Führung durch ihre Parteien, bedeutet es, daß weder über Tsvangirai noch Mugabe weg verhandelt werden können. Auf welcher Grundlage können wir eine verhandelte Vereinbarung haben, die Robert Mugabe ausschließt? Wenn wir annehmen, resultiert der März, wie gesetzmaßig, er ein Führer einer Partei ist, die 99 MPs gegen hat 100 für MDC-T, 30 Senatoren gegen 24 für MDC-T. Er kam an zweiter Stelle zu Tsvangirai, 43.2% gegen 47.8%. Wichtiger besitzt Mugabe z.Z. den Vorsitz von Zimbabwe, ja ungesetzlich. Gut am Gesetz sagen sie, daß Besitz 90% des Besitzes ist.

Die Tatsache, daß Mugabe diese Energie von Incumbency hat, ist der Grund, warum Arthur Mutambara noch auf Versuch im Höchsten Gericht ist, Tendai Biti hat Verrataufladungen um seinen Ansatz, werden Aktivisten entführt, und Morgan Tsvangirai, das Haupt Minister-kennzeichnen, hatten eine torrid Zeit, einen Paß zu erhalten. Dies heißt, daß Mugabe verantwortlich für den Zimbabwean Zustand ist. Diese Wirklichkeit aus den Grund und das Wahlresultat von 29. März 2008 gegeben, (das wegen unseres Mangels strategisch am Denken alle wir als gesetzmaßiges Resultat saniert haben), ist es die Dummheit, zum zu denken, daß Sie über Mugabe aus Energie heraus verhandeln können, und erzielt irgendwie wundersam eine Gewaltenteilung Anordnung, die ihn ausschließt.

In demokratischer Praxis ausgedrückt ist es unjust, und in realem politick ausgedrückt ist es unmöglich. OH- ja, auf der Grundlage von das 29. März resultiert, Mugabe sollte ein Teil jeder Gewaltenteilung übergangsberechtigung in Zimbabwe sein, da er Präsident einer Partei ist, die gut in beiden gesetzgebenden Häusern vertreten wird, und er kam an zweiter Stelle in das ergebnislose Präsidentenrennen. Wir konnten nicht diese demokratischen Umstände mögen, aber wir müssen mit dieser Wirklichkeit leben.

Politik ist eine kunst vom möglichen, als Bismarck einmal berühmt gesagt. In der gegenwärtigen Zimbabwean politischen Landschaft gehören die Möglichkeiten Robert Mugabe und Morgan Tsvangirai. Sie benötigen sich. Wir können die spezifische Rolle debattieren, die Mugabe spielen sollte. Für, nun da Debatte durch Mugabe, Tsvangirai und Mutambara vereinbart wurde, als sie den globalen politischen Vertrag (GPA) schlossen. Mugabe ist Präsident-kennzeichnen und Morgan Tsvangirai ist Minister-kennzeichnen Haupt. Aber, sagen wir, daß GPA einzige zeigen in der Stadt ist? Nr., absolut nicht.
Alternative Rahmen zu einer GPA

Menge Debatten und Denken ist in in Handarbeit machende Alternativen zur Vereinbarung von 15. September 2008 eingestiegen. Leider ist es eine Komödie von Störungen und von unverfälschten Hallucinations gewesen. Sogar sind Brunnen respektierte internationale Körper wie die internationale Krise Gruppe (ICG) miserabel, gefunden worden zu wünschen. Berühmte Konfliktauflösung Experten, bürgerliche Gesellschaftführer und westliche Pandite haben erstaunlichen Mangel an Kreativität und Phantasie gezeigt.

Der Ausgangspunkt, wenn er einen alternativen Weg für Zimbabwe herstellt, besteht, zu fassen ein freies Verständnis von, warum wir Herausforderungen haben, wenn wir das gegenwärtige GPA einführen. Die neue Formulierung muß dann robust veranschaulichen, wie sie diese gegenwärtigen Herausforderungen vermeidet. Beyond this, the efficacy, process details, timelines and milestones of any new strategy must then be clearly articulated. None of the critics of the current GPA has even begun to do any of the above.

Among a number of obstacles to consummation, the major challenge we have faced in executing the Zimbabwean GPA is the inability to achieve sufficient buy-in from the two major protagonists in the political impasse: Zanu PF and MDC-T. They are the critical players in any national transitional discussion, because any agreed arrangement will require legal effect through a constitutional amendment in parliament. Such a change will require a two thirds majority which can only be achieved by the participation of both Zanu PF and MDC-T, as a minimum requirement.

None of the proposals from the ICG, the civic society groups (both national and regional), or the arrogant and ignorant international community has addressed this simple challenge: How are you going to ensure that both MDC-T and Zanu PF will embrace your new grand proposal? If one or both of them do not accept your framework what are you going to do? Please, this is commonsensical. Anyone seeking to resolve the Zimbabwean crisis democratically and within the laws of Zimbabwe must apply their mind to this critical success factor: the show stopper.

The busy bodies at the ICG and in civic society do not even have the capacity to appreciate the existence of the problem, much less the intellect to develop the requisite solution. We are not saying it is impossible to develop an alternative negotiated framework to the September GPA. We are emphasising that it will require good and rigorously working minds to come up with one.

The reasons why we insist on fixing and then implementing the current flawed and imperfect GPA is because at some point the buy-in between the two key protagonist was achieved through the signatures of the MOU on July 21, 2008, and the GPA on September 15, 2008. Yes, there are disagreements now, but there are two agreed reference points. The key players and their teams have been actively negotiating the political impasse from March 29, 2008, and now four months after signing the GPA there are still implementation challenges.

Yes, this is bad and regrettable. However, let us be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. If we adopt a completely new process, how and when are we going to convince the two key players to start working towards an MOU? Are you going to get that MOU signed soon, and after that how much time will be required to get to a new GPA of sorts? Furthermore, while we embark on these new processes that require time and resources what will be happening to the suffering people of Zimbabwe, the collapsed economy, and the destroyed industrial base? Given the hardened positions of the two protagonists at the moment, can you even begin to sell the new path to them?

The most bizarre, irritating and clearly ineffective critics of the current GPA are those that premise their proposals by denouncing one of the two key protagonists. Usually it is Mugabe and his Zanu PF who are dismissed. How do you even conceptualise a negotiated outcome without the involvement of the Zanu PF group? We thought it was common cause that you do not make peace with your friends, but with your opponents.

One would expect someone of Jendayi Frazer’s stature to understand all this. How does she say that the US supports the negotiated power sharing, but insists that Mugabe must not be involved? Making these statements while defying the consistent advice that she received from all the South African leaders that she interacted with means that Frazer is insulting the SA leadership at every level. By this disrespectful conduct, she is humiliating both SADC and the AU.

In this situation, with respect to the US-proposed dialogue framework, who will be the principals, negotiators, facilitators and guarantors? South Africa is the only country with leverage on Zimbabwe. To bring any kind of change in Zimbabwe you have to work with SA, and not insult or humiliate them. Anyone serious about the Zimbabwean agenda must grasp this.

Jendayi, I assume that she is supportive of Mr Tsvangirai and she wants him to succeed. Does she actually have any respect for him? He signed the GPA in which Mugabe is designated as the President. Is it that she thinks Mr. Tsvangirai does not know what is good for him and therefore she has to lead him every step of the way?

By the way, it is not true that the US government supported the agreement when it was signed. For the record, both the US and the UK were opposed to the GPA from the beginning. They did not like the fact that Mugabe was both Head of State and Chairman of Cabinet, and they despised the GPA positions on land reform and sanctions. Everyone knows this. We are not children.

The US and the UK are now taking advantage of the delay in implementation of the agreement to savage and destroy the GPA. Do Frazer and her government have a workable alternative framework to the current GPA, together with an enforcement mechanism? And what is this that she said about the weakness and incompetence of her favorite GPA principal? Did she not say the following; “Tsvangirai is too weak and incompetent for us to allow him to be in an inclusive government with Mugabe. He will be completely outmaneuvered. Tsvangirai is not as strong as Odinga. If he was, we would have allowed him to get into the GNU with Mugabe?”

How can she possibly say such insulting remarks about her favorite opposition leader? With friends like these, who needs enemies? Incidentally, did she share her views about Tsvangirai with him? Why not? Anyway, who is she to allow or disallow African leaders? Does the US government have locus standi to do this? From where does she derive such legal, political or moral authority? Would a reverse scenario where international players seek to influence US politics be acceptable to the US?

Jendayi, can’t you see that you are ruining the opposition you seek to assist, and strengthening Mugabe that you seek to destroy? You are foolishly confirming everything that Mugabe has said about the opposition: that we are puppets. Moreover, Mugabe’s strengths are Africa, Pan-Africanism and anti-Imperialism. Any foreign policy that undermines African leaders and African institutions plays right into Mugabe’s game plan. Why can’t Western diplomats master these basics? Why do we have a premonition that most of the destructive grandstanding by Western governments is meant for their domestic constituencies?

More specifically, US foreign policy is always characterised by double standards, hypocrisy and dishonesty all rooted in the pursuit of US permanent interests. We seriously hope that incoming US President Obama and his new team will depart from this ignorant, ruinous and ineffective foreign policy that effectively undermines its intended beneficiaries, strengthens the targeted villains, while blighting the US standing in the World.

Things have to change in 2009. We are not naïve. We know that the general thrust of the US foreign policy objective is largely independent of both the individual who is the US President and the Party they belong to. However, we hope the policy execution, nuances and tactics will be different. Zimbabweans have great expectations.

Collapse of the Mugabe Regime

It is clear that the Mugabe regime will not collapse because of economic decay, mass starvation or epidemics such as cholera. The formal economy collapsed way back when. The regime survives on the informal sector and through rent-seeking behaviours. Yes, ordinary people are perishing and will continue to do so, but the regime will not collapse. Can we all come to grips with this?

The diamonds of Chiadzwa, the Platinum Mines, and assistance from friendly nations such as DRC, Angola, China and Russia will see the regime pull through another 5-10 years. Of course this will be at major cost to the population. Zimbabweans should care about this.

However, to the external players that suggest that we must wait for the collapse of the regime at any cost, the needless loss of life in pursuit of the departure of Mugabe is a small price to pay. After all, the lives lost are Black lives which are not equivalent to White lives. Since September 15, 2008, we have had Western governments encouraging the continuation of suffering and death of our people in the misguided belief that this will lead to the collapse of the Mugabe regime. Well, this will not happen, and our people are dying in vain. All Zimbabwean leaders must understand this.

We must collectively take responsibility for the calamity afflicting our country. In particular, Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai are equally culpable for the failure to work together. They are effectively working against the interests of their supporters and the generality of our citizenry. The two leaders are more concerned about a misguided power play executed at the expense of Zimbabwean lives. They have blood on their hands. The US and UK governments who are specifically undermining SADC efforts to establish an inclusive government in Zimbabwe are complicit in this crime against humanity.

In the case of these Western governments, they are driven by racism and utter disrespect for African lives. As Africans, our position is that not a single Zimbabwean life should be used as a stick to inflict pain on Robert Mugabe. People’s lives are too important to be used as ineffective political tools and weapons. We all know that Mugabe will not collapse because of cholera, mass starvation and a collapsed economy, so why are we supporting this ineffective strategy?

Nevertheless, let us deceive ourselves for a moment and assume the game plan works and the Mugabe regime actually collapses through the existing crisis. Why are we assuming that such a demise of Mugabe will lead to a democratic outcome? We saw what happened in Guinea when their dictator died. Did the opposition take over? Nope. If the Mugabe regime collapses, it is most likely that the army will take over. Some ambitious and gutsy colonel or general will step in. Our democratisation processes will, resultantly, regress at least 10 years.

There is absolutely no way Tsvangirai and his Party will be the beneficiaries of the collapse of Robert Mugabe. Quite to the contrary, the Zanu PF regime will make sure they collapse together with Tsvangirai and MDC-T. Do the current abductions, confessions and dubious trials of activists mean anything to anyone? MDC-T will not exist after the demise of Mugabe. I hope Tsvangirai understands this in no uncertain terms. I wish our brazen and unintelligent Western friends will do more listening and thinking.

This Mugabe must collapse strategy is not in the best interest of Zimbabwe. A regime change agenda achieved through a scorched earth policy is not what we need in our country. It will not benefit anyone. As Zimbabweans, we should think seriously about options that will allow us to continue to build, brick by brick, our democratic institutions.

Opportunity for a New Beginning

The year 2009 presents us with an opportunity for a new beginning. However, for this to be achieved, we have to learn some difficult lessons from inconvenient truths. We have to do things differently. We must embrace self-criticism as part of our best practices, and adopt an interrogative and questioning attitude to all stakeholders, including those that purport to support our struggles and our national interest.

In the struggle for a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Zimbabwe, it is not enough to be right. It is not enough to be a victim or to have the higher moral authority. The victims must behave well. Those with moral high ground must be driven by principles and values. Those on the right side of history must be thoughtful and strategic. Those that support victims of despotic regimes must apply their analytical skills. Good heart, bad mind will not cut it.

In all this, we must always put the people first. We must cherish servant leadership. Only then can we succeed. While external players and events affect our country, we must take responsibility for our own circumstances. We should be at the centre of our struggles and be the drivers of our nation building processes. We must have enough leadership strength to define and determine both the terms of reference and frameworks through which foreigners participate in the affairs of our nation.

In 2009, Zimbabweans must set the agenda and own the rules of the game. We must be masters of our own destiny. The critique of external influences that has been proffered should not be used to absolve us as citizens. We as Zimbabweans, created the current socio-political and economic crisis, and we will be the primary drivers and developers of the sustainable answers. And yes, a people do get a government that they deserve. Let us all be the change we wish to see in the year 2009.

Arthur G.O. Mutambara is president of MDC

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/mutambara4.19221.html

As verdades inconvenient sobre o oeste e o Zimbabwe
Automatically translated into Portuguese thanks to WorldLingo
As verdades inconvenient sobre a MANEIRA do oeste e


do Zimbabwe ENVÍAM: Arthur Mutambara

•Neste artigo, o líder Arthur Mutambara do CDM olha as dificuldades em executar o setembro 15 GPA, o unhelpfulness de intervenções ocidentais na política doméstica de Zimbabwe ao interrogating estratégias existentes para conseguir a democracia em Zimbabwe:


O ano 2008 era muito difícil para nós como uma nação. Desde que as eleições harmonised inconclusive prendidas março em 29, houve um impasse político em nossa terra. O país foi sem um governo legitimate. Nossa economia desmoronou virtualmente, quando a doença e o starvation ravaging nossos povos. O Hopelessness e o desespero caracterizam e definem o psyche nacional. Houve uma falha completa da liderança através da placa, dentro de Zimbabwe, na região e na comunidade internacional.
Como nós começamos um ano novo, deixe-nos refletem em alguns dos debates principais que estão dando forma a nossa política enquanto nós retiramos 2008. Do interesse particular neste treatise são as realidades incômodas e os desafios esses às vezes nós recuamos longe de confrontar. No detalhe nós procuramos slay esse elefante no quarto vivo nacional: Como a participação externa ignorant e unstrategic no discurso de Zimbabwean faz mais dano do que bom.

Nós procuramos discutir que no ano 2008, os shenanigans ocidentais brazen e crass undermined realmente a oposição e o Robert strengthened Mugabe. Mais importante, é nossa submissão que as posições uninformed e reckless da política extrangeira de governos ocidentais, no detalhe os E.U. e o Reino Unido, impactaram negativamente nosso interesse nacional. Zimbabweans tem que claramente compreender este para que nossas fortunas coletivas sejam diferente no ano 2009.

O `Mugabe deve ir' Chorus

enquanto nós retiramos 2008, no mês de dezembro, havia um crescendo das demandas para a partida de Mugabe do estágio político. Não há nada novo e creativo neste Mugabe deve ir mantra. O problema é que muitos povos e instituições nesta trilha sofrem da doença do coração que está no lugar direito, quando a mente não for aplicada. Um necessita um coração bom e uma mente boa.

Alguns de nós têm cantado o Mugabe devem ir mantra por os 21 anos passados, a nenhum proveito. Incidentally, os governos ocidentais discordaram com nós em 1988 em que nós giramos de encontro ao regime de Zanu picofarad. Agora eles patronise nós, como se compreendem porque Mugabe deve ir, melhor do que nós, suas vítimas de Zimbabwean.

Nós tem lutado Mugabe por duas décadas, onde você foi América e Europa? Por que você suportou Mugabe nos 1980's atrasados em que nós o opúnhamos? Por que você o suportou ativamente durante Gukurahundi? Nós nunca ouvimo-nos que você para dizer o `Mugabe deve ir' durante esse período. Instead você deu-lhe concessões prestigiosas em ambos os lados do Atlântico.

Nós podemos compreendê-lo se sua defesa for que você é learners lentos e os bloomers atrasados onde nossas matérias são concernidas. Nós podemos aceitar aquele. Mas então também meios você deve fazer exame de sua sugestão de nós que compreendem o terreno de Zimbabwean mais melhor. Você deve aceitar que você é essencialmente ignorant, unstrategic, e daqui ineficaz onde as matérias africanas são concernidas. Quando você procurar nos ajudar em nossos esforços para a mudança, seu comportamento brazen undermines eficazmente nos e strengthens nossos oponentes. Você deve escutar nós e não a outra maneira redonda.

O `Mugabe de dezembro 2008 deve ir' chorus era tão pathetic como era unimaginative e predictable. Começou com o ministro principal Raila Odinga, Bishop John Sentamu e Archbishop Desmond Tutu de Kenyan, nessa ordem. Assim que fossem feitos, David Milliband e o arroz de Condi vieram dentro suportar “muitas” vozes de líderes africanos. Depois disso, era Gordon Brown, George Bush, Sarkozy, e Merkel. Então cada líder europeu e sua avó juntaram dentro, suportando “muitas” vozes de líderes africanos. Para coroá-lo todo, havia um traço incompetent ao conselho de segurança dos UN, aonde tudo veio se desintegrando para baixo: que non-evento embarrassing. Por que qualquer um foi surpreendido por este unmitigated a falha? Havia sempre um método na loucura? Que era ser a conclusão lógica do chorus?

Primeiro e foremost não havia nenhum líder africano que tinha falado. Assim quem, os líderes ocidentais purporting suportar? Logo depois que Odinga falou, contradicted por seu próprio ministro extrangeiro. Isto significa que não estava falando em nome de Kenya ou de presidente Kibaki. O Bishop Sentamu não fala para nenhum país africano. Bem, o mesmos para Tutu; é um africano bom que fale para nenhuma nação africana. Para que seja eficaz deve trabalhar em convencer a liderança política do africano sul adotar suas vistas.

Interessando bastantes, mesmo o Ian geralmente reckless e unimaginative Khama não era parte das vozes africanas. Assim quando estes líderes americanos e europeus entraram no chorus, que eram eles que suportam? Em um continente de 53 países, os E.U. e o Reino Unido não podiam convencer um único presidente africano ser parte de seu chorus elegante.

Se os líderes ocidentais fossem certamente justos se suportando, por que se encontraram que suportavam vozes de líderes africanos? Se se importassem com que líderes africanos pensam, por que não gastaram bastante hora convencendo os líderes africanos reais da exatidão de posições ocidentais e depois disso, mandar os líderes africanos falar primeiramente?

Certamente se, por exemplo, os presidentes Kgalema Motlanthe, Armando Geubuza, dos Santos, Jakaya Kikwete e Mwai Kibaki de José Eduardo fizessem exame de uma posição coletiva particular em Zimbabwe, e os governos ocidentais tinham vindo dentro suportá-los, haveria alguma tração.

Mas o No., os poders ocidentais escolheu criar seus próprios líderes africanos pseudo, e força então um chorus do mundo. Isto era certo falhar. Além do chorus, não havia nenhuma estratégia real para resolver a crise em Zimbabwe. Não havia nenhuma ação específica de que os E.U. e o Reino Unido estavam indo fazer exame após o chorus. Não seria lógico suportar os slogans com plantas processuais e o africano apropriado buy-in?

Parece que o rationale era que Mugabe era ir justo cair o estágio político de Zimbabwe por causa do som deafening dos líderes ocidentais que repetem a mesma mensagem sem sentido. Como pathetic! Bem, shame neles para trivialising o esforço legitimate de nossos povos.

As avenidas que Mugabe pode atravessar

lá são três maneiras que Mugabe pode ser removido do Presidency e da liderança de Zimbabwe: (1) uso da violência ou braços 2) do uprising da guerra (ou demonstrações maciças calmas (3) livre e eleições justas.

O uso da violência expulsar Mugabe foi sugerido em determinados quartos. What has not been done is an interrogation of what form this will take, its meaning, consequences and the aftermath. O one-way que um overthrow violento pode envisaged é ter tropas americanas e britânicas para invadir Zimbabwe como fizeram em Iraq. Naturalmente podem começar livrados de Mugabe essa maneira.

Entretanto, as forças ocidentais terão que sangrar no solo de Zimbabwean no processo. Não será uma caminhada no parque. Após o misadventure dos E.U. em Somália, onde os fuzileiros navais americanos slaughtered nas ruas de Mogadishu, o debate no Senate dos E.U. era muito instructive. O sentiment chave era completamente unequivocal, “que o país inteiro de Somália não é worth uma única vida americana. Nós devemos nunca permitir que as vidas americanas sejam perdidas na defesa destes países africanos worthless.”

Aquela era a atitude então. Qualquer coisa mudou? Jendayi Frazer, arroz de Condi e George Bush, está você agora pronto para sangrar na perseguição da liberdade e da prosperidade africanas? Se você não for preparado para ter os fuzileiros navais dos E.U. matados em Zimbabwe, por favor justo fechado acima na introdução da intervenção militar para remover Mugabe.

Deixe-nos supor por um minuto que estes líderes ocidentais são jogadores sérios e talkers descuidados nao justos. Podem então realmente trazer suas tropas em Zimbabwe e começar o trabalho feito. Depois que Mugabe é ido a maneira de Saddam, que acontece em seguida? Que a intervenção militar dos E.U. produziu em Iraq e em Afeganistão? Nós temos resultados democráticos nestes países? São nações calmas, democráticas e prósperas? Por que o resultado de Zimbabwean seria diferente? Se não, então por que deve isto mesmo ser considerado como uma opção?

Nos termos dos exércitos extrangeiros que invadem Zimbabwe, é somente as nações ocidentais que valem a pena analisar porque nós tentamos acima. Somente dois países africanos, Botswana e Kenya, expressaram um apetite para o confrontation físico com Zimbabwe. Nós não dignify mesmo Botswana que posturing com demasiada discussão. Não têm nenhum exército mas uma força incompetent das polícias que não tenha nenhuma capacidade invadir muito um deserto menos um país com experiência militar de Zimbabwe. Raila Odinga não fala para o governo de Kenyan, assim as extremidades da análise lá. Se somente poderia começar convencendo seu próprio governo, nós teremos mais a dizer sobre o efficacy de seus utterances.

A outra versão da violência que pode certamente topple Mugabe é um esforço armado empreendido por Zimbabweans ele mesmo na mesma maneira que ZANLA e ZIPRA executaram a guerra de encontro a Ian Smith. Como praticável e prático é este proposition neste momento a tempo e dentro do geo - contexto político da região de SADC? É mesmo uma alternativa desejável para os povos de Zimbabwe? Nós acreditamos que não há nenhuma resposta affirmative a tampouco destas perguntas.

O segundo método possível por que Mugabe pode deposed é com os uprisings ou as demonstrações maciças calmas. Nós temos a capacidade como Zimbabweans executar estes? O que fazem os esforços gallant do NCA e do WOZA ensinam-nos. Quanto de nós juntam seus marços bravos? Quanto Zimbabweans juntou os soldados quando foram no rampage nas ruas de Harare?

Está desobstruído que o apetite para uma volta alaranjada do `' em Zimbabwe tem ser desenvolvido ainda, antes que um uprising maciço se transforme uma plataforma realística para dirigir para fora Mugabe. Nossos políticos dentro do movimento da oposição também têm que estar prontos para supor os sacrifícios que esta opção envolve. Onde os líderes políticos entram em esconder na ameaça a mais ligeira do persecution, nós não vemos como esta opção pode ser trazida ao fruition.

Isto deixa nos com o third e somente a avenida para a partida de Mugabe, isto é, com as eleições livres e justas. A pergunta transforma-se então como nós conseguimos uma eleição livre e justa em Zimbabwe? Certamente não com exijir as eleições harmonised hoje que serão conduzidas sob junho 27 condiciona. Needless para dizer, em tal plebiscite, Mugabe capturará o Presidency e a maioria combinada atual da oposição no Parliament será invertida completamente.

Deixe-nos ser estratégicos. Nossos povos e país não são eleição pronta neste momento. Nós necessitamos atravessar um período transitional em que nós resolvemos a crise humanitária que afflicting nossos povos, realizamos healing nacional, começamos a recuperação econômica, e adotamos mais importante um constitution democrático pessoa-dirigido novo. Esta é a ponte que Zimbabwe necessita em seu março à democracia. Após aquela, nós podemos então realizar eleições livres e justas. Se Mugabe participar naquelas eleições, será derrotado. Esta é a única maneira prática que conduzirá à partida de Mugabe.

O acordo político global setembro de 15, 2008, procura facilitar tal possibilidade. Os povos, este são tão bons como começa. Infelizmente, Mugabe terá que ser parte da transição, como nós explicamos na seção seguinte. O marrom e Bush devem começar sobre seu obsession foolish, uninformed e unstrategic com o Mugabe que vai hoje. Se não puderem explicitamente articular como estão indo o remover, devem satisfazer a parte traseira justa fora, e permitem que nosso país mova-se sobre. Nós temos que conservar as vidas de Zimbabwean que estão sendo perdidas needlessly.

Porque Mugabe não pode atravessar afastado conversas

os resultados de eleição março de 29, 2008, não produziu nenhum vencedor outright no Parliament e no Presidency. Junho o 27 tornado a colocar em funcionamento era um farce illegitimate, assim que nós somos furados com o resultado inconclusive de março. Como democratas, nós devemos aceitar que este significa que Mugabe e seu partido são tanto quanto um fator como Tsvangirai e seu partido são.

Curto de um jogo novo das eleições ou da mudança da liderança por seus partidos, significa que nem Tsvangirai nem Mugabe podem ser negociados afastado. Em que base podemos nós ter um acordo negociado que exclua Robert Mugabe? Se nós aceitarmos o março resulta como legitimate, é um líder de um partido que tenha 99 MPs contra 100 para MDC-T, 30 Senators contra 24 para MDC-T. Veio em segundo a Tsvangirai, 43.2% contra 47.8%. Mais importante Mugabe possui atualmente o Presidency de Zimbabwe, sim illegitimately. Bem, na lei dizem que a possessão é 90% da posse.

O fato que Mugabe tem este poder do incumbency é a razão porque Arthur Mutambara está ainda na experimentação na corte suprema, Tendai Biti tem cargas do treason em torno de sua garganta, as activistas estão sendo sequestradas, e Morgan Tsvangirai, o principal Ministro-designa, teve uma estadia do torrid começar um passport. Isto significa que Mugabe está na carga do estado de Zimbabwean. Dado esta realidade na terra, e o resultado electoral março de 29, 2008, (que por causa de nossa falta estratégico de pensar nós todos sanitised como um resultado legitimate), é foolishness para pensar de que você pode negociar Mugabe fora do poder, e consegue de algum modo miraculously um arranjo compartilhar de poder que o exclua.

Nos termos da prática democrática será unjust, e nos termos do politick real será impossível. O Oh sim, na base março do 29 resulta, Mugabe deve ser parte de toda a autoridade transitional compartilhar de poder em Zimbabwe, desde que é presidente de um partido representado bem em ambas as casas legislativas, e veio em segundo na raça presidencial inconclusive. Nós não pudemos gostar destas circunstâncias democráticas, mas nós temos que viver com essa realidade.

A política é uma arte do possível, como Bismarck dito uma vez famosa. Na paisagem política atual de Zimbabwean, as possibilidades pertencem a Robert Mugabe e Morgan Tsvangirai. Necessitam-se. Nós podemos debater o papel específico que Mugabe deve jogar. Para esse debate foi estabelecido agora por Mugabe, por Tsvangirai e por Mutambara quando assinaram o acordo político global (GPA). Mugabe é Presidente-designa e Morgan Tsvangirai é principal Ministro-designa. Mas, nós estamos dizendo que GPA é a única mostra na cidade? No., absolutamente não.
As estruturas alternativas aos muitos

de GPA dos debates e de pensar entraram em alternativas crafting ao acordo setembro de 15, 2008. Infelizmente, foi um comedy dos erros e de hallucinations unsophisticated. Mesmo os corpos internacionais respeitados poço como o grupo internacional da crise (ICG) foram encontrados miseràvel querer. Os peritos Renowned da definição do conflito, os líderes civic da sociedade e os pundits ocidentais mostraram a falta astonishing da creatividade e da imaginação.

O ponto começar em estabelecer um trajeto alternativo para Zimbabwe consiste agarrar uma compreensão desobstruída de porque nós estamos tendo desafios em executar o GPA atual. A formulação nova deve então robustly ilustrar como evitará estes desafios atuais. Beyond this, the efficacy, process details, timelines and milestones of any new strategy must then be clearly articulated. None of the critics of the current GPA has even begun to do any of the above.

Among a number of obstacles to consummation, the major challenge we have faced in executing the Zimbabwean GPA is the inability to achieve sufficient buy-in from the two major protagonists in the political impasse: Zanu PF and MDC-T. They are the critical players in any national transitional discussion, because any agreed arrangement will require legal effect through a constitutional amendment in parliament. Such a change will require a two thirds majority which can only be achieved by the participation of both Zanu PF and MDC-T, as a minimum requirement.

None of the proposals from the ICG, the civic society groups (both national and regional), or the arrogant and ignorant international community has addressed this simple challenge: How are you going to ensure that both MDC-T and Zanu PF will embrace your new grand proposal? If one or both of them do not accept your framework what are you going to do? Please, this is commonsensical. Anyone seeking to resolve the Zimbabwean crisis democratically and within the laws of Zimbabwe must apply their mind to this critical success factor: the show stopper.

The busy bodies at the ICG and in civic society do not even have the capacity to appreciate the existence of the problem, much less the intellect to develop the requisite solution. We are not saying it is impossible to develop an alternative negotiated framework to the September GPA. We are emphasising that it will require good and rigorously working minds to come up with one.

The reasons why we insist on fixing and then implementing the current flawed and imperfect GPA is because at some point the buy-in between the two key protagonist was achieved through the signatures of the MOU on July 21, 2008, and the GPA on September 15, 2008. Yes, there are disagreements now, but there are two agreed reference points. The key players and their teams have been actively negotiating the political impasse from March 29, 2008, and now four months after signing the GPA there are still implementation challenges.

Yes, this is bad and regrettable. However, let us be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. If we adopt a completely new process, how and when are we going to convince the two key players to start working towards an MOU? Are you going to get that MOU signed soon, and after that how much time will be required to get to a new GPA of sorts? Furthermore, while we embark on these new processes that require time and resources what will be happening to the suffering people of Zimbabwe, the collapsed economy, and the destroyed industrial base? Given the hardened positions of the two protagonists at the moment, can you even begin to sell the new path to them?

The most bizarre, irritating and clearly ineffective critics of the current GPA are those that premise their proposals by denouncing one of the two key protagonists. Usually it is Mugabe and his Zanu PF who are dismissed. How do you even conceptualise a negotiated outcome without the involvement of the Zanu PF group? We thought it was common cause that you do not make peace with your friends, but with your opponents.

One would expect someone of Jendayi Frazer’s stature to understand all this. How does she say that the US supports the negotiated power sharing, but insists that Mugabe must not be involved? Making these statements while defying the consistent advice that she received from all the South African leaders that she interacted with means that Frazer is insulting the SA leadership at every level. By this disrespectful conduct, she is humiliating both SADC and the AU.

In this situation, with respect to the US-proposed dialogue framework, who will be the principals, negotiators, facilitators and guarantors? South Africa is the only country with leverage on Zimbabwe. To bring any kind of change in Zimbabwe you have to work with SA, and not insult or humiliate them. Anyone serious about the Zimbabwean agenda must grasp this.

Jendayi, I assume that she is supportive of Mr Tsvangirai and she wants him to succeed. Does she actually have any respect for him? He signed the GPA in which Mugabe is designated as the President. Is it that she thinks Mr. Tsvangirai does not know what is good for him and therefore she has to lead him every step of the way?

By the way, it is not true that the US government supported the agreement when it was signed. For the record, both the US and the UK were opposed to the GPA from the beginning. They did not like the fact that Mugabe was both Head of State and Chairman of Cabinet, and they despised the GPA positions on land reform and sanctions. Everyone knows this. We are not children.

The US and the UK are now taking advantage of the delay in implementation of the agreement to savage and destroy the GPA. Do Frazer and her government have a workable alternative framework to the current GPA, together with an enforcement mechanism? And what is this that she said about the weakness and incompetence of her favorite GPA principal? Did she not say the following; “Tsvangirai is too weak and incompetent for us to allow him to be in an inclusive government with Mugabe. He will be completely outmaneuvered. Tsvangirai is not as strong as Odinga. If he was, we would have allowed him to get into the GNU with Mugabe?”

How can she possibly say such insulting remarks about her favorite opposition leader? With friends like these, who needs enemies? Incidentally, did she share her views about Tsvangirai with him? Why not? Anyway, who is she to allow or disallow African leaders? Does the US government have locus standi to do this? From where does she derive such legal, political or moral authority? Would a reverse scenario where international players seek to influence US politics be acceptable to the US?

Jendayi, can’t you see that you are ruining the opposition you seek to assist, and strengthening Mugabe that you seek to destroy? You are foolishly confirming everything that Mugabe has said about the opposition: that we are puppets. Moreover, Mugabe’s strengths are Africa, Pan-Africanism and anti-Imperialism. Any foreign policy that undermines African leaders and African institutions plays right into Mugabe’s game plan. Why can’t Western diplomats master these basics? Why do we have a premonition that most of the destructive grandstanding by Western governments is meant for their domestic constituencies?

More specifically, US foreign policy is always characterised by double standards, hypocrisy and dishonesty all rooted in the pursuit of US permanent interests. We seriously hope that incoming US President Obama and his new team will depart from this ignorant, ruinous and ineffective foreign policy that effectively undermines its intended beneficiaries, strengthens the targeted villains, while blighting the US standing in the World.

Things have to change in 2009. We are not naïve. We know that the general thrust of the US foreign policy objective is largely independent of both the individual who is the US President and the Party they belong to. However, we hope the policy execution, nuances and tactics will be different. Zimbabweans have great expectations.

Collapse of the Mugabe Regime

It is clear that the Mugabe regime will not collapse because of economic decay, mass starvation or epidemics such as cholera. The formal economy collapsed way back when. The regime survives on the informal sector and through rent-seeking behaviours. Yes, ordinary people are perishing and will continue to do so, but the regime will not collapse. Can we all come to grips with this?

The diamonds of Chiadzwa, the Platinum Mines, and assistance from friendly nations such as DRC, Angola, China and Russia will see the regime pull through another 5-10 years. Of course this will be at major cost to the population. Zimbabweans should care about this.

However, to the external players that suggest that we must wait for the collapse of the regime at any cost, the needless loss of life in pursuit of the departure of Mugabe is a small price to pay. After all, the lives lost are Black lives which are not equivalent to White lives. Since September 15, 2008, we have had Western governments encouraging the continuation of suffering and death of our people in the misguided belief that this will lead to the collapse of the Mugabe regime. Well, this will not happen, and our people are dying in vain. All Zimbabwean leaders must understand this.

We must collectively take responsibility for the calamity afflicting our country. In particular, Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai are equally culpable for the failure to work together. They are effectively working against the interests of their supporters and the generality of our citizenry. The two leaders are more concerned about a misguided power play executed at the expense of Zimbabwean lives. They have blood on their hands. The US and UK governments who are specifically undermining SADC efforts to establish an inclusive government in Zimbabwe are complicit in this crime against humanity.

In the case of these Western governments, they are driven by racism and utter disrespect for African lives. As Africans, our position is that not a single Zimbabwean life should be used as a stick to inflict pain on Robert Mugabe. People’s lives are too important to be used as ineffective political tools and weapons. We all know that Mugabe will not collapse because of cholera, mass starvation and a collapsed economy, so why are we supporting this ineffective strategy?

Nevertheless, let us deceive ourselves for a moment and assume the game plan works and the Mugabe regime actually collapses through the existing crisis. Why are we assuming that such a demise of Mugabe will lead to a democratic outcome? We saw what happened in Guinea when their dictator died. Did the opposition take over? Nope. If the Mugabe regime collapses, it is most likely that the army will take over. Some ambitious and gutsy colonel or general will step in. Our democratisation processes will, resultantly, regress at least 10 years.

There is absolutely no way Tsvangirai and his Party will be the beneficiaries of the collapse of Robert Mugabe. Quite to the contrary, the Zanu PF regime will make sure they collapse together with Tsvangirai and MDC-T. Do the current abductions, confessions and dubious trials of activists mean anything to anyone? MDC-T will not exist after the demise of Mugabe. I hope Tsvangirai understands this in no uncertain terms. I wish our brazen and unintelligent Western friends will do more listening and thinking.

This Mugabe must collapse strategy is not in the best interest of Zimbabwe. A regime change agenda achieved through a scorched earth policy is not what we need in our country. It will not benefit anyone. As Zimbabweans, we should think seriously about options that will allow us to continue to build, brick by brick, our democratic institutions.

Opportunity for a New Beginning

The year 2009 presents us with an opportunity for a new beginning. However, for this to be achieved, we have to learn some difficult lessons from inconvenient truths. We have to do things differently. We must embrace self-criticism as part of our best practices, and adopt an interrogative and questioning attitude to all stakeholders, including those that purport to support our struggles and our national interest.

In the struggle for a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Zimbabwe, it is not enough to be right. It is not enough to be a victim or to have the higher moral authority. The victims must behave well. Those with moral high ground must be driven by principles and values. Those on the right side of history must be thoughtful and strategic. Those that support victims of despotic regimes must apply their analytical skills. Good heart, bad mind will not cut it.

In all this, we must always put the people first. We must cherish servant leadership. Only then can we succeed. While external players and events affect our country, we must take responsibility for our own circumstances. We should be at the centre of our struggles and be the drivers of our nation building processes. We must have enough leadership strength to define and determine both the terms of reference and frameworks through which foreigners participate in the affairs of our nation.

In 2009, Zimbabweans must set the agenda and own the rules of the game. We must be masters of our own destiny. The critique of external influences that has been proffered should not be used to absolve us as citizens. We as Zimbabweans, created the current socio-political and economic crisis, and we will be the primary drivers and developers of the sustainable answers. And yes, a people do get a government that they deserve. Let us all be the change we wish to see in the year 2009.

Arthur G.O. Mutambara is president of MDC

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/mutambara4.19221.html

De besvärliga sanningarna om det västra och Zimbabwe
Automatically translated into Swedish thanks to WorldLingo
6
null

Неудобные правды о западе и Зимбабве
Automatically translated into Russian thanks to WorldLingo

Ongelegen truths over het Westen en Zimbabwe
Automatically translated into Dutch thanks to WorldLingo
Ongelegen truths over het VOORWAARTSE Westen en


de MANIER van Zimbabwe: Arthur Mutambara

•In dit artikel, MDC bekijkt de leider Arthur Mutambara de moeilijkheden in het uitvoeren van 15 September GPA, unhelpfulness van westelijke acties in de binnenlandse politiek van Zimbabwe terwijl het ondervragen van bestaande strategieën om democratie in Zimbabwe te bereiken:


Het jaar 2008 was zeer moeilijke voor ons als natie. Sinds de onovertuigende geharmoniseerde verkiezingen die op 29 worden gehouden Maart, is er een politieke impasse in ons land geweest. Het land is zonder een wettige overheid geweest. Onze economie is vrijwel ingestort, terwijl de ziekte en de verhongering onze mensen verwoesten. Hopelessness en de wanhoop kenmerken en bepalen nationale psyche. Er is over de hele linie, binnen Zimbabwe, in het gebied en in volledige leidingsmislukking de internationale gemeenschap geweest.
Aangezien wij een nieuw jaar beginnen, overdenk enkele belangrijke debatten die onze politiek gestalte geven aangezien wij 2008 weggaan. Van bijzonder belang in deze verhandeling zijn de ongemakkelijke werkelijkheid en de uitdagingen die soms wij voor het confronteren terugschrikken. In het bijzonder willen wij die olifant in de nationale woonkamer doden: Hoe de onwetende en unstrategic externe betrokkenheid in de Zimbabwean verhandeling meer kwaad dan goed doet.

Wij willen debatteren dat in het jaar 2008, koperachtige en botte Westelijke shenanigans eigenlijk de oppositie en versterkt Robert Mugabe hebben ondermijnd. Wat nog belangrijker is, is het onze voorlegging dat de niet geïnformeerde en reckless buitenlands beleidsposities van Westelijke overheden, in het bijzonder de V.S. en het UK, negatief onze nationale rente hebben beïnvloed. Zimbabweans moeten dit voor onze collectieve fortuinen verschillend duidelijk begrijpen om in het jaar 2009 te zijn.

`Mugabe moet gaan' Chorus

aangezien wij 2008, in de maand van December, daar waren een crescendo van vraag naar het vertrek van Mugabe van het politieke stadium weggingen. Er zijn nieuw niets en creatief in dit Mugabe moet gaan mantra. Het probleem is dat vele mensen en instellingen op dit spoor aan de ziekte van het hart lijden dat in de juiste plaats is, terwijl de mening niet wordt toegepast. Men vergt zowel een goed hart als een goede mening.

Sommigen van ons hebben Mugabe moeten gaan mantra in de afgelopen 21 jaar, nutteloos gezongen. Overigens, gingen de Westelijke overheden met ons niet akkoord in 1988 toen wij tegen het regime van Zanu PF draaiden. Nu patronise zij ons, alsof zij waarom Mugabe moet gaan, beter dan ons, zijn Zimbabwean slachtoffers begrijpen.

Wij is het vechten Mugabe voor twee decennia geweest, waar u Amerika en Europa geweest? Waarom steunde u Mugabe in de recente jaren '80 toen wij ons hem verzetten? Waarom steunde u hem actief tijdens Gukurahundi? Wij hoorden nooit u zegt `Mugabe' tijdens die periode moet gaan. In plaats daarvan gaf u hem prestigieuze toekenning aan beide kanten van de Atlantische Oceaan.

Wij kunnen het begrijpen als uw defensie is dat u langzame leerlingen en recente bloomers bent waar onze kwesties betrokken zijn. Wij kunnen dat goedkeuren. Maar het betekent dan ook u uw richtsnoer van ons moet nemen die het Zimbabwean terrein beter begrijpen. U moet aanvaarden dat u hoofdzakelijk onwetend, unstrategic bent, en vandaar ondoeltreffend waar de Afrikaanse kwesties betrokken zijn. Terwijl u ons in onze strijd voor verandering wilt bijstaan, ondermijnt uw koperachtig gedrag ons effectief en versterkt onze tegenstanders. U moet aan ons en niet andersom luisteren.

December 2008 `Mugabe moet gaan' chorus was zo pathetisch aangezien het zowel fantasieloos als voorspelbaar was. Het begon met Keniaanse Eerste Minister Raila Odinga, Bischop John Sentamu en Aartsbisschop Desmond Tutu, in die orde. Zodra zij werden gedaan, kwam de Rijst David Milliband en Condi binnen om de „vele“ stemmen van Afrikaanse leiders te steunen. Daarna, was het Gordon Brown, George Bush, Sarkozy, en Merkel. Dan traden elke Europese leider en hun grootmoeder toe, steunend de „vele“ stemmen van Afrikaanse leiders. Om het allen te bekronen, was er een incompetent streepje aan de Veiligheidsraad van de V.N., Waar alles afbrokkelend onderaan kwam: een welke verwarrende niet-gebeurtenis. Waarom iedereen werd verrast door deze unmitigated mislukking? Was er ooit een methode in de waanzin? Wat moest de logische conclusie van chorus zijn?

Vooral was er geen Afrikaanse leider die had gesproken. Zo wie, beweerden de Westelijke leiders om te steunen? Spoedig nadat Odinga sprak, werd hij tegengesproken door zijn eigen Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken. Dit betekent hij niet namens Kenia of President Kibaki sprak. De bischop Sentamu spreekt niet voor enig Afrikaans land. Goed, het zelfde voor Tutu; hij is een goede Afrikaan die voor geen Afrikaanse natie spreekt. Voor hem efficiënt om te zijn zou hij bij het overtuigen van de Zuidafrikaanse politieke leiding moeten werken om zijn meningen goed te keuren.

Interesserend genoeg, zelfs gewoonlijk reckless en fantasieloze was Ian Khama een geen deel van de Afrikaanse stemmen. Zo toen deze Amerikaanse en Europese leiders in chorus gingen, die ondersteunend zij waren? In een continent van 53 landen, konden de V.S. en het UK geen één enkele Afrikaanse Voorzitter overtuigen om deel van hun elegante chorus uit te maken.

Als de Westelijke leiders inderdaad zich enkel steunden, waarom lagen zij dat zij stemmen van Afrikaanse leiders steunden? Als zij geven om welke Afrikaanse leiders denken, waarom brachten hebben zij genoeg tijd niet door die overtuigt de echte Afrikaanse leiders van de juistheid van Westelijke posities en daarna, de Afrikaanse leiders eerst spreken?

Zeker als, bijvoorbeeld, Presidenten Kgalema Motlanthe, Armando Geubuza, José Eduardo dos Santos, Jakaya Kikwete en Mwai Kibaki een bepaald collectief standpunt betreffende Zimbabwe hadden ingenomen, en de Westelijke overheden waren binnengekomen om hen te steunen, zou er wat tractie geweest zijn.

Maar nr, de Westelijke bevoegdheden verkoos om hun eigen pseudo Afrikaanse leiders te creëren, en dan wereldchorus te dwingen. Dit was zeker te ontbreken. Voorbij chorus, was er geen echte strategie om de crisis in Zimbabwe op te lossen. Er was geen specifieke actie dat de V.S. en het UK na chorus gingen nemen. Het niet zou logisch geweest zijn om de slogans met zowel procedureplannen als juiste Afrikaan inkoopt te steunen?

Het schijnt de reden was dat Mugabe enkel ging van het politieke stadium van Zimbabwe wegens het oorverdovende geluid van Westelijke leiders vallen die het zelfde bericht herhalen zonder betekenis. Hoe pathetisch! Goed, schande op hen voor het trivialising van de wettige strijd van onze mensen.

De wegen waardoor Mugabe kan daar

gaan zijn drie manieren Mugabe kunnen uit het Voorzitterschap en de leiding van Zimbabwe worden verwijderd: (1) gebruik van geweld of wapens van opstand van de oorlogs (2) de vreedzame massa of demonstraties (3) vrije en eerlijke verkiezingen.

Het gebruik van geweld is om Mugabe te verdrijven voorgesteld in bepaalde kwarten. Wat niet is gedaan is een ondervraging van welke vorm dit, zijn betekenis, gevolgen en de nasleep zal nemen. Unidirectioneel kan een hevige omverwerping worden overwogen is Amerikaanse en Britse troepen te hebben Zimbabwe binnenvallen aangezien zij in Irak deden. Natuurlijk kunnen zij Mugabe van de hand doen die manier.

Nochtans, zullen de Westelijke krachten op Zimbabwean grond in het proces moeten aftappen. Het zal geen gang in het park zijn. Na misadventure van de V.S. in Somalië, waar de Amerikaanse marine in de straten van Mogadishu werd geslacht, was het debat in de V.S. Senaat zeer leerzaam. Het belangrijkste gevoel was vrij onmiskenbaar, „dat het volledige land van Somalië niet één enkel Amerikaans leven waard is. Wij zouden het Amerikaanse leven nooit moeten toelaten om ter verdediging van deze waardeloze Afrikaanse landen worden verloren.“

Dat was toen de houding. Is om het even wat veranderd? Jendayi Frazer, Rijst Condi en George Bush, bent u nu bereid om in achtervolging van Afrikaanse vrijheid en welvaart af te tappen? Als u bereid bent om de geen marine te hebben van de V.S. gedood in Zimbabwe, gelieve enkel te zwijgen op de kwestie van militaire interventie om Mugabe te verwijderen.

Veronderstel voor een minuut dat deze Westelijke leiders ernstige spelers en niet alleen achteloze talkers zijn. Zij kunnen hun troepen eigenlijk dan brengen in Zimbabwe en de baan gedaan worden. Nadat Mugabe gegaan de Saddam manier is, wat daarna gebeurt? Wat heeft de militaire interventie van de V.S. die in Irak en Afghanistan wordt veroorzaakt? Hebben wij democratische resultaten in deze landen? Zijn zij vreedzame, democratische en rijke naties? Waarom het Zimbabwean resultaat zou verschillend zijn? Als niet, toen waarom zou dit gelijk als optie moeten worden beschouwd?

In termen van buitenlandse legers die Zimbabwe binnenvallen, is het slechts Westelijke naties die de moeite waard zijn analyserend aangezien wij hierboven hebben geprobeerd. Slechts twee Afrikaanse landen, Botswana en Kenia, hebben een eetlust voor fysieke confrontatie met Zimbabwe uitgedrukt. Wij zullen niet dignify zelfs het posturing van Botswana met teveel bespreking. Zij hebben geen leger maar een incompetente politiekracht die geen capaciteit heeft om een woestijn veel minder binnen te vallen een land met de militaire ervaring van Zimbabwe. Raila Odinga spreekt niet voor de Keniaanse overheid, zo de analyseeinden daar. Als slechts hij kon beginnen door zijn eigen overheid te overtuigen, zullen wij meer hebben over de doeltreffendheid van zijn uitingen te zeggen.

De andere versie van geweld die Mugabe kan zeker omverwerpen is een bewapende strijd waged door Zimbabweans zelf op de zelfde manier dat ZANLA en ZIPRA oorlog tegen Ian Smith uitvoerden. Hoe uitvoerbaar en praktisch is dit voorstel op dit punt op tijd en binnen de geopolitieke context van het SADC gebied? Is het zelfs een wenselijk alternatief voor de inwoners van Zimbabwe? Wij geloven er geen bevestigende reacties op één van beiden van deze vragen zijn.

De tweede mogelijke methode waardoor Mugabe kan worden getuigd is door vreedzame massaopstanden of demonstraties. Hebben wij de capaciteit als Zimbabweans om deze uit te voeren? Wat de dappere inspanningen van NCA en WOZA doen onderwijs ons. Hoeveel van ons aansluiten zich bij hun moedige marsen? Hoeveel Zimbabweans aansloten zich bij de militairen toen zij op de uitzinnigheid op de straten van Harare gingen?

Het is duidelijk dat de eetlust voor een Oranje Revolutie `' in Zimbabwe nog heeft worden ontwikkeld, alvorens een massaopstand een realistisch platform wordt om Mugabe te verdrijven. Onze politici binnen de oppositiebeweging moeten ook bereid zijn om de offers te veronderstellen die deze optie met zich meebrengt. Waar de politieke leiders in het verbergen bij de lichtste bedreiging van vervolging gaan, slagen wij er niet in om te zien hoe deze optie aan bloei kan worden gebracht.

Dit verlaat ons met de derde en slechts weg voor het vertrek van Mugabe, namelijk door vrije en eerlijke verkiezingen. De vraag dan wordt hoe wij een vrije en eerlijke verkiezing in Zimbabwe bereiken? Niet zeker door vandaag het eisen van geharmoniseerde verkiezingen die onder 27 Juni voorwaarden zullen worden geleid. Onnodig om, in zulk een volksstemming, Mugabe te zeggen het Voorzitterschap zal vangen en de huidige gecombineerde oppositiemeerderheid in het Parlement zal volledig omgekeerd worden.

Strategisch ben. Ons mensen en land zijn op het ogenblik klaar geen verkiezing. Wij moeten door een overgangsperiode gaan waarin wij de humanitaire crisis oplossen die onze mensen treft, het nationale helen uitvoeren, met economisch herstel, beginnen en wat nog belangrijker is een nieuwe mensen-gedreven democratische grondwet goedkeuren. Dit is de brug die Zimbabwe in zijn maart aan democratie nodig heeft. Na dat, kunnen wij vrije en eerlijke verkiezingen dan uitvoeren. Als Mugabe aan die verkiezingen deelneemt, zal hij worden verslagen. Dit is de enige praktische manier die zal leiden tot het vertrek van Mugabe.

De globale Politieke Overeenkomst van 15 September, 2008, heeft tot doel om zulk een mogelijkheid te vergemakkelijken. De mensen, dit zijn zo goed aangezien het krijgt. Jammer genoeg, zal Mugabe deel van de overgang moeten uitmaken, zoals wij in de volgende sectie verklaren. Bruin en Bush moet over hun dwaze, niet geïnformeerde en unstrategic obsessie krijgen die met Mugabe vandaag gaat. Als zij niet kunnen uitdrukkelijk articuleren hoe zij hem gaan verwijderen, zouden zij, ons land terugtrekken en enkel alstublieft moeten toestaan om zich te bewegen. Wij moeten Zimbabwean leven redden dat overbodig wordt verloren.

Waarom Mugabe door Besprekingen niet kan weggaan

de verkiezingsresultaten vanaf 29 Maart, produceerde 2008, geen openlijke winnaar zowel in het Parlement als bij het Voorzitterschap. 27 Juni re-run was illegitimate farce, zodat zijn wij geplakt met het onovertuigende resultaat van Maart. Als democraten, moeten wij aanvaarden dat dit betekent dat Mugabe en zijn partij zo veel een factor zoals Tsvangirai zijn en zijn partij is.

Plotseling van een nieuwe reeks van verkiezingen of verandering van leiding door hun partijen, betekent het noch Tsvangirai noch Mugabe kan weg worden besproken. Op welke basis kunnen wij een besproken hebben overeenkomst die Robert Mugabe uitsluit? Als wij de resultaten van Maart wettig goedkeuren, is hij een leider van een partij die 99 Afgevaardigden versus heeft 100 voor mdc-t, 30 Senatoren versus 24 voor mdc-t. Hij kwam ten tweede aan Tsvangirai, 43.2% versus 47.8%. Wat nog belangrijker is bezit Mugabe momenteel het Voorzitterschap van Zimbabwe, ja illegitimately. Goed, bij wet zeggen zij dat het bezit 90% van eigendom is.

Het feit dat Mugabe deze macht van incumbency heeft is de reden waarom Arthur Mutambara nog op proef in het Opperste Hof is, heeft Tendai Biti verraadlasten rond zijn hals, worden de activisten ontvoerd, en Morgan Tsvangirai, Eerste minister-wijst, had een torrid tijd aan die een paspoort krijgt. Dit betekent Mugabe verantwoordelijk voor de Zimbabwean Staat is. Gezien deze werkelijkheid ter plaatse, en kiesresultaat van 29 Maart, 2008, (die wegens ons gebrek aan het strategische denken wij allen als wettig resultaat) hebben gezuiverd, is het foolishness om te denken dat u Mugabe kunt bespreken uit macht, en op de een of andere manier een macht het delen regeling wonderbaarlijk te bereiken die hem uitsluit.

In termen van democratische praktijk zal het onrechtvaardig zijn, en in termen van echte politick zal het onmogelijk zijn. Oh ja, op basis van Maart 29 resultaten, zou Mugabe deel van om het even welk macht het delen overgangsgezag in Zimbabwe moeten uitmaken, aangezien hij Voorzitter van een Partij die goed in beide wetgevende huizen wordt vertegenwoordigd is, en hij kwam ten tweede in het onovertuigende Presidentiële ras. Wij zouden niet van deze democratische omstandigheden kunnen houden, maar wij moeten met die werkelijkheid leven.

De politiek is een kunst van mogelijk, als Bismarck zodra famously bovengenoemd. In het huidige Zimbabwean politieke landschap, behoren de mogelijkheden tot zowel Robert Mugabe als Morgan Tsvangirai. Zij vereisen elkaar. Wij kunnen de specifieke rol debatteren die Mugabe zou moeten spelen. Voor nu het debat door Mugabe, Tsvangirai en Mutambara werd geregeld toen zij de Globale Politieke Overeenkomst (GPA) ondertekenden. Mugabe is voorzitter-aanwijst en Morgan Tsvangirai is Eerste minister-aanwijst. Maar zijn wij die zeggen dat GPA de enige show in stad is? Nr, absoluut niet.
Het alternatieve Kader aan GPA is

Heel wat debatten en het denken in het bewerken van alternatieven aan de overeenkomst van 15 September, 2008 gegaan. Jammer genoeg, is het een komedie van fouten en onbedorven hallucinations geweest. Zelfs zijn de goed geëerbiedigdet internationale instellingen zoals de Internationale Groep van de Crisis (ICG) gevonden miserably willend. Renowned deskundigen van de conflictresolutie, de burger de maatschappijleiders en de Westelijke experts hebben verbazingwekkend gebrek aan creativiteit en verbeelding getoond.

Het uitgangspunt in het vestigen van een alternatieve weg voor Zimbabwe bestaat uit het begrijpen van een duidelijk inzicht in waarom wij uitdagingen in het uitvoeren van huidige GPA hebben. De nieuwe formulering moet krachtig dan illustreren hoe het deze huidige uitdagingen zal vermijden. Beyond this, the efficacy, process details, timelines and milestones of any new strategy must then be clearly articulated. None of the critics of the current GPA has even begun to do any of the above.

Among a number of obstacles to consummation, the major challenge we have faced in executing the Zimbabwean GPA is the inability to achieve sufficient buy-in from the two major protagonists in the political impasse: Zanu PF and MDC-T. They are the critical players in any national transitional discussion, because any agreed arrangement will require legal effect through a constitutional amendment in parliament. Such a change will require a two thirds majority which can only be achieved by the participation of both Zanu PF and MDC-T, as a minimum requirement.

None of the proposals from the ICG, the civic society groups (both national and regional), or the arrogant and ignorant international community has addressed this simple challenge: How are you going to ensure that both MDC-T and Zanu PF will embrace your new grand proposal? If one or both of them do not accept your framework what are you going to do? Please, this is commonsensical. Anyone seeking to resolve the Zimbabwean crisis democratically and within the laws of Zimbabwe must apply their mind to this critical success factor: the show stopper.

The busy bodies at the ICG and in civic society do not even have the capacity to appreciate the existence of the problem, much less the intellect to develop the requisite solution. We are not saying it is impossible to develop an alternative negotiated framework to the September GPA. We are emphasising that it will require good and rigorously working minds to come up with one.

The reasons why we insist on fixing and then implementing the current flawed and imperfect GPA is because at some point the buy-in between the two key protagonist was achieved through the signatures of the MOU on July 21, 2008, and the GPA on September 15, 2008. Yes, there are disagreements now, but there are two agreed reference points. The key players and their teams have been actively negotiating the political impasse from March 29, 2008, and now four months after signing the GPA there are still implementation challenges.

Yes, this is bad and regrettable. However, let us be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. If we adopt a completely new process, how and when are we going to convince the two key players to start working towards an MOU? Are you going to get that MOU signed soon, and after that how much time will be required to get to a new GPA of sorts? Furthermore, while we embark on these new processes that require time and resources what will be happening to the suffering people of Zimbabwe, the collapsed economy, and the destroyed industrial base? Given the hardened positions of the two protagonists at the moment, can you even begin to sell the new path to them?

The most bizarre, irritating and clearly ineffective critics of the current GPA are those that premise their proposals by denouncing one of the two key protagonists. Usually it is Mugabe and his Zanu PF who are dismissed. How do you even conceptualise a negotiated outcome without the involvement of the Zanu PF group? We thought it was common cause that you do not make peace with your friends, but with your opponents.

One would expect someone of Jendayi Frazer’s stature to understand all this. How does she say that the US supports the negotiated power sharing, but insists that Mugabe must not be involved? Making these statements while defying the consistent advice that she received from all the South African leaders that she interacted with means that Frazer is insulting the SA leadership at every level. By this disrespectful conduct, she is humiliating both SADC and the AU.

In this situation, with respect to the US-proposed dialogue framework, who will be the principals, negotiators, facilitators and guarantors? South Africa is the only country with leverage on Zimbabwe. To bring any kind of change in Zimbabwe you have to work with SA, and not insult or humiliate them. Anyone serious about the Zimbabwean agenda must grasp this.

Jendayi, I assume that she is supportive of Mr Tsvangirai and she wants him to succeed. Does she actually have any respect for him? He signed the GPA in which Mugabe is designated as the President. Is it that she thinks Mr. Tsvangirai does not know what is good for him and therefore she has to lead him every step of the way?

By the way, it is not true that the US government supported the agreement when it was signed. For the record, both the US and the UK were opposed to the GPA from the beginning. They did not like the fact that Mugabe was both Head of State and Chairman of Cabinet, and they despised the GPA positions on land reform and sanctions. Everyone knows this. We are not children.

The US and the UK are now taking advantage of the delay in implementation of the agreement to savage and destroy the GPA. Do Frazer and her government have a workable alternative framework to the current GPA, together with an enforcement mechanism? And what is this that she said about the weakness and incompetence of her favorite GPA principal? Did she not say the following; “Tsvangirai is too weak and incompetent for us to allow him to be in an inclusive government with Mugabe. He will be completely outmaneuvered. Tsvangirai is not as strong as Odinga. If he was, we would have allowed him to get into the GNU with Mugabe?”

How can she possibly say such insulting remarks about her favorite opposition leader? With friends like these, who needs enemies? Incidentally, did she share her views about Tsvangirai with him? Why not? Anyway, who is she to allow or disallow African leaders? Does the US government have locus standi to do this? From where does she derive such legal, political or moral authority? Would a reverse scenario where international players seek to influence US politics be acceptable to the US?

Jendayi, can’t you see that you are ruining the opposition you seek to assist, and strengthening Mugabe that you seek to destroy? You are foolishly confirming everything that Mugabe has said about the opposition: that we are puppets. Moreover, Mugabe’s strengths are Africa, Pan-Africanism and anti-Imperialism. Any foreign policy that undermines African leaders and African institutions plays right into Mugabe’s game plan. Why can’t Western diplomats master these basics? Why do we have a premonition that most of the destructive grandstanding by Western governments is meant for their domestic constituencies?

More specifically, US foreign policy is always characterised by double standards, hypocrisy and dishonesty all rooted in the pursuit of US permanent interests. We seriously hope that incoming US President Obama and his new team will depart from this ignorant, ruinous and ineffective foreign policy that effectively undermines its intended beneficiaries, strengthens the targeted villains, while blighting the US standing in the World.

Things have to change in 2009. We are not naïve. We know that the general thrust of the US foreign policy objective is largely independent of both the individual who is the US President and the Party they belong to. However, we hope the policy execution, nuances and tactics will be different. Zimbabweans have great expectations.

Collapse of the Mugabe Regime

It is clear that the Mugabe regime will not collapse because of economic decay, mass starvation or epidemics such as cholera. The formal economy collapsed way back when. The regime survives on the informal sector and through rent-seeking behaviours. Yes, ordinary people are perishing and will continue to do so, but the regime will not collapse. Can we all come to grips with this?

The diamonds of Chiadzwa, the Platinum Mines, and assistance from friendly nations such as DRC, Angola, China and Russia will see the regime pull through another 5-10 years. Of course this will be at major cost to the population. Zimbabweans should care about this.

However, to the external players that suggest that we must wait for the collapse of the regime at any cost, the needless loss of life in pursuit of the departure of Mugabe is a small price to pay. After all, the lives lost are Black lives which are not equivalent to White lives. Since September 15, 2008, we have had Western governments encouraging the continuation of suffering and death of our people in the misguided belief that this will lead to the collapse of the Mugabe regime. Well, this will not happen, and our people are dying in vain. All Zimbabwean leaders must understand this.

We must collectively take responsibility for the calamity afflicting our country. In particular, Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai are equally culpable for the failure to work together. They are effectively working against the interests of their supporters and the generality of our citizenry. The two leaders are more concerned about a misguided power play executed at the expense of Zimbabwean lives. They have blood on their hands. The US and UK governments who are specifically undermining SADC efforts to establish an inclusive government in Zimbabwe are complicit in this crime against humanity.

In the case of these Western governments, they are driven by racism and utter disrespect for African lives. As Africans, our position is that not a single Zimbabwean life should be used as a stick to inflict pain on Robert Mugabe. People’s lives are too important to be used as ineffective political tools and weapons. We all know that Mugabe will not collapse because of cholera, mass starvation and a collapsed economy, so why are we supporting this ineffective strategy?

Nevertheless, let us deceive ourselves for a moment and assume the game plan works and the Mugabe regime actually collapses through the existing crisis. Why are we assuming that such a demise of Mugabe will lead to a democratic outcome? We saw what happened in Guinea when their dictator died. Did the opposition take over? Nope. If the Mugabe regime collapses, it is most likely that the army will take over. Some ambitious and gutsy colonel or general will step in. Our democratisation processes will, resultantly, regress at least 10 years.

There is absolutely no way Tsvangirai and his Party will be the beneficiaries of the collapse of Robert Mugabe. Quite to the contrary, the Zanu PF regime will make sure they collapse together with Tsvangirai and MDC-T. Do the current abductions, confessions and dubious trials of activists mean anything to anyone? MDC-T will not exist after the demise of Mugabe. I hope Tsvangirai understands this in no uncertain terms. I wish our brazen and unintelligent Western friends will do more listening and thinking.

This Mugabe must collapse strategy is not in the best interest of Zimbabwe. A regime change agenda achieved through a scorched earth policy is not what we need in our country. It will not benefit anyone. As Zimbabweans, we should think seriously about options that will allow us to continue to build, brick by brick, our democratic institutions.

Opportunity for a New Beginning

The year 2009 presents us with an opportunity for a new beginning. However, for this to be achieved, we have to learn some difficult lessons from inconvenient truths. We have to do things differently. We must embrace self-criticism as part of our best practices, and adopt an interrogative and questioning attitude to all stakeholders, including those that purport to support our struggles and our national interest.

In the struggle for a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Zimbabwe, it is not enough to be right. It is not enough to be a victim or to have the higher moral authority. The victims must behave well. Those with moral high ground must be driven by principles and values. Those on the right side of history must be thoughtful and strategic. Those that support victims of despotic regimes must apply their analytical skills. Good heart, bad mind will not cut it.

In all this, we must always put the people first. We must cherish servant leadership. Only then can we succeed. While external players and events affect our country, we must take responsibility for our own circumstances. We should be at the centre of our struggles and be the drivers of our nation building processes. We must have enough leadership strength to define and determine both the terms of reference and frameworks through which foreigners participate in the affairs of our nation.

In 2009, Zimbabweans must set the agenda and own the rules of the game. We must be masters of our own destiny. The critique of external influences that has been proffered should not be used to absolve us as citizens. We as Zimbabweans, created the current socio-political and economic crisis, and we will be the primary drivers and developers of the sustainable answers. And yes, a people do get a government that they deserve. Let us all be the change we wish to see in the year 2009.

Arthur G.O. Mutambara is president of MDC

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/mutambara4.19221.html

الحقائق غيرمناسب حول الالغرب وزمبابوي
Automatically translated into Arabic thanks to WorldLingo
يرسل الحقائق غيرمناسب حول الالغرب وزمبابوي


طريق: آرثور [موتمبرا]

•في هذا مادة, [مدك] ينظر زعيمة آرثور [موتمبرا] في الصعوبات في يطبّق سبتمبر - أيلول 15 [غبا], ال [أونهلبفولنسّ] من تدخلات غربيّة في زمبابوي سياسة محلّية بينما يستجوب إستراتيجيات موجودة ل يحقّق ديموقراطيّة في زمبابوي:


كان السنة 2008 جدّا يصعب واحدة ل نا كأمة. بما أنّ اللانهائيّة يتوافق إنتخابات يمسك في مارس - آذار 29, قد كان هناك مأزق سياسيّة في أرضنا. قد كان البلد دون حكومة شرعيّة. ينهار اقتصادنا يتلقّى في الواقع, بينما مرض وجوع يكون يخرب الناسنا. يميّز فقدان الأمل وقنوط ويعيّن النفس وطنيّة. قد كان هناك كاملة قيادة إخفاق [ث بوأرد], ضمن زمبابوي, في المنطقة وفي الالمجتمع الدولي.
تركتنا بما أنّ نحن نبدأ سنة جديدة, يعكس على بعض من المناقشات كبريات أنّ يكون يشكّل سياستنا بما أنّ نحن نخرج 2008. من فائدة خاصّة في هذا مقال الحقائق متضايق وتحديات أنّ أحيانا يحرن نحن بعيدا من يجابه. [إين برتيكلر] يبحث نحن أن يذبح أنّ فيل في ال [ليفينغ رووم] وطنيّة: كيف جاهلة وتورط [أونسترتجك] خارجيّة في [زيمببون] خطبة يتمّ كثير ضرر من جيّدة.

نحن نبحث أن يجادل أنّ في السنة 2008, نحاسيّة ويضعف [شننيغنس] فاحشة غربيّة يتلقّى واقعيّا المعارضة ويقوّى روبرت [موغب]. أكثر بأهمّيّة, هو خضوعنا أنّ ال [أونينفورمد] ومتهوّرة سياسة خارجيّة موقعات من حكومات غربيّة, [إين برتيكلر] ال [أوس] وال [أوك], يتلقّى سلبيّا يصدمون [نأيشنل ينترست] نا. [زيمببون] يضطرّ بوضوح فهمت هذا لحظوظنا جماعيّة أن يكون مختلفة في السنة 2009.

ال `[موغب] ينبغي ذهبت' جوقة

بما أنّ نحن خرجنا 2008, في الشهر ديسمبر - كانون الأوّل, هناك كان تصعيد الطلبات للمغادرة [موغب] من المرحلة سياسيّة. هناك [نوثينغ نو] ومبتكرة في هذا [موغب] ينبغي ذهبت [منترا]. الاضطراب أنّ كثير يعاني الناس ومؤسسات على هذا أثر من المرض من القلب يكون في ال يصحّ مكان, بينما العقل يكون لا يكون طبّقت. واحدة يحتاج على حدّ سواء قلب جيّدة وعقل جيّدة.

يحرق بعض من نا يتلقّى يكون [موغب] ينبغي ذهبت [منترا] للسابقة 21 سنون, [تو نو فيل]. عرضا, تعارض حكومات غربيّة مع نا في 1988 عندما نحن التفتنا ضدّ [زنو] [بف] نظامة. الآن هم [بترونيس] نا, [أس يف] يفهم هم لما [موغب] ينبغي ذهبت, جيّدة من نا, ه [زيمببون] ضحايا.

نحن يتلقّى يكون تتنازع [موغب] لاثنان عقود, أين يتلقّى أنت يكون أمريكا وأوروبا? لماذا أنت ساندت [موغب] [إين ث لت] 1980 عندما تعارضه نحن كان? لماذا أنت بنشاط ساعدته أثناء [غكورهوندي]? نحن أبدا سمعنا أنت قلت `[موغب] ينبغي ذهبت' أثناء أنّ فترة. بدلا من ذلك أعطىه أنت مكافآت معتبرة على كلا جوانب من [أتلنتيك].

نحن يستطيع فهمت هو إن دفاعك يكون أنّ أنت طالبات بطيئة و [بلوومرس] متأخّر حيث أوامرنا يكون تعلّقت. نحن يستطيع قبلت أنّ. غير أنّ هو بعد ذلك أيضا [منس] أنت ينبغي أخذت مشعرتك من نا الذي يفهم [زيمببون] أرض على نحو أفضل. أنت ينبغي قبلت أنّ أنت أساسا جاهلة, [أونسترتجك], وبالتّالي غيرفعّال حيث أوامر [أفريكن] يكون تعلّقت. بينما أنت تبحث أن يساعدنا في كفاحنا لتغير, يضعفنا تصرفك نحاسيّة بشكل فعّال ويقوّي مقاوماتنا. أنت ينبغي استمعت إلى نا ولا ال [أثر وي رووند].

ديسمبر - كانون الأوّل 2008 `[موغب] ينبغي ذهبت' جوقة كان مثل مثير للشفقة بما أنّ كان هو على حدّ سواء [أونيمجنتيف] ومتوقّعة. هو بدأ مع [كنن] رئيس وزراء [ريلا] [أدينغ], أسقف جون [سنتمو] ورئيس الأساقفة ديسمند توتو, في أنّ أمر. [أس سون س] أتمّت هم كان, دايفيد [ميلّيبند] و [كندي] أرز أتى داخل أن يساند ال "كثير" صوى من زعيمات [أفريكن]. بعد ذلك, كان هو [غردون] سمراء, جورج بوش, [سركوزي], و [مركل]. بعد ذلك تلاقى كلّ زعيمة أوروبيّة وجدتهم داخل, يساند ال "كثير" صوى من زعيمات [أفريكن]. أن يتوّج هو كلّ, كان هناك إندفاع ضعيف التّكوين إلى المنظّمة الأمم المتّحدة أمن مجلس, حيث كلّ شيء أتى يفتّت إلى أسفل: ما [نون-فنت] محرج. لماذا كان أيّ شخص فاجأت ب هذا [أونميتيغتد] إخفاق? كان هناك في أيّ وقت طريقة في الحالة جنون? ماذا كان أن يكون الاستنتاج منطقيّة من الجوقة?

[فيرست ند فورموست] كان هناك ما من زعيمة [أفريكن] الذي كان قد تكلّم. هكذا من, كان الزعيمات غربيّة زعموا أن يساند? قريبا عقب تكلّم [أدينغ], هو كان ناقضت ب ه خاصّة وزير الخارجيّة. هذا يعني لم يتكلّم هو كان [أن بهلف وف] كينيا أو رئيس [كيبكي]. لا يتكلّم أسقف [سنتمو] ل أيّ [أفريكن كونتري]. جيّدا, ال نفس لتوتو; هو إفريقية جيّدة الذي يتكلّم ل ما من أمة [أفريكن]. ل ه أن يكون فعّالة هو سوفت عملت على يقنع القيادة افريقي جنوبي سياسيّة أن يتبنّى منظراته.

يهمّ كافي, حتّى ال عادة متهوّرة و [ب] أيان [أونيمجنتيف] [كهما] لم جزء من الصوى [أفريكن]. هكذا عندما هذا أمريكيّة وذهب زعيمات أوروبيّة داخل جوقة, الذي كان هم يساند? في قارّ من 53 بلاد, ال [أوس] و [أوك] استطاع لم يقنع رئيس وحيد [أفريكن] أن يكون جزء من جوقتهم أنيقة.

إن الزعيمات غربيّة كانوا حقّا صحيحة يساندبنفسي, لماذا هم كذبوا أنّ ساند هم كان صوى من زعيمات [أفريكن]? إن هم يهتمّون حول ما زعيمات [أفريكن] يفكّرون, لماذا لم ينفق هم بما فيه الكفاية وقت يقنع الزعيمات حقيقيّة [أفريكن] من الصحة من موقعات غربيّة وبعد ذلك, يتلقّى الزعيمات [أفريكن] تكلّمت أولى?

بالتّأكيد إن, مثلا, رؤساء [كغلما] [موتلنث], [أرمندو] [جوبوزا], [جوس] [إدوردو] [دو] [سنتوس], [جكا] [كيكوت] و [موي] [كيبكي] كانوا قد أخذوا موقعة خاصّة جماعيّة على زمبابوي, وكان حكومات غربيّة قد أتوا داخل أن يساندهم, هناك كان بعض عمليّة جرّ.

غير أنّ اختار رفض, القوى غربيّة أن يخلق هم خاصّة زعيمات كاذب [أفريكن], وبعد ذلك يجبر عالم جوقة. هذا كان يوقن أن يفشل. إلى ما بعد الجوقة, كان هناك ما من إستراتيجية حقيقيّة أن يحلّ الأزمة في زمبابوي. هناك كان ما من عمل خاصّة أنّ ال [أوس] وال [أوك] كان ذهب أن يأخذ بعد الجوقة. هو لم كان قد [ب] منطقيّة أن يساعد الشعارات مع على حدّ سواء خطط إجرائيّة وإفريقية مناسبة [بو-ين]?

هو يبدو كان التفسير سبب أنّ [موغب] كان صحيحة يذهب أن يسقط من زمبابوي مرحلة سياسيّة بسبب ال يصمد صوة من زعيمات غربيّة يكرّم ال نفسه رسالة عديم المعنى. كيف مثير للشفقة! جيّدا, عار على هم ل [تريفيليز] الكفاح شرعيّة من الناسنا.

الجادّات من خلال أيّ [موغب] يستطيع ذهبت

هناك ثلاثة طرق [موغب] يستطيع كنت أزلت من الرئاسة وقيادة زمبابوي: (1) إستعمال العنف أو [أرمس] من حرب (2) سلميّة شاملة ثورة أو مظاهرات (3) مجّانا وإنتخابات عادلة.

اقترحت الإستعمال العنف أن [دريف ووت] [موغب] يتلقّى يكون في أرباع مؤكّدة. What has not been done is an interrogation of what form this will take, its meaning, consequences and the aftermath. [أن-وي] [أفرثروو] عنيفة يستطيع كنت تصوّرت أن يتلقّى أمريكيّة وقوات بريطانيّة غزات زمبابوي بما أنّ هم أتمّوا في العراق. [أف كورس] هم يستطيع حصلت يخلّص من [موغب] أنّ طريق.

مهما, سيضطرّ قوات غربيّة نزفت على [زيمببون] تربة في العملية. هو لن [ب] مشية في المتنزهة. بعد ال [أوس] بلدة في صومال, حيث المارينز أمريكيّة كان ذبحت في الشوارع مقديشيو, كان المناقشة في ال [أوس] مجلس الشيوخ جدّا مثقّفة. كان العاطفة أساسيّة الى حدّ بعيد جلّيّة, "أنّ بلد كاملة صومال ليس يساوي [أمريكن ليف] وحيدة. نحن سوفت أبدا سمحت حيوات أمريكيّة أن يكون خسرت [إين دفنس وف] هذا [أفريكن كونتري] عديم جدوى."

أنّ كان الموقف بعد ذلك. يتلقّى أيّ شيء يغيّر? [جندي] [فرزر], [كندي] أرز وجورج بوش, تكون أنت الآن يتأهّب أن ينزف في مطاردة من [أفريكن] حرية وإزدهار? إن أنت يكون لا تعدّ أن يتلقّى [أوس] المارينز يقتل في زمبابوي, رجاء صحيحة يغلق فوق على الإصدار من تدخل عسكريّة أن يزيل [موغب].

تركتنا افترضت لدقيقة أنّ هذا زعيمات غربيّة لاعب جدّيّة ولا ثرثارة صحيحة لا مبال. هم يستطيع بعد ذلك واقعيّا أحضرت قواتهم داخل زمبابوي وحصلت الشغل يتمّ. عقب ذهبت [موغب] صدّام طريق, ماذا يحدث بعد ذلك? ماذا يتلقّى [أوس] تدخل عسكريّة ينتج في العراق وأفغانستان? نحن نتلقّى نتيجات ديموقراطيّة في هذا بلاد? يكونون هم سلميّة, ديموقراطيّة وأمم مزدهرة? لماذا [زيمببون] نتيجة كان أيّ مختلفة? [إيف نوت], بعد ذلك لماذا سوفت هذا حتّى كنت اعتبرت كخيار?

بخصوص جيوش أجنبيّة يغزو زمبابوي, هو فقط أمم غربيّة أنّ [ب وورث] يحلّ بما أنّ نحن قد حاولنا أعلاه. قد عبّر عن فقط اثنان [أفريكن كونتري], بوتسوانا وكينيا, شهية لمواجهة طبيعيّة مع زمبابوي. سيوقّر نحن لن حتّى بوتسوانا يتوضّّع مع [توو موش] نقاشة. هم يتلقّون ما من جيش غير أنّ ضعيف التّكوين شرطة قوة أيّ يتلقّى ما من قدرة أن يغزو صحراء كثير أقلّ بلد مع زمبابوي خبرة عسكريّة. لا يتكلّم [ريلا] [أدينغ] ل [كنن] حكومة, هكذا التحليل نهايات هناك. إن فقط هو استطاع بدأت ب يقنع ه خاصّة حكومة, سيتلقّى نحن أكثر أن يقول حول الفاعليّة من تعبيراته.

الأخرى صيغة العنف أنّ يستطيع بالتّأكيد أطحت [موغب] كفاح مسلّحة يشنّ ب [زيمببون] بنفسي [إين ث سم وي] أنّ [زنلا] و [زيبرا] نفّذ حرب ضدّ أيان [سميث]. كيف يمكن وعمليّة يكون هذا اقتراح [أت ثيس بوينت] في وقت وضمن السياق [جو-بوليتيكل] من ال [سدك] منطقة? يكون هو حتّى خيار مرغوبة لالالناس زمبابوي? نحن نصدق هناك ما من إستجابات إيجابيّة إلى أيضا من هذا أسئلة.

الثاني يمكن طريقة ب أيّ [موغب] يستطيع كنت عزلت من خلال سلميّة شاملة ثورات أو مظاهرات. نحن نتلقّى القدرة ك [زيمببون] أن ينفّذ هذا? ماذا يتمّ يعلمنا الجهود شهمة من ال [نك] و [ووزا]. [هوو مني] من نا يتلاقى مسيراتهم شجاعة? [هوو مني] [زيمببون] تلاقى الجنديات عندما ذهب هم على الإهتياج على الشوارع هاراري?

هو واضحة أنّ يتلقّى الشهية ل `ثورة برتقاليّة' في زمبابوي بعد أن يكون طوّرت, قبل أن ثورة شاملة يصبح منصة واقعيّة أن يقود [موغب] خارجا. سياسياتنا ضمن المعارضة حركة أيضا يضطرّ كنت يتأهّب أن يفترض التضحيات أنّ هذا خيار يستلزم. حيث زعيمات سياسيّة يذهبون داخل يخفي في التهديد خفيفة إضطهاد, يفشل نحن أن يرى كيف هذا خيار يستطيع كنت أحضرت إلى تمتع.

هذا يترك نا مع الثالثة وفقط جادّة للمغادرة [موغب], [ثت يس,] من خلال حرّة وإنتخابات عادلة. يصبح السؤال بعد ذلك كيف نحن نحقّق حرّة وإنتخاب عادلة في زمبابوي? يكيّف بالتّأكيد لا من خلال يطلب يتوافق إنتخابات اليوم أيّ كنت سيوصل تحت يونيو - حزيران 27. غير ضروريّ أن على قبض يقول, في هذا استفتاء, [موغب] الرئاسة والحاليّة يضمّ معارضة أغلبية في مجلس نواب كنت تماما سيعكس.

تركتنا كنت استراتيجيّة. نا ليس الناس وبلاد إنتخاب يتأهّب [أت ث مومنت]. نحن نحتاج أن يذهب من خلال [ترنسأيشنل بريود] في أيّ نحن نحلّ الأزمة إنسانيّة يحزن الناسنا, يوفي وطنيّة يشفي, يبدأ انتعاش اقتصاديّ, وأكثر بأهمّيّة يتبنّى جديدة [بيوبل-دريفن] دستور ديموقراطيّة. هذا الجسر أنّ زمبابوي يحتاج في مسيرته إلى ديموقراطيّة. بعد أنّ, نحن يستطيع بعد ذلك وفيت حرّة وإنتخابات عادلة. إن [موغب] يساهم في أنّ إنتخابات, سيهزم هو كنت. هذا الطريق وحيد عمليّة أنّ سيقود إلى [موغب] مغادرة.

يبحث الإتفاق شاملة سياسيّة سبتمبر - أيلول 15, 2008, أن يسهّل هذا إمكانية. [فولكس], هذا مثل جيّدة بما أنّ يحصل هو. لسوء الحظّ, سيضطرّ [موغب] كنت جزء من الإنتقال, بما أنّ نحن نفسّر في القسم تالية. بني وبوش ينبغي حصلت على هم حمقاء, [أونينفورمد] واستحواذ [أونسترتجك] مع [موغب] يذهب اليوم. إن هم يستطيع لا بوضوح مفصلت كيف هم يكون يذهبون أن يزيله, هم سوفت سررت فقط [بك وفّ], ويسمح بلدنا أن يتحرّك فوق. نحن يضطرّ أنقذت [زيمببون] حيوات أنّ يكون يكون خسرت [نيدلسّلي].

أنتج لما [موغب] يستطيع لا يذهب بعيدا من خلال محادثات

النتيجة انتخابات من مارس - آذار 29, 2008, ما من رابحة صريحة على حدّ سواء في مجلس نواب وفي الرئاسة. كان يونيو - حزيران 27 [ر-رون] مهزلة شرعيّة, لذلك نحن ب التصق مع مارس - آذار نتيجة لانهائيّة. كديموقراتيات, نحن ينبغي قبلت أنّ يعني هذا أنّ [موغب] وحزبه مثل كثير عاملة بما أنّ [تسفنجري] وحزبه.

قصيرة من مجموعة جديدة من إنتخابات أو تغير القيادة بأحزابهم, يعني هو لا [تسفنجري] ولا [موغب] يستطيع كنت فاوضت بعيدا. على ما أساس يستطيع نحن يتلقّى يفاوض إتفاق أنّ يستثني روبرت [موغب]? إن نحن نقبل ينتج مارس - آذار بما أنّ شرعيّة, هو زعيمة من حزب أيّ يتلقّى 99 [مبس] [فس.] 100 ل [مدك-ت], 30 عضو مجلس الشيوخ [فس.] 24 ل [مدك-ت]. هو أتى ثانية إلى [تسفنجري], 43.2% [فس.] 47.8%. أكثر بأهمّيّة يملك [موغب] حاليّا الرئاسة زمبابوي, نعم [إيلّجتيمتلي]. جيّدا, في قانون يقول هم أنّ امتلاك 90% من ملكية.

الحقيقة أنّ يتلقّى [موغب] هذا قوة الواجب السبب لما آرثور [موتمبرا] يكون بعد على محاكمة في المحكمة عليا, [تندي] [بيتي] يتلقّى خيانة حشوات حول عنقه, نشط يكون خطفت, و [مورغن] [تسفنجري], الأوّليّة [مينيستر-دسنت], تلقّى [تورّيد] وقت يحصل جواز سفر. هذا يعني [موغب] [إين شرج وف] [زيمببون] دولة. يعطي هذا حقيقة على الأرض, والنتيجة انتخابيّة مارس - آذار 29, 2008, (أيّ بسبب افتقارنا من استراتيجيّة يفكّر نحن يتلقّى كلّ نصحّ كنتيجة شرعيّة), هو حماقة أن يفكّر أنّ أنت يستطيع فاوضت [موغب] من قوة, وبطريقة ما [ميركلووسلي] يحقّق قوة يشارك ترتيب أنّ يستثنيه.

بخصوص ممارسة ديموقراطيّة سيكون هو جائرة, وبخصوص [بوليتيك] حقيقيّة هو سيكون مستحيلة. ينتج [أه] نعم, [أن ث بسس وف] مارس - آذار 29, [موغب] سوفت كنت جزء من أيّ قوة يشارك سلطة انتقاليّة في زمبابوي, بما أنّ هو يكون رئيس من حزب جيّدا يمثّل في كلا منازل تشريعيّة, وهو أتى ثانية في الجنس لانهائيّة رئاسيّة. نحن أمكن لم يحبّ هذا ظروف ديموقراطيّة, غير أنّ نحن يضطرّ عشت مع أنّ حقيقة.

سياسة فنّ من ال يمكن, كبسمارك مرّة [فمووسلي] يقال. في الحاليّة [زيمببون] منظر طبيعيّ سياسيّة, ينتسب الإمكانيات إلى على حدّ سواء روبرت [موغب] و [مورغن] [تسفنجري]. هم يحتاجون بعضهم بعضا. نحن يستطيع ناقشت الدور خاصّة أنّ [موغب] سوفت لعبت. ل [نوو ثت] قرّرت مناقشة كان ب [موغب], [تسفنجري] و [موتمبرا] عندما هم وقعوا الإتفاق شاملة سياسيّة ([غبا]). [موغب] [برسدنت-دسنت] و [مورغن] [تسفنجري] أوّليّة [مينيستر-دسنت]. غير أنّ, يكون نحن نقول أنّ [غبا] العرض وحيد في مدينة? رفض, إطلاقا لا.
قد ذهب هياكل بديلة إلى ال [غبا]

[ا لوت] من مناقشات ويفكّر داخل يحبك خيارات إلى الإتفاق سبتمبر - أيلول 15, 2008. لسوء الحظّ, قد كان هو ملهاة من أخطاء وهلوسات [أونسفيستيكتد]. حتّى بئر أسّست يحترم [إينترنأيشنل بودي] مثل الدوليّة أزمة مجموعة ([إيكغ]) يتلقّى يكون [ميسربلي] يريد. مشهورة نزاع قرار قد أبدى خبيرات, مدنيّة مجتمعة زعيمات وخبيرات غربيّة افتقار مذهلة من إبداع وتخيل.

يتألّف ال [سترت بوينت] في يؤسّس ممر بديلة لزمبابوي يمسك تفهم واضحة من لما نحن يكون نتلقّى تحديات في يطبّق ال [غبا] حاليّة. الصياغة جديدة ينبغي بعد ذلك بشكل عنيف وضّحت كيف هو سيتفادى هذا تحديات حاليّة. Beyond this, the efficacy, process details, timelines and milestones of any new strategy must then be clearly articulated. None of the critics of the current GPA has even begun to do any of the above.

Among a number of obstacles to consummation, the major challenge we have faced in executing the Zimbabwean GPA is the inability to achieve sufficient buy-in from the two major protagonists in the political impasse: Zanu PF and MDC-T. They are the critical players in any national transitional discussion, because any agreed arrangement will require legal effect through a constitutional amendment in parliament. Such a change will require a two thirds majority which can only be achieved by the participation of both Zanu PF and MDC-T, as a minimum requirement.

None of the proposals from the ICG, the civic society groups (both national and regional), or the arrogant and ignorant international community has addressed this simple challenge: How are you going to ensure that both MDC-T and Zanu PF will embrace your new grand proposal? If one or both of them do not accept your framework what are you going to do? Please, this is commonsensical. Anyone seeking to resolve the Zimbabwean crisis democratically and within the laws of Zimbabwe must apply their mind to this critical success factor: the show stopper.

The busy bodies at the ICG and in civic society do not even have the capacity to appreciate the existence of the problem, much less the intellect to develop the requisite solution. We are not saying it is impossible to develop an alternative negotiated framework to the September GPA. We are emphasising that it will require good and rigorously working minds to come up with one.

The reasons why we insist on fixing and then implementing the current flawed and imperfect GPA is because at some point the buy-in between the two key protagonist was achieved through the signatures of the MOU on July 21, 2008, and the GPA on September 15, 2008. Yes, there are disagreements now, but there are two agreed reference points. The key players and their teams have been actively negotiating the political impasse from March 29, 2008, and now four months after signing the GPA there are still implementation challenges.

Yes, this is bad and regrettable. However, let us be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. If we adopt a completely new process, how and when are we going to convince the two key players to start working towards an MOU? Are you going to get that MOU signed soon, and after that how much time will be required to get to a new GPA of sorts? Furthermore, while we embark on these new processes that require time and resources what will be happening to the suffering people of Zimbabwe, the collapsed economy, and the destroyed industrial base? Given the hardened positions of the two protagonists at the moment, can you even begin to sell the new path to them?

The most bizarre, irritating and clearly ineffective critics of the current GPA are those that premise their proposals by denouncing one of the two key protagonists. Usually it is Mugabe and his Zanu PF who are dismissed. How do you even conceptualise a negotiated outcome without the involvement of the Zanu PF group? We thought it was common cause that you do not make peace with your friends, but with your opponents.

One would expect someone of Jendayi Frazer’s stature to understand all this. How does she say that the US supports the negotiated power sharing, but insists that Mugabe must not be involved? Making these statements while defying the consistent advice that she received from all the South African leaders that she interacted with means that Frazer is insulting the SA leadership at every level. By this disrespectful conduct, she is humiliating both SADC and the AU.

In this situation, with respect to the US-proposed dialogue framework, who will be the principals, negotiators, facilitators and guarantors? South Africa is the only country with leverage on Zimbabwe. To bring any kind of change in Zimbabwe you have to work with SA, and not insult or humiliate them. Anyone serious about the Zimbabwean agenda must grasp this.

Jendayi, I assume that she is supportive of Mr Tsvangirai and she wants him to succeed. Does she actually have any respect for him? He signed the GPA in which Mugabe is designated as the President. Is it that she thinks Mr. Tsvangirai does not know what is good for him and therefore she has to lead him every step of the way?

By the way, it is not true that the US government supported the agreement when it was signed. For the record, both the US and the UK were opposed to the GPA from the beginning. They did not like the fact that Mugabe was both Head of State and Chairman of Cabinet, and they despised the GPA positions on land reform and sanctions. Everyone knows this. We are not children.

The US and the UK are now taking advantage of the delay in implementation of the agreement to savage and destroy the GPA. Do Frazer and her government have a workable alternative framework to the current GPA, together with an enforcement mechanism? And what is this that she said about the weakness and incompetence of her favorite GPA principal? Did she not say the following; “Tsvangirai is too weak and incompetent for us to allow him to be in an inclusive government with Mugabe. He will be completely outmaneuvered. Tsvangirai is not as strong as Odinga. If he was, we would have allowed him to get into the GNU with Mugabe?”

How can she possibly say such insulting remarks about her favorite opposition leader? With friends like these, who needs enemies? Incidentally, did she share her views about Tsvangirai with him? Why not? Anyway, who is she to allow or disallow African leaders? Does the US government have locus standi to do this? From where does she derive such legal, political or moral authority? Would a reverse scenario where international players seek to influence US politics be acceptable to the US?

Jendayi, can’t you see that you are ruining the opposition you seek to assist, and strengthening Mugabe that you seek to destroy? You are foolishly confirming everything that Mugabe has said about the opposition: that we are puppets. Moreover, Mugabe’s strengths are Africa, Pan-Africanism and anti-Imperialism. Any foreign policy that undermines African leaders and African institutions plays right into Mugabe’s game plan. Why can’t Western diplomats master these basics? Why do we have a premonition that most of the destructive grandstanding by Western governments is meant for their domestic constituencies?

More specifically, US foreign policy is always characterised by double standards, hypocrisy and dishonesty all rooted in the pursuit of US permanent interests. We seriously hope that incoming US President Obama and his new team will depart from this ignorant, ruinous and ineffective foreign policy that effectively undermines its intended beneficiaries, strengthens the targeted villains, while blighting the US standing in the World.

Things have to change in 2009. We are not naïve. We know that the general thrust of the US foreign policy objective is largely independent of both the individual who is the US President and the Party they belong to. However, we hope the policy execution, nuances and tactics will be different. Zimbabweans have great expectations.

Collapse of the Mugabe Regime

It is clear that the Mugabe regime will not collapse because of economic decay, mass starvation or epidemics such as cholera. The formal economy collapsed way back when. The regime survives on the informal sector and through rent-seeking behaviours. Yes, ordinary people are perishing and will continue to do so, but the regime will not collapse. Can we all come to grips with this?

The diamonds of Chiadzwa, the Platinum Mines, and assistance from friendly nations such as DRC, Angola, China and Russia will see the regime pull through another 5-10 years. Of course this will be at major cost to the population. Zimbabweans should care about this.

However, to the external players that suggest that we must wait for the collapse of the regime at any cost, the needless loss of life in pursuit of the departure of Mugabe is a small price to pay. After all, the lives lost are Black lives which are not equivalent to White lives. Since September 15, 2008, we have had Western governments encouraging the continuation of suffering and death of our people in the misguided belief that this will lead to the collapse of the Mugabe regime. Well, this will not happen, and our people are dying in vain. All Zimbabwean leaders must understand this.

We must collectively take responsibility for the calamity afflicting our country. In particular, Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai are equally culpable for the failure to work together. They are effectively working against the interests of their supporters and the generality of our citizenry. The two leaders are more concerned about a misguided power play executed at the expense of Zimbabwean lives. They have blood on their hands. The US and UK governments who are specifically undermining SADC efforts to establish an inclusive government in Zimbabwe are complicit in this crime against humanity.

In the case of these Western governments, they are driven by racism and utter disrespect for African lives. As Africans, our position is that not a single Zimbabwean life should be used as a stick to inflict pain on Robert Mugabe. People’s lives are too important to be used as ineffective political tools and weapons. We all know that Mugabe will not collapse because of cholera, mass starvation and a collapsed economy, so why are we supporting this ineffective strategy?

Nevertheless, let us deceive ourselves for a moment and assume the game plan works and the Mugabe regime actually collapses through the existing crisis. Why are we assuming that such a demise of Mugabe will lead to a democratic outcome? We saw what happened in Guinea when their dictator died. Did the opposition take over? Nope. If the Mugabe regime collapses, it is most likely that the army will take over. Some ambitious and gutsy colonel or general will step in. Our democratisation processes will, resultantly, regress at least 10 years.

There is absolutely no way Tsvangirai and his Party will be the beneficiaries of the collapse of Robert Mugabe. Quite to the contrary, the Zanu PF regime will make sure they collapse together with Tsvangirai and MDC-T. Do the current abductions, confessions and dubious trials of activists mean anything to anyone? MDC-T will not exist after the demise of Mugabe. I hope Tsvangirai understands this in no uncertain terms. I wish our brazen and unintelligent Western friends will do more listening and thinking.

This Mugabe must collapse strategy is not in the best interest of Zimbabwe. A regime change agenda achieved through a scorched earth policy is not what we need in our country. It will not benefit anyone. As Zimbabweans, we should think seriously about options that will allow us to continue to build, brick by brick, our democratic institutions.

Opportunity for a New Beginning

The year 2009 presents us with an opportunity for a new beginning. However, for this to be achieved, we have to learn some difficult lessons from inconvenient truths. We have to do things differently. We must embrace self-criticism as part of our best practices, and adopt an interrogative and questioning attitude to all stakeholders, including those that purport to support our struggles and our national interest.

In the struggle for a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Zimbabwe, it is not enough to be right. It is not enough to be a victim or to have the higher moral authority. The victims must behave well. Those with moral high ground must be driven by principles and values. Those on the right side of history must be thoughtful and strategic. Those that support victims of despotic regimes must apply their analytical skills. Good heart, bad mind will not cut it.

In all this, we must always put the people first. We must cherish servant leadership. Only then can we succeed. While external players and events affect our country, we must take responsibility for our own circumstances. We should be at the centre of our struggles and be the drivers of our nation building processes. We must have enough leadership strength to define and determine both the terms of reference and frameworks through which foreigners participate in the affairs of our nation.

In 2009, Zimbabweans must set the agenda and own the rules of the game. We must be masters of our own destiny. The critique of external influences that has been proffered should not be used to absolve us as citizens. We as Zimbabweans, created the current socio-political and economic crisis, and we will be the primary drivers and developers of the sustainable answers. And yes, a people do get a government that they deserve. Let us all be the change we wish to see in the year 2009.

Arthur G.O. Mutambara is president of MDC

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/mutambara4.19221.html