Defamation of Zim persists

By Tafataona Mahoso (16/02/10)

WHEN Prime Minister Tsvangirai parroted David Miliband’s "calibrated sanctions" as "staggered sanctions" in Davos, Switzerland, on January 31 2010; David Frost of Aljazeera asked the Prime Minister what he thought he could achieve by inviting investors to Zimbabwe while also asking for staggered or calibrated sanctions against the country?


WHEN Prime Minister Tsvangirai parroted David Miliband’s "calibrated sanctions" as "staggered sanctions" in Davos, Switzerland, on January 31 2010; David Frost of Aljazeera asked the Prime Minister what he thought he could achieve by inviting investors to Zimbabwe while also asking for staggered or calibrated sanctions against the country?

As a media person, Frost understood that the mention of any sanctions at all against Zimbabwe was not compatible with a genuine invitation to invest in the same country being associated with sanctions. This is because, to most thinking persons, sanctions mean economic warfare. So who would want to risk their investment in an economic war zone?

Frost seemed to understand that sanctions are not normal business, and if they are not normal business they always have to be explained in order to justify their imposition or continuation in whatever form. That process of explanation and justification is automatically defamatory and inconsistent with any pretence to be inviting investment.

What this means is that the inclusive Government has a huge communication problem. Some of its members were not only responsible for inviting the illegal and racist sanctions that destroyed the economy in the first place; they are still continuing to make up lies which they need to continue defaming the country enough to justify "calibrating" or "staggering" sanctions, which is like saying that instead of stopping torture altogether the torturer will calibrate it, stagger the episodes of assault in order to help the victim.

Even the statements of intention by the UK and US to support Zimbabwe at the IMF are defamatory in that they raise negative questions: Why don’t the US and UK just support Zimbabwe the way they support any other country? Why are their statements of mere intentions newsworthy? Why have they not been supporting Zimbabwe up to now?

Readers of the Herald may have seen three recent and related articles appearing in The Financial Gazette (February 4, 2010), The Zimbabwe Independent (February 5, 2010) and The Herald (February 5, 2010).

The first was called "White farmers lose hope in unity government: MDC formations let us down, CFU." The second was the editorial of The Zimbabwe Independent entitled "Sinister wind blows from Addis Ababa". And the third was The Herald story entitled "White farmers attack judge".

Now, how are the three pieces related? They are related to the illegal and racist sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe 10 years ago at the invitation of the MDC formations and they are related to the criminal defamation of Zimbabwe and Zimbabweans which the MDC formations mounted on behalf of the white Rhodies and their Anglo-Saxon sponsors in order to make the illegal and racist sanctions appear to be justified.

In The Financial Gazette story, one of the founder organisations in the MDC formations (the white racist CFU) is confessing that it was promised that leaders of the two MDCs went into the inter-party agreement and the inclusive Government in order to fight for the return of prime land to white settlers, which the African land reclamation movement has redeemed for the once-dispossessed majority.

Because the two MDCs are failing to deliver on that promise, the CFU is breaking ranks with them and will probably go back to the 10-year-old campaign to defame the country and demand the continuation of the illegal economic sanctions.

The second piece is a comment on the recent AU summit in Ethiopia, but is saying the same thing, from an international relations point of view. After all, the AU was among the first international organisations to recognise and condemn the illegal and racist sanctions for what they are and to demand their unconditional lifting.

So the editorial, representing the same white racist interests as the CFU, is saying Addis Ababa 2010 was bad news for the Anglo Saxon axis and its Rhodesian kith and kin, not only because the AU Summit repeated its condemnation of the illegal sanctions and its demand for their unconditional lifting, but also because the summit sought to demonstrate its contempt of the defamation campaign mounted against Zimbabwe in the last 10 years by electing the country to the Peace and Security Council.

Here one has got to give the white Rhodies and their Anglo-Saxon backers credit for recognising the strategic importance of Zimbabwe’s elevation at the AU Summit and viewing it as a blow to the defamation campaign on which is based the MDC-T’s request to have illegal and racist sanctions prolonged.

The third story in The Herald is a demonstration of the failure by Africans to understand white racism and the 500-year-old scaffolding, which perpetuates it.

A splinter of the same CFU in the first story calling itself Zimbabwe Tribunal Rights Watch has attacked Justice Bharat Patel’s judgment against the white racists’ attempt to import into Zimbabwean courts and make legally binding a propaganda statement illegally issued by the so-called Sadc Tribunal in Windhoek.

Because the leader of the CFU splinter, Ben Freeth, has allegedly referred to the judge as a Nazi attempting "to legalise a programme of ethnic cleansing" against the white settler farmers, the Law Society of Zimbabwe is being asked by the lawyer involved in the case, Mr Gerald Mlotshwa, to have Freeth tried for contempt of court and for scandalising the judge.

It is correct that Justice Patel and the independence and reputation of the judiciary deserve protection. The problem is that the strategy or methodology adopted makes the nation miss the forest on fire while attending to one tree.

The vilification, contempt and scandalisation perpetrated by the CFU, the Zimbabwe Tribunal Rights Watch, Justice for Agriculture and the MDC formations against Zimbabwe and all over the world in order to justify illegal sanctions in the last 10 years has now degenerated to the extent of targeting even individual judges.

And the real issue is neither Ben Freeth nor Justice Patel but how and why we as a nation have allowed such mass vilification and scandalisation to go on against the country here at home and abroad?

Therefore, the demand to force the MDC formations to apologise to Zimbabweans for inviting illegal and racist sanctions is not motivated by malice or vindictiveness.

If Ben Freeth must apologise to Justice Patel and to the High Court, how many more times must the leaders of the MDC formations (as part of our inclusive Government) also apologise to the people of Zimbabwe who still groan under illegal sanctions?

Anyone who understands business and communication knows that no entity can prosper its business relations while some insiders are busy de-campaigning and defaming it in the eyes of business partners and potential clients.

This is indeed a terrible contradiction that the inclusive Government faces on its first anniversary.

While Zanu-PF views the material damage caused by illegal and racist sanctions as inseparable from the image damage and criminal defamation of the country, MDC-T continues to deny both types of damage and insists on inflicting even more damage by publicly asking the Anglo-Saxon powers to play the role of the sadistic torturer, removing the torture instruments (sanctions) slowly in order to relish the prolonged suffering of the victims.

In order for that slow-motion torture to be justified and accepted throughout the Anglo-Saxon countries, MDC-T has to continue its defamation campaign, especially through its Rhodesian allies.

And there are those in Zanu-PF who seem to think that the nation should tolerate this criminal behaviour in the name of national healing and reconciliation.

This mistaken thinking is reflected in the mishandling of the white racist farmers who went to the so-called Sadc Tribunal in order to have the African land reclamation movement and the African revolution in land tenure condemned as "ethnic cleansing" and as a crime against humanity.

All that Zimbabweans have done is claim the right to share their once-stolen land with the descendants and heirs of those who once stole it and kept it for 100 years. How in the world can such a modest demand be condemned as "ethnic cleansing"?

And the appeal to the LSZ to protect Justice Patel is particularly ironic, since leaders of the LSZ for the last 10 years have been at the forefront of the campaign to defame Zimbabwe at international forums, which 10-year campaign is now the basis for framing the country’s affirmative action on land as "ethnic cleansing".

The important role of LSZ leaders in the international defamation of Zimbabwe has been documented in The Sunday Mail (African Focus).

Readers may check the issues for August 13 2006; October 8 2006; November 26 2006; December 31 2006; January 14 2007.

In Stanford Moyo’s end of year report as president of the LSZ in 2003, the erosion of "judicial activism" was equated with the resignation of former Chief Justice Anthony Gubbay and his replacement by Chief Justice Godfrey Chidyausiku. The blame was placed squarely at the door of the State.

Joseph James’ report for 2006 simply opens with a declaration of war against the State, saying:

"The greatest impediment or obstacle to creating or sustaining an environment where legal practitioners can operate efficiently and effectively is the lack of respect for human rights by the Government."

After complaining that "the judiciary is patently reluctant to indulge in judicial activism and to observe and enforce human rights", Mr James then showed what this judicial activism meant for the LSZ at the end of 2006, saying:

"White farmers continue to be threatened and insulted by members of the Executive on a daily basis. The Gazetted Law (Consequential Provisions) Act 8/2006 was a further manifestation of the intention of the Executive to deprive owners of farms, which have been gazetted of rights, and compel them to vacate land within 45 days, or the living quarters on the farm within 90 days after the land has been identified . . .

"In Zimbabwe the (political) opposition (party) is ineffectual, and the Legislative is really an extension of the Executive: it is therefore especially important that a strong and independent judiciary (takes the place of this weak opposition and) protects the ordinary citizen from the authoritarian rule of the Executive."

Given this cavalier view of Africans land rights in relation to white land theft, it is not surprising that Ben Freeth and his racist followers felt free to portray African land reclamation as ethnic cleansing.

Leaders of the Law Society led the way from 2000 to date.