The Flip Side with Kuthula Matshazi
This week's column is a response to a series of comments by a fellow Zimbabwean from my article titled Zimbabwe under sanctions: the inconvenient truth. He raises interesting questions, which I believe are otherwise distorted by his unchecked bias.
Dave says I misunderstood and overstated his position that “Mugabe’s removal was a cure all”. Well my apologies for “overstating” his position, but I believe he can see that he did not qualify the benchmark with which to measure his “position” and therefore left it open for anyone to interpret. After all, he said, (if indeed that “Anonymous” was him.) “I disagree with your assumption that if we were to change Zanu PF thigns would not improve”.
He also said "At no time did I say Mugabe's removal was a cure all. What I said was that his removal would allow Zimbabwe to put itself into a position where it could engage the west in meaningful dialogue that could result in improved economic activity".
I still am sceptical of Dave’s assumption. It could be right in the sense that an “improved economic activity” might make sense for the few people like him who might benefit. But he also subliminally suggests that the mere engagement with the West has potential rewards of an “improved economic activity”. It is good that Dave says “economic activity” not “improvement in human development”. Economic activity is not the ends, but only a means through which ordinary people should improve their condition. So I can now safely say that Dave is only interested in “improved economic activity” and not “improved human development”. Well, I could also assume that he is interested in “improved human development” but the problem is that he does not express it and maybe he takes it for granted that improvement in economic activity would translate into improvement in human condition. Unfortunately, this is the dangerous slumber that neoliberalism wanted to instil in us. We were supposed to think along the Reagan economics of filtering down effect. But we have seen that to be the biggest scam of the 1980s.
I am glad that the substance of my argument is correct and by Dave’s own admission he confirms that. I can’t be held responsible for “overstating” his position. The flip side would be to “understate” it. It would not be wrong per se, but based on his argument and the context within which it was made, it would be carelessness on my part to give less weight to his heavily weighted ideological position.
"All of these challenges you have highlighted, I don't know how they will be dealt with by a future Zimbabwe but I do know that Mugabe has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that his administration cannot handle these issues. I am not concerned with how others might handle these issues, neither you nor I can predict the future".
Well, its good that Dave has no clue of what might happen in Zimbabwe after President Mugabe leaves office. So we might as well all guess and not demonise or try to deceive each other about our own guesses – but engage in good faith. So Zimbabweans – the majority of them – must decide what shape and form of an economy they want. As of now, they have spoken and their voice must be respected and yet engaged.
I think Dave could be right to suggest that President Mugabe might not change direction. The majority of the people who have voted in Zimbabwe have demonstrated that the direction he is taking is acceptable to them. Sure, there are many who oppose it but tough luck: Tyranny of the majority.
The troubling question is why do the Western countries refuse to support what the majority of Zimbabweans want? The economic nationalism driving the Zimbabwean policy now is similar to what happened in the West and everywhere else around the world, including the Asian Tigers, when they were developing. So if Zimbabwe chooses to go that route, what is wrong with that? What is painful for the West and people like Dave to accept such a development paradigm, recognizing very well that this is how most other countries including the West, developed? Instead of assisting that economic model, neoliberals having been shelling it from all angles, hence its limited success.
When I asked Dave about Zambia, I was not directly comparing it with Zimbabwe. I am only asking him to demonstrate to me how the Highly Indebted Poor Countries Initiative for instance, has helped Zambia. However, Dave has turned around my question and pitted Zimbabwe against Zambia. Taking his logic and argument, according to the social indicators of the human development index that I am looking at now as I write, from the 2006 United Nations Development Programme Human Development Report, Zambia is below Zimbabwe (with all its problems) in the index rankings at number 165 of 177 countries. Zimbabwe is at 151. Yet we are told that Zambia’s economy has been growing at roughly five percent per year over the past five years. And we saw that Global Fund had been pouring in huge amounts of per capita funding to Zambia than Zimbabwe, for instance, with a larger HIV and AIDS problem. Zambia receives about US$187 per person while Zimbabwe about US$4. Maybe social indicators statistics are not a good reflection of the situation on the ground? I think Dave owes us an explanation why he thinks we can help him romanticise about Zambia. He should explain the disparity between economic growth (improved economic activity) and social conditions of the people.
He says I do not think rationally. I believe I try. I do not know why he thinks I am irrational. I am sure if I were not thinking rationally he would not spare me his precious time, which I very much appreciate he did.
He is puzzled why I harbour a “doom and gloom” scenario. Well, based on the statistics that I have given him above, this is where my “gloom and doom” comes from. I cannot see any real sustainable progress for the ordinary people. Rather, we are told that the situation is worsening. Dave might want to direct me to sources that indicate that things are, after all brightening under the rigged neoliberal system in Sub-Saharan Africa.I think I should give Dave the definition of neoliberalism now, as he requested. It is a set of ideas emerging from intellectuals and political movements that advocate for economic liberalism through less government intervention in the economy and greater role of the market forces. Intrinsic in this short statement are issues of privatisation, liberalisation and deregulation. I must also add that rule of law and protection of private property are paramount in this ideology. These ideas have destroyed the lives of billions of ordinary people all around the world, including Zimbabwe. If President Mugabe has his faults in this current situation, so is neoliberalism doubly (no concise figures but a figurative expression to demonstrate the level of culpability of the neoliberal system).
The neoliberal system had permeated and messed up governments, civil society, trade unions, churches, the World Trade Organisation, World Bank, United Nations, etc. Many organisations have imprints of neoliberalism. And it has messed up commonsense by turning it upside down.
Dave continues to talk about “many third world countries are managing to overcome these barriers”. First, I must ask him which barriers is he talking about? I read many reports that say the situation in Sub-Saharan countries is deteriorating right from the climate to the well being of people. Canadian senator Peter Stollery’s report on Africa is one of them and the UNDP is another. Yet, on the other hand, the International Monetary Fund tells us that some African economies are making progress. I guess that’s why I do not make sense to Dave and therefore sound foolish. Also, Western corporations based in the West, which we know to have investments in Africa, are making handsome profits. I hope Dave sees where I am going with this? I guess I might not be foolish to say that these companies benefit from African resources extracted under a neoliberal system where there are tax holidays, 100 percent profit repatriation, low wages, etc – all aided by the current spell of higher prices of some commodities. Then, these numbers are recorded as economic growth in Africa – which unfortunately does not help the improvement of human development. Interesting intricate web of economics!
By the way, in all fairness, it is wrong to suggest, as Dave does, that Zimbabwe disengaged from the West, rather the West disengaged Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe has said it is prepared to talk to the West to acknowledge the land reforms and assist in funding its national economic programme. The West refuses and insists on an economy based on neoliberal global economy model, which by Dave’s own admission glorifies and believes Zimbabwe should surrender to. But we must be mindful of the background of the global economy, which is a threat to industries in Zimbabwe, and the ownership of means of production by Zimbabweans. Canadians are currently crying foul about the takeovers of Canadian companies by United States companies.
Of course, we are not saying we should not grow the economy and make it work for all, but rather that the neoliberal system should not stifle the model Zimbabweans are trying to build which is not based on neoliberalism but an economy largely, and not exclusively, owned by Zimbabweans.
Dave says, "Yes, warning citizens not to travel to Zimbabwe can be seen as economic sanctions but so what"? He has just killed his argument. I did not argue who was responsible for the sanctions or the right and wrongs, but whether they are present. And by his own admission he has confirmed their presence. Thank you. All else is secondary debate. This was the gist of my argument.
But Dave beats me when he says, “True economic sanctions" would be a ban on travel to Zimbabwe which has not occurred”. What does he mean? He demonstrates that he does not know the conceptual definition of economic sanctions. It does not mean full blockage of activities in any sector. I have given the definition of economic sanctions on several of my articles and he can refer to them. His concept of economic sanctions is the very general and adulterated definition. I am avoiding saying it’s the propagandistic definition that has become common in relation to Zimbabwe. It’s a mystery why people strive to display either their ignorance or lying tendencies in public merely to score political points.
Dave suggests that Zanu PF is insane. Well, that is your prerogative to suggest so, but I have a problem with the definition of “insane” because then it proves something that I explain below. He says an insane person is “one who thinks they can do the same thing over and over and expect a different outcome each time?” By his definition, I think Dave means that Zimbabweans, at least the majority of them – are insane because they believe they keep trying and hoping that they can build a national economy, or a student who tries, tries and tries again to study hard and pass better is insane.
I think the definition of insane he gives is not correct. I think this is his weakness. He dreams and adulterates words to his own suiting and then makes those self-invented definitions standard. The insane he defines is in fact a diligent and persistent person or even a professor who is trying to disprove a point. Or still someone like Dave who would try again and again to convince people that neoliberalism is good. And if he has repeatedly gotten a positive answer from his neoliberal colleagues, he would extend his effort by doing "the same thing over and over and [expect] a different outcome" from someone like me. According to his definition, that makes him an insane person.
28 comments:
"The majority of the people who have voted in Zimbabwe have demonstrated that the direction he is taking is acceptable to them"
This is an excellent example of simple reasoning. REALLY simple. Borderline stupid.
With no press freedom, intimitation of voters, corruption in voter registration, police harresment of opposition members, vote-buying with food, cheating with results, ban on public meetings, etc, etc, and you still want to us to believe that the majority of Zimbabweans are ok with Bob the Mugger!
No really, go back to your stinky little country that is quickly deteriorating back to the jungle. We in the west do not care. Stop abusing the technology provided by the "neoliberals" and go in grovel in your dirty grass hut.
By the way, Mugabe is a stupid petty little thief, with zero brains! If i dared to say this in Zim, I would be locked up in prison. Eish, thy would say, this is big state secret! Hamba to chirukie!
Ignore the ramblings of the "eish" racist above.
I have read Matshazi's response to Dave. There are unfortunately many question marks about your reasoning, Kuthula. I will briefly comment on some:
"We were supposed to think along the Reagan economics of filtering down effect. But we have seen that to be the biggest scam of the 1980s."
Maybe YOU think it is a scam, so please prove it. Reality on the ground seems to indicate that Reaganomics was mostly successful. Refer to GDP results in US since the early 80's.
"it would be carelessness on my part to give less weight to his heavily weighted ideological position"
I think that you are the one with the heavily weighted ideological position. Your bias against the so- called 'neoliberalism' is glaring!
" As of now, they have spoken and their voice must be respected and yet engaged"
Mugabe and Zanu-pf have spoken. Mugabe did not win the previous election.
"The troubling question is why do the Western countries refuse to support what the majority of Zimbabweans want?"
The Western countries do not know what the majority of Zimbabweans wants. The only way to determine this is to have free and fair elections. I do not think Zimbabwe EVER had free and fair elections.
"Tyranny of the majority"
Should read tyranny of Mugabe and Zanu-pf.
"The economic nationalism driving the Zimbabwean policy now is similar to what happened in the West"
This is correct only in the context of Naxi Germany against the Jews.
" So if Zimbabwe chooses to go that route, what is wrong with that?
What is wrong is clear for everyone to see: soaring inflation, negative growth, corruption, tyranny, abuse of human rights, nepotism, .... i still fail to see anything positive coming from it.
"What is painful for the West and people like Dave to accept such a development paradigm, recognizing very well that this is how most other countries including the West, developed? Instead of assisting that economic model, neoliberals having been shelling it from all angles, hence its limited success"
The problem is that the West is expected to always pick up the pieces afterwards of a failed economic model in Africa. Western taxpayers always have to fork out more and more money, because of the suffering of the ordinary people in Africa.
"from the 2006 United Nations Development Programme Human Development Report, Zambia is below Zimbabwe (with all its problems) in the index rankings at number 165 of 177 countries. Zimbabwe is at 151."
This is not the full truth. The Zimbabwe HDI index went from 0.65 in 1990 to less than 0.5 in 2004. Zambia from 0.45 to 4.0 in the same period. The decline in Zimbabwe was 3 times that of Zambia.
"Dave might want to direct me to sources that indicate that things are, after all brightening under the rigged neoliberal system in Sub-Saharan Africa
Mozambique's HDI index went from 0.32 in 1995 to 0.4 in 2004.
"(neoliberal system ) These ideas have destroyed the lives of billions of ordinary people all around the world, including Zimbabwe.
Did you not mean marxism? The HDI indexes of all continents in world increased dramatically from 1970, all except Sub-Saharan Africa. Zimbabwe showing the biggest decrease. Your logic does not hold.
"(neoliberal system) And it has messed up commonsense by turning it upside down."
I personally think that you are seriously messing with common sense.
"I have given the definition of economic sanctions on several of my articles and he can refer to them"
I do not agree with your definition of economic sanctions.
"If President Mugabe has his faults in this current situation, so is neoliberalism doubly"
No, i give up. Cant waste my time anymore on such crap...... sorry tried my best.
From Merriam-Webster. Sanctions: an economic or military coercive measure adopted usually by several nations in concert for forcing a nation violating international law to desist or yield to adjudication
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to Council Common Position 2002/145/CFSP of
18 February 2002 concerning restrictive measures against
Zimbabwe (1),
Therefore, Common Position 2002/145/CFSP provides
that certain restrictive measures will be taken in respect
of Zimbabwe, in particular the freezing of funds, financial
assets or economic resources of individual members
of the Government and natural or legal persons associated
with them as well as a ban on exports on repression
equipment and a ban on technical advice, assistance
or training related to military activities.
Now, according to Matshazi, it is these 'measures' directed at Mugabe and his cronies, that are responsible for the economic collapse in Zimbabwe. Must be because Mugabe controls 90% of the Zimbabwean economy, or maybe Mugabe IS Zimbabwe.
Matshazi, your reasoning is pathetic! Remember, your internet readers are not the gullible ZANU-PF voters living in the early stone age in the bushveldt!
Racist,
You suggest that I am doing simple reasoning because I said “The majority of the people who have voted in Zimbabwe have demonstrated that the direction he is taking is acceptable to them”. It depends on what simple reasoning means. After all, maybe simple reasoning is what is needed in some instances. The people want land reform and they got and they voted ZPF. Like it or hate it. Be it simple or sophisticated reasoning, that’s the fact. You may stand on top of the world and shout out loud, the truth would always be the same. Isaac Matongo (MDC Tsvangirai) said that the opposition is weak and it should move beyond the nonsense of blaming everybody and everything except themselves.
It is a lie that neoliberals provide the technology. Progress people in the West do provide technology. You assume that only neoliberals have the ability to provide?? No wonder why you are so racist!
Well, as for your racist rants, I can’t do anything about them. Rant on!!!
JJ. this is a response for you.
Reaganomics ate away at social spending. It left a lot of people vulnerable without health care, for instance, in the United States. Welfare was drastically cut and more money invested in Cold War and arms. The number of those without health insurance has increased to 50 million today. When this Reaganomics was imposed on other people around the world, in the form of neoliberal economics (with the collaboration of Thatcher) the number of the poor drastically increased. It ate away your 1970s social progress. Well, it could have been successful in increasing the wealth of the few in the US but certainly not in the rest of the developing world and generally it trampled on the economic rights of oedinary people. That’s when the unions came under intense fire…under the Reaganomics. That’s poverty and lack and security and an issue of human rights. And yet that disastrous neoliberal model was made a template for the rest of the world. Economic structural adjustments were rationalized along those lines.
It is true that I have a weighted ideological position. However, that does not negate the fact that Dave also possesses an ideological position. It is not a scandal to have an ideological position…we all have them. Most of our practice is informed by these ideas. However, it is how one rationalizes or applies these ideologies that can be scandalous. So I do not see why you clamour to me about my possession of ideology. In any case, I did not deny it.
Well, you can say that Mugabe did not win the election, that’s ok. But the situation on the ground is that SADC and AU said that he won the elections. You have nothing official to prove your claim. That’s the problem. Even if I may want to believe you.
The West knows what the Zimbabweans want but it seems their wants are opposite that of Zimbabweans. But if you think that they don’t know and decide to believe things that don’t exist, there is little that I can do. Well, it’s correct to say Tyranny of Mugabe and ZPF because they are the majority. Are they not the ones that voted and won? If the Lib Dems in UK is the majority, then the concept of Tyranny of the majority will be Sir Campbell and his supporters.
I do not know why you compare economic nationalism with Nazi Germany. And why you extract my sentence from its frame. Even away from its frame its puzzling what point you want to make.
All what is wrong with the economics in Zimbabwe is a result of economic sanctions that you do not want to accept are there because then they will implicate their role in creating the situation that you highlight…inflation, negative growth, etc.
Could you explain and complete my truth, using your model how then UN could have “rigged” the index rankings. If Mozambique and Zambia, with their average annual GDP growth of 5% over 5 years, why are they below Zimbabwe in the HDI index? Please explain.
You heard me correct. I said neoliberalism not Marxism. Isn’t it ironic that neoliberalism has caused so much suffering in the midst of creating UNPRECEDENTED WEALTH? The HDI of countries increased in the 1970s because there was state led development and investment in social services, yet from 1980 to 2000 with the Reaganomics and Thatcher, the progress of the Golden Years and the 70s was destroyed by neoliberalism…NOT Marxism. Thanks for bringing that issue across!
I did not give my definition of neoliberalism. I quoted scholars. But scholars can be criticised. So give me the definition of economic sanctions. Don’t just reject it and offer no alternative.
You deserve a rest. You tried but you could never measure up with your short comments. You failed to bring forward comprehensive explanations.
From Merriam-Webster. Sanctions: an economic or military coercive measure adopted usually by several nations in concert for forcing a nation violating international law to desist or yield to adjudication.
Now taking your definition as it is, these nations are in concert against Zimbabwe trying to force change in Zimbabwe. Giving you benefit of doubt and follow your logic, that there is international law being violated in Zimbabwe, you still accept that there are “economic or military coercive measure[s] adopted usually by several nations in concert for forcing a nation violating international law to desist or yield to adjudication”.
Well, my reasoning could be pathetic, but you choose to join my pathetic reasoning in another way!!! By your own definition and quote below, you are talking about economic sanctions. I do not know whether your reasoning is pathetic or you just choose to be deceptive?You can explain the effects or the right and wrongs of the economic sanctions, but what you agree with me – and that’s my main argument – is that Zimbabwe is under economic sanctions. And unwittingly you have acknowledged it.
Its good that you know that you should not take people for granted. People will not suck up any ill thought message just because its denigrating ZPF or Mugabe. That time is long past. I wonder who really is in the stone age between the two of us??
Kuthula, seems that we have a communications problem. I do not understand your reasoning. You do not seem to understand my reasoning. I will thus try to explain myself better.
First issue:
You allege that the latest round of elections in Zimbabwe reflected the true voice of the people. Although the AU and SADC ratified the election as free and fair, other observers, such as the EU condemned the election as seriously flawed. One has to remember that Mugabe banned the EU and other countries from officially observing the elections. The SADC report was also not unanimous. Before and during the election the playing field was not level. Press freedom was curtailed. Newspapers that was not in the Zanu-pf stable was closed and harassed. Zimbabweans in other countries was not allowed to vote. Serious problems with the voters roll was reported, all favoring Zanu-pf. Opposition party voices was mostly banned on state TV and radio. Opposition candidates was prevented from registering in many constituencies. Opposition candidates and members was not allowed to have meetings in many areas (no-go areas). Widespread voter intimidation was reported. Inadequate polling booths was provided in the cities, where the opposition was the strongest. Polling booths closed early in the cities even though thousands of voters was still queuing. Many results in the out lying areas did not tally, all in favour of Zanu-pf. Officers voted on behalf of foot soldiers. Voters was promised food aid if they voted for Zanu-pf. Voters was promised land and money if they voted Bob.
These are only some of the problems reported about the elections. So, you will NEVER convince me or the majority of people used to practicing democracy that the voice of the people of Zimbabwe was heard.
To further try and explain to you I will use an analogy:
You have a primary school consisting of a majority of poor kids, with some rich kids, and a new school head prefect needs to be chosen. Little Bob aspires to be head perfect. Of cause, he is stinking rich, but he abuse the jealousy that exist between the poor kids towards the rich kids. He promise them that he will lay claim to the (ill begotten) sweets of the rich kids and redistribute them to the poor kids.
The rich kids objects, saying that their parents will surely intervene. What’s more, says the rich kids, our parents are paying most of the school fees, and if you steal our sweets, we will leave the school, and the school will surely go down the drain. Little Bob knows that the rich kids are right, but he is so power hungry, that he employs a few thugs, who start to intimidate the rich kids, restricting them from canvassing for votes, and from explaining to the poor kids what the implications would be.
Low and behold, Bob makes sure that he gets elected, also by cheating at the vote counting. He and his thugs, together with the ignorant poor kids, start to demand that the rich kids hand over their sweets, taking it with force when necessary. Very soon, Bob and his thugs are the new rich kids in the school, Bob being the richest. Of cause, the rich kids leaves the school, their parents stopping to pay fees, and the schools starts sliding down the drain.
No, says little Bob, I acknowledge that there is no more sweets, that the school is going down the drain, that no education can take place, but you know, it is all the fault of the rich kids and their parents. And little Kuthula eagerly Bobs his head in agreement. Yes, indeed, it is all the fault of the rich kids, aka the neo-liberals.
The problem with guys like you, Kuthula, and your cronies in Zanu-pf, is that your convictions and ideologies are so unreasonable, that the taxpayers in the western world are saying we had enough supplying endless aid and help to stupid people who cannot govern themselves, and lack the ability of introspection. And that is what you call economic sanctions. That is the reality of the situation!
Kuthula, I have to acknowledge my ignorance about the reasoning practices followed in Africa, but here in the western world, we always try to substantiate our reasoning with measurements, if possible. This is an old practice coming from the all the way from the enlightment that followed the dark middle ages. According to this practice, one first think up an theory, then use empirical measurements to test the theory, and if the measurements owns up to the theory, one gains more confidence in the theory, and if the measurements do not confirm the theory, the theory is rejected, and a new one developed. Now, I know that this way of working is a very Eurocentric way, and might seem foreign to the average African, and may even be rejected by Africans because it does not reflect the Ubutu way of doing things, but it seems to have worked for the western world. Computers, cars, satellites, medicine, cell phones, internet, guns, etc all came out of this way of reasoning.
Therefore, I do not understand your reasoning about ‘neo-liberalism’. All statistics (yes I know statistics is sooo Eurocentric, and should never be used to can a good argument in Africa) shows that poverty levels in the world are declining, even though the rich are getting richer. The human development index for the last 20 years shows a healthy upward trend for all continents, except Africa. Granted, Europe showed a decline in the period 90 to 95, but started upwards again after that. It is only Africa that shows a disappointing slow upward trend. Therefore your statement “The HDI of countries increased in the 1970s because there was state led development and investment in social services, yet from 1980 to 2000 with the Reaganomics and Thatcher, the progress of the Golden Years and the 70s was destroyed by neo-liberalism” does not hold water. It is not true. It is a lie. Please adjust your theory because empirical measurements showed that it is wrong. That is the right thing to do. Unfortunately it is also the Eurocentric way to do, therefore you will in all probability not change your theory. Like your theories about the damage slavery did to Africa. Or colonialism. Or racism. Or that Bob is not brain damaged. Or that the world does not own Africa anything. Or that the economic downfall in Zim was not caused by ‘economic sanctions’.
Unless you start changing your theories, Kuthula, when confronted with reality, there is no more debate possible. Some people believe the earth is flat, and others that it is all the white man’s fault. But hey, how utterly boring would the world be without some of these funny ideas. It gives spice to live! One must just learn not to take them seriously, rather laugh at them.
visit
http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/flash/statistics_trends.cfm for the stats.
Final try:
You said ” All what is wrong with the economics in Zimbabwe is a result of economic sanctions that you do not want to accept are there because then they will implicate their role in creating the situation that you highlight…inflation, negative growth, etc”
Ok, let me agree with you that there is economic sanctions against Zimbabwe. We have to do is evaluate the impact of these sanctions.
Now, in logic, as with theories, you cannot simply say look there is sanctions, here is a serious decline in the economy, therefore sanctions caused the decline. It is like saying there is a blackman, here was some things stolen, therefore the blackman is a thief.
No, we have to evaluate the situation on merits. On the one hand the degree of sanctions, and on the other hand examine the economy, and then come to a conclusion.
Luckily our Anonymous friend gave us the script of the EU resolution of the ‘measurements’ against Zimbabwe. Looking into more detail of the sanctions, it may be divided in to two areas. One part of the sanctions is against individuals in the government, Bob included. It provides
that certain restrictive measures will be taken in respect
of Zimbabwe, in particular the freezing of funds, financial
assets or economic resources of individual members
of the Government and natural or legal persons associated
with them. Surely these measurements cannot by any imagination possibly be responsible for the economic decline in Zimbabwe. This is sanctions against a few individuals, not a country. If the damage is really due to this, then Bob and fellow muggers were seriously caught with their hands in the purse of Zimbabwe, dude!
The other side of the sanctions are a ban on exports on repression
equipment and a ban on technical advice, assistance
or training related to military activities. Again one fails to understand how these measures could possible be responsible for the decline in the economy.
Looking at the later history of the economy, one unfortunately sees many factors that should rather be blamed for the decline. One saw very productive farms being taken from people based on their race, bearing in mind that agriculture was the biggest earner of foreign exchange in Zimbabwe. One saw various amateurish attempts by he government to control prices. One saw the governor of the Reserve bank printing money as if it is toilet paper. One saw the incompetent attempts at the control of foreign exchange rates. One saw widespread corruption in state departments. One saw disastrous attempts of the state to control the fuel market, the grains market, the tobacco market, etc.etc.etc. And in fact, this downfall started to happen even before any ‘sanctions’ was in place.
If you really want to understand the reason for the downfall in Zimbabwe, you do not have to look further than Robert Gabriel Mugabe, and his partners in crime, Zanu-pf. Go and read the report from the IMF regarding the Zimbabwian economy. To believe that sanctions caused the problems, just shows total lack of economic understanding and ignorance. Which, at the end of the day, seems to be endemic in Zimbabwe.
JJ,
Bare with me. Today is a rather busy day but I am responding to your e-mails.
But let me just say it would be great to understand the African thinking and not despise it. I acknowledge Western mode of reasoning and resoect it. In fact, to eliminate contentious situations, I am prefer to engage anyone based on their OWN mode of reasoning. I do not like to impose my way of thinking. Its good that I interogate and unpack that manner of reasoning.
talk to you later...pretty soon. My sincere apologies for keeping you waiting.
Ahh, I made the front page, how delightful. Unfortunately I just moved and I have to hook up my cable, but as soon as I am back up and running from home I will respond to your weak post.
You one sided arguments and half truths shall be exposed for what they are.
I have to same that I am shocked that some on here would disgrace themselves and their families in Zimbabwe by suggesting that Mugabe won a free and fair election. Saddam won elections, I suppose the majority of the Shiites in Iraq were voting for him? Please....... this nonsense that the AU and SADC are somehow authorities on Zimbabwe elections is insane. Rather they are self serving despots who would rather not point out the flaws in Zimbabwean "democracy" lest they are forced to look at their own affairs.
I cannot let your nonsense go unchallenged starting with and I quote
“But he also subliminally suggests that the mere engagement with the West has potential rewards of an “improved economic activity”. “
I do not subliminally suggest this but instead wish to blatantly state that disregarding the worlds major economy which is the United States is as big a mistake as any country could make economically. China’s largest trading partner is the US. I suppose you think we could cut off all foreign trade and be successful. C’mon even you must be more intelligent to know that the more competition there is for Zimbabwean goods the better.
Next you say:
“Dave is only interested in “improved economic activity” and not “improved human development”. “
Once again you are wrong, these ideas are not mutually exclusive, however if you are suggesting there can be human development in a country where the medical system is failing and professionals are leaving the country in droves (Yourself Included). If you think anyone wants to remain in Zimbabwe then you are truly an idiot, you stated yourself that you are in Canada to live a better life, do you think our fellow Zimbabweans do not want to share in you increased financial access. By the looks of your picture you are not suffering daily power cuts or food shortages. But I guess as long as you are financially secure to hell with the rest of us. In any case what is the point of human development if you are constantly hungry and cannot afford bus fare to and from work as many teachers and nurses in our country. Yes I am sure they would prefer this grandiose “Human Development” you speak of, maybe they can feed that to their kids.
And this next item is classic
“So Zimbabweans – the majority of them – must decide what shape and form of an economy they want. As of now, they have spoken and their voice must be respected and yet engaged.”
I suppose you have heard from these Zimbabweans, and what are the Zimbabwean masses telling us? Who exactly is the spokeman for the majority of Zimbabwean who told you what economy we should have in Zimbabwe. By your own admissions many in Zimbabwe are ignorant, I am surprised that you think the opinions of a majority of ignoramii (I wonder if that is the plural) should be respected and engaged. I challenge you to prove that any majority of Zimbabweans have made any decisions as to what the economy should be. Either you have truly blundered or you think you know the minds of Zimbabweans through some sort of ESP. Maybe you can tell me what I am thinking.
And this gem:
“Sure, there are many who oppose it but tough luck: Tyranny of the majority.”
It’s thinking like this that caused the holocaust, colonialism and Mugabe’s slaughter of the Ndebele. Tough luck for them, they should have been in the majority I guess. That statement is a new low even for you.
I am sorry but Zimbabwe is not going the way of the Asian tigers, I don’t know if you have read but our country has over 2000% inflation, and it is predicted to go up to 20,000%. Which Asian tiger did that? Please tell us. I suppose Britain is hampering our success. You are totally delusional about our country and it’s leadership. You just can’t bring yourself to believe that our current government is a disaster. It’s attitudes like yours that keeps Zanu PF in power.
With regards to Zambia I will simply say that when I was in High school we used to laugh at our Zambian friends comparing their currency to toilet paper, today 1 zim dollar is probably worth less than a sheet of toilet paper. Who is laughing now? I am really not concerned with the United Nations’ indexes, charts or whatever, the situation on the ground speaks louder than any figure you can twist or misrepresent, PEOPLE GO TO ZAMBIA TO BUY GOOD TO BRING BACK TO ZIMBABWE. Take that to your united nations. Plus let’s not mislead people here I never romanticized about Zambia, they merely came up because I mentioned that they had their external debt cancelled.
You do not think rationally and my time is not that precious at the times when I write you, in fact I am a little bit of a blowhard just like you but I just don’t have my own blog. I presume you allow comments on your blog because you want people like me around reading your nonsense, if not then why not just keep a personal diary for your little musings.
“Dave continues to talk about “many third world countries are managing to overcome these barriers”. First, I must ask him which barriers is he talking about?”
I was talking about your so called barriers of neocolonialism. I assume all third world countries are facing this in your opinion or am I mistaken?
Ok let’s get one thing straight once and for all, I never denied there were sanctions, your merely assumed I disagreed with you and began putting out this argument as if it were my own. As I have said before I could care less if there are sanctions, it simply doesn’t matter one way or the other, I really don’t know what you are hoping to gain by proving there are sanctions, Like I said before so what?? If it makes you happy there are sanctions, there what did that change??? As Zimbabweans we cannot control what sanctions are one us true or not, we can control what we do as a nation and that is what is more important than quibbling about whether or not a travel warning is a sanction or simply prudent advice.
I didn’t say Zanu PF was insane I said YOU were insane. You are insane for thinking that after 27 years of blundering that Mugabe can somehow turn things around. Maybe you are right and he just needs to study more.
I challenge you to post a survey on you blog posing the question “If you are Zimbabwean, do you think Mugabe is going in the right direction?”
Let’s see what the majority think. No cheating, I know you Zanu PF supporters like to stuff the ballot box but let’s keep it fair.
On the contrary, I think you and I understand each other perfectly but we differ on how we understand issues. I do not know what you mean when you say SADC was not unanimous. Do I read that not all members were not agreed that the conditions were not free and fair? Well, what does the official report read? In any case, there is bound to be disagreements in perceptions, even if there are yardsticks with which to judge the elections. I hope you could not even mention the closure of the Daily Mirror because even Geoff Nyarota, the editor who successfully founded and managed the paper to its dizzy heights agrees that mistakes were made by the then management. They simply failed to adhere to the registration laws. The question whether the registration laws we right or wrong is a matter of the courts to decide. They decided that newspapers should register. Even opposition lawyers in Zimbabwe agree. Some of your claims are inaccurate.
The EU had already concluded that the elections were never going to be fair if Mugabe was going to win. That’s not a sound basis for judging elections. Even if the EU said that the elections were unfair, why would we believe one group when two other groups said they were fair? Because they are Europeans? Our colonial masters? Its well and good that the international media can make some exaggerated claims about the elections. Yes, there might have been some election irregularities, especially as it relates to access to the public media (which is one legitimate reason), but to talk about inadequate booths and “Widespread voter intimidation” is to refuse to face reality. Hence my reference to Matongo. Even if voters outside were not allowed to vote (including me) why could the local people vote any other party than ZPF? I do not need to convince you. You can ask people from the MDC who are pragmatic such as Matongo (unfortunately he passed away). Even if you read the newzimbabwe.com website you will understand the realism that has set in. People view the situation more realistically than just boadering on some technical glitches that caused the defeat of MDC. If the bitter truth be told (whether you want to accept it or you want to bury your head in the sand, its not my problem – ultimately one day you will see what I meant) the defeat of the oppositionis just more than your arguments you put forward.
Why do you say me and my cronies in ZPF? You are still set in that mindset that whoever makes counter argument belongs to ZPF. No. as Zimbabweans we are past that. It’s only those foreign to Zimbabwean politics who are still entrenched in such beliefs. As Zimbabweans we want to now acknowledge our weaknesses and move forward. It does not help to engage in manufactured political crises and being polarized. It only helps our external enemies.
While it is very good and critical to have good relations with the West, I think we also need to take ownership of our wealth and resources so that the Western taxpayer won’t have to pay back indirect reparations for the economics of extraction that is currently happening and has happened over so many years. It would be a good thing. I empathise with you, but sometimes, I guess in trying to help, the West has made the situation worse because they end up trying to tell us what to do. You will agree with me that this is not the way things should be done.
Equally in Africa we use measurements where possible. By the way, do you know that ENLIGHTENMENT is a discredited concept because of its numerous inherent contradictions? It failed to stand the test of scrutiny.
So you think Africans are overwhelmed by your mode of reasoning? Hmm!!! I guess when you talk about the West, then yes there has been indeed “healthy upward trend[s]”, but not for Africa. A recent Eurocentric research by Peter Stollery tells us that conditions have worsened in Africa compared to 45 years ago. The UNDP 2005 report confirms that too. So my mistake is to downplay the “healthy upward trend” of the West while many places excluding China and India until recently were not, contrary to your belief experiencing “healthy upward trend”. In fat, poverty statistics are skewed. China and India have raised a lot of people above the abject poverty line…just enough to move from one category of US$1 a day to US$2-3 a day. First, the numbers that have been recorded in this category (from India and especially China) are big enough to seem like poverty is drastically being reduced. In the same UNDP report in 2005 we are shown how poverty still affects billions. By the way, do you consider people who have US$2 a day as having experienced a “healthy upward trend”? Maybe in Eurocentric terms, all other non Western countries can live at low levels and then the fact that they can move from one abject poverty level to another is considered a “healthy upward trend”. You see the irony of this is that such deep poverty exists in a world that has produced unprecedented wealth. Neoliberalism has produced spectacular wealth. But unfortunately benefited a few.
James Petras and Henry Veltmyer, (System in Crisis: The Dynamics of Free Market Capitalism, 2004) and Greg Buckman (Global Trade, 2006) demonstrates how in 1960-1980 investment in social service provision was better for the people than was in the decades 1980-2000 when the neoliberal system was entrenched. In this latter period, more people were marginalised, inequality shot up and more people became poor. It is not a lie that it was the mode of capitalism - specifically neoliberalism – that fuelled these vices. It is precisely the reason why many people, even George Soros have blamed it because, according to them , this system has a tendency of alienating people. How else are you going to try and explain the growth and entrenchment of inequality and poverty? It’s not Ubuntu but Eurocentric evidence. I will be glad to adjust my theory if you can explain the above.
I have a hard copy of the 2006 UNDP report.
It is something else to evaluate the sanctions but the contention was that there were no economic sanctions. I am glad that you accept. I will not respond to Blackman being equated to a thief. That is for racists to discuss.
The way you frame your evaluation is interesting. You confine it to those areas you only want highlight. If those sanctions are against ROBERT MUGABE, then we need our GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, for instance, the PRESIDENT to represent us in various political and economic forums since Robert Mugabe the individual is banned. Also, if you read my article on sanctions, the political statements uttered by the EU and other Western politicians have put a damper on investors from investing in Zimbabwe. UK and Australia have been very peominent raising the bar to the sporting level. I think you know that Australia has chosen to pay a fine than their team to go there. But you might say that sure, the Zimbabwe government policies are wrong hence the action of these governments. Giving you the benefit of doubt, even if Zim government policies are wrong, the fact is that the action of the British and constitutes sanctions that discourage relations with Zimbabwe. And then you fail to mention the very critical freeze of access to aid from international financial institutions imposed by US through the Zim. Democracy Act. It’s a multipronged approach that is set on squeezing Zimbabwe. So the issue is not whether Mugabe is right or wrong but the fact that indeed the economic sanctions are there and are affecting the ordinary people. To suggest that “sanctions against a few individuals, not a country” is a very simplistic argument, which had prevailed for a long time even in Zimbabwe until many people, even those who thought like you came to the truth – that there are economic sanctions.. Interesting that you yielded to the definition of sanctions so that you could sneak in an explanation of individual sanctions. Section 4 and 6 of the Zimbabwe Dem. Act provides for individual sanctions. Even still considering the Sect. 6 sanctions, they have implications for the country for the reason of separating the Presidency and Robert Mugabe.
No, we have to evaluate the situation on merits. On the one hand the degree of sanctions, and on the other hand examine the economy, and then come to a conclusion.
Of course there are some economic policies that are contentious but to suggest that they killed the economy is to be dramatic to say the least. In any case, some of these measures are common in several countries and they have not caused the rapid decline that we saw in Zimbabwe. The main problem that the government did was to dare redistribute land. But in all fairness, it was not the government but the people. In fact, it had a history of defending the status quo which wwe could no longer tolerate. And that was our greatest undoing. I think you have to get past the idea that it was Mugabe who agitated for the land reform. It was us the people. This is what we went to war for and it would not make sense to retain the status quo after 50 000 people of our people died for that land.
It is interesting that you accuse me of having said that Zimbabweans were ignorant. I challenge you to point out that. It is you who has said it loud and clear. I quote “To believe that sanctions caused the problems, just shows total lack of economic understanding and ignorance. Which, at the end of the day, seems to be endemic in Zimbabwe”.
Your self serving is shocking. You say the AU and SADC are not authorities on Zimbabwe elections. If they are not, then who is? The EU? If they are not why were people like you screaming about regional elections protocols. Or maybe you are not one of them. How could you ever expect an African body to understand the complexities of a Eurocentric system? If you have not accepted that AU and
SADC are authorities then you have a problem that I cannot solve at all and will not even attempt to solve it unless you give a compelling reason for your position.
You had subliminally suggested it, but now you confirm my guess that “disregarding the worlds major economy which is the United States is as big a mistake as any country could make economically”. I wanted to be accused of being definite about something not expressed. I do not advocate disregarding these big economies and no one did. We are only saying that they shuld understand that we need to undertake our land reform. This has nothing to do with ZPF or Mugabe but our very being as a Zimbabwean nation.
I know that “improved economic activity” and not “improved human development”. are not mutually exclusive, hence my emphasis of why you delinked my idea and plucked a line out of the whole idea. That’s why I was talking about economy as a means to improve the condition of humanity, but of course you chose not to see it. I can’t help such a situation. “But I guess as long as you are financially secure to hell with the rest of us”. I do not know the basis of this assumption. It’s based on your wrong framing of your argument. I can’t take responsibility of your mistakes.
I heard from Zimbabweans that they need a national economy in the same manner you heard that Mugabe is ruining Zimbabwe. “By your own admissions many in Zimbabwe are ignorant”. You are lying because I did not say that. Prove it. If you can’t then you have just shown what kind of a person you are. You will go to any lengths to push your position. This is very unfortunate, especially for someone whose reasoning capability should be informed by enlightment and not dark ages.
Let me nevertheless save you from your own bias. Land was a key issue in the election and people voted for the party that wanted a radical land reform. Various studies and groups have called for indigenisation of the economy; that Small to Medium Scale businesses, which integrate many Zimbabweans is the right way to go. Last week, a fierce Mugabe critic was saying the same thing. He said the struggle in Zimbabwe is against Mugabe and NEOLIBERALISM. He works for an institution that is funded by the West. (I could tell you what you are thinking, but its to bad that I can’t lay it bare in public).
Tyranny of the majority is a fact. I can’t erase the phrase and it is precisely brought about by Eurocentricism. I can’t agree with you more about the tyranny of majority but in the context I used it it is precise. It is expressed within the confines of liberal democracy. I would support you if we could take out that concept in liberal democracy. But you can imagine how I would be characterized for ever suggesting anything like tinkering with Eurocentric values!!!
For as long as the sanction remains, the inflation could even get to 10 000 000%. That’s possible. We do not want it but at the same time the practical situation is different. On the other hand we cannot relent on the land reform.
”Today 1 zim dollar is probably worth less than a sheet of toilet paper”, thanks to the spectacular well orchestrated economic sanctions programme!!
A personal diary will not make me meet great people like you who will make understand what the world is really like and how people view us as Zimbabweans and Africans. I bet with the kind of ideas that you hold about other people you would even be ashamed to show yourself.
”I assume all third world countries are facing this in your opinion or am I mistaken”? Yes, you assume right.
If I am insane, I still stand by my logic based on your reasoning. If that’s the definition of insane then it makes you an insane person. I am not insulting you but just applying your logic. I
I do not expect you to accept my comments but not to demonise me because I differ with you. Tha’ts your problem. The reason I am obsessed about proving sanctions is that there had been people like you who had flatly denied that there are sanctions until the a) came to their senses and b) they wanted to exploit sanctions to put forward some self serving arguments.
I bristle when I am called a hypocrite because I do not have the reason why someone can label me that way. How does living in Canada make me a hypocrite? Criticising neoliberalism does not equate to criticizing Canada or the west. Even criticizing the West, East or North is okay under the enlightment era even in the dark ages we did that. That did not mean that a person has to go and stay in the bush. We criticise so that we can make the world a better place for all. There is nothing hypocritical about that. Maybe its just fantasy.
My attacks on neoliberalism are clearly based on enlightment reasoning. It is not those that are tasked with implementing these policies, but even the theories that inform this system are deeply flawed. I am not saying it. The UNDP says it. George Soros says it. Millions more around the World such as Oxfam, etc. Its only the IMF, World Bank, neoliberals, neocons and you that think these ideas are okay. But it does not shock me based on your reasoning and world viewpoing. In fact, you admit that that there is something wrong about neoliberal world and you put the blame on the implementers. At least, its good you acknowledge the fact that things are wrong.
By the way, to think of Zimbabwe as thieves and not any more beyond that is fatal to your viewpoint. You demonstrate that you do not understand that land was indeed given to ordinary Zimbabweans as opposed to your fantasies. It makes you feel good about yourself and your ideas. You say “a land grab by Zanu PF family and friends”? It is politically correct to say that but the reality on the ground is different. Do not be influenced by hatred for a certain race or if its not racism then contempt. Or simply opposition to a certain individual, in this case Mugabe. As Zimbabweans, we are long past that stage. We look at situations issue by issue. It will help you.
Enough LIES, Kuthula!!! Is this what you call a free and fair election? The following is what was reported at the time of the elections. We have all had enough of your blatant attacks on the truth.
Kare Vollan, head of the 25-member Norwegian Observer mission, said that although there were reports of violence being carried out by both sides, there is "no doubt that the evidence is extremely clear that the majority of those cases were carried out by the ruling party".
The Commonwealth group blamed "paramilitary youth groups" for a systematic campaign of intimidation against known or suspected supporters of the main opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC).
Human rights groups say more than 30 people - mostly opposition supporters - have been killed this year.
International human rights group Amnesty International says about 1,400 people - mostly opposition polling agents and monitors - were arrested during the voting period.
According to the ZESN - a coalition of local non-governmental organisations - in 40%-50% of rural constituencies, opposition officials were unable to oversee polling. It says they were deliberately waylaid on their way to polling stations and were subjected to violence and harassment by police and Zanu-PF militants.
Polling day
A significant reduction of stations in the cities deprived thousands of their right to vote, according to Norwegian monitors.
In particular, they criticised the way the election was conducted in the opposition strongholds of Harare and Chitungwiza.
"It is quite obvious that the capacity of the polling stations was far from what was needed to cater for the number of registered voters," Mr Vollan said.
He said the irregular closure of polling stations in those areas on the second and third days, coupled with the late opening on the third day "removed the last chance to offer all voters a fair chance to cast their vote within reasonable time".
The number of polling stations in urban areas and MDC strongholds was reduced by up to 50% since the 2000 parliamentary elections, according to the ZESN.
According to the registrar-general an additional 644 polling stations were deployed in rural areas.
Out of 12,500 local, trained monitors only about 400 were accredited for more than 4,500 polling stations across the country.
In Harare, a tripartite election - presidential, mayoral and municipal - created "chaos and confusion" local monitors say.
Despite a requirement in the Electoral Act to allow voters in line at the close of the polls to vote, the registrar general closed all polling stations at around 10pm on the first and second days of polling and at 7pm in Harare and Chitungwiza on the extended third day, the Norwegian mission said. Thousands of voters still in line were dispersed by the police, it said in a statement.
According to new rules drawn up ahead of the election, the electoral supervisory commission could only be made up of civil servants - including police officers and soldiers from the ministries of home affairs and defence - sparking allegation by local monitors that they may be susceptible to government pressure.
Voter registration
According to local election observers, the election administration had a number of shortcomings.
"Voter registration, for example, was non transparent," the ZESN's Matchabe-Hove told BBC News Online.
In particular, he pointed to changes in the Electoral Act, which he said placed significant obstacles in the way of the young and poor in urban areas, who did not have access to necessary documentation.
In urban areas, people were required to produce passports and utility bills to prove they have lived in their constituencies for the past 12 months.
In rural areas, local chiefs and village heads, often seen as being pro-government, were required to vouch for anyone registering to vote.
Postal votes were restricted to diplomats and members of the armed forces, disenfranchising students and workers living abroad.
Media
A controversial bill passed in February made it an offence for independent journalists to write stories that did not meet with official approval.
During campaigning, local observers say the media was biased in favour of Mr Mugabe and denied Mr Tsvangirai the right of reply.
Citizenship
A law passed just ahead of the election stripped citizens with dual nationality of their right to vote.
Many blacks and whites were told that their names appeared on a list of "prohibited voters" when they turned up to vote. Although most had been informed beforehand of the decision, local observers say there was not enough time for those people to do anything about it.
You posts are becoming so filled with inconsistencies it is hard to keep up with the rate at which you invent but I will try.
First you deny calling Zimbabwean ignorant? unfortunately you have a blog and I can easily go back and post your statements so for your delight please see below.
"Zimbabwe under sanctions: the inconvenient truth
By Kuthula Matshazi
Last updated: 05/27/2007 14:57:24
...........Two types of groups push this tendency. The first group deliberately does it as a strategy of smuggling their discredited neoliberal project or ideas that are alien to the Zimbabwe situation, which of course would, if introduced, work to their benefit. The second group is simply ignorant.
Unfortunate to say, but very true, these people sometimes know very little or nothing and yet that little information or total ignorance appeals to their sensibilities."
Since I have proven that you did indeed say it, I think you should apologise, we already know the kind of person you are.
I suppose you will now try to deny what you wrote.
Next you failed to tell us where you heard from the Zimbabwean people about what economy we want intsead you chose to make some silly remark. I know Mugabe has ruined Zimbabwe from published reports with regards to the currency, inflation, power cuts etc etc. If you want I can supply hundreds of links. Are you prepared to do the same?
Next I am definately not a racist, I notice you like to throw that term out there when you fail to come up with a better argument, but you are right I do certainly have contempt. I have seen first hand the country I grew up in during the 80s and 90s go from what I thought was a paradise to a place where I would not want even an enemy to suffer in. If you are blind to the suffering of your family then that is on you but I most certainly will not hide my contempt for this ZPF and their disregard for the people of our country.
Lastly you cannot have it both ways, earlier you stated that disengaging from the west was not damaging to Zimbabwe (Not an exact quote, if you want I will track it down) then you go on to say thet the west's sanctions could drive inflation to 10,0000.....% Which is it? Are we in dire need of the west or not?
I had to laugh at this one:
"Its only the IMF, World Bank, neoliberals, neocons and you that think these ideas are okay."
That's looks jike just about everyone to me you have conservatives and liberals, the IMF and world bank which are comprised of most of the nations in the world. Sounds like I am in the majority.
Your next flaw is blaming neoliberal policies for poverty. Let me tell you something, the countries that are asked to implement these policies are not being asked to because they are doing well already, these countries are going with their begging bowls to the world bank and IMF becuase poverty has already set in. You would have us believe that the implementation of these policies are what caused the poverty, this is another of your slight of hand tricks.
You are too much, with each reply you give me so much ammunition to tear apart that I need at least 3 -4 posts just to cover it.
Well at least you are highlighting Zimbabwe so I guess that is positive, people should know that you are in the minority in your thinking however.
I will explain in easier terms why you are a hypocrite, obviously I need an example because it appears you just don't get it.
Let's say I made my fortune from prostitution. One day you are in need and ask me for a loan of $100,000 which I provide. The next day you turn around and post on your blog that those involved in making money from prostitution should be shot.
Do you see? One hand is extended while the other condemns. that makes YOU a hypocrite.
The problem with your assumption is that I made fortunes. No I did not. What makes you think that I did? What would you say if I told you for instance that I work for the Communist Party of Canada? Or I was working for the Communist Party of Zimbabwe?
where did the Norwegians come from? Did you not say they were not invited?
By your own evidence you demonstrate that I said SOME and not all people are ignorant.
I can provide 100s of links, yes. Its not a problem. But the problem is that they will not be from the enlightment region (well, some may, of course because many people, even in the West have seen through this sinister agenda). Your problem is based on the huge hatred that you have for Mugabe. See this problem beyond Mugabe prism only and you will have a fair analysis. I realise you quote your source on elections extensively and yet you do not do that to officially accreditated people whose elections protocol Zimbabwean election were held.I am talking about SADC and to some extent the EU.
You do not tell us howm the halving of polling booths in urban areas affected MDC since they white washed ZPF. Why could that same scenario not have happened in the rural areas or other areas where MDC lost?
In Matabeleland, both in the city and rural areas ZPF was whitewashed. Did they not "reduce the number of polling booths?
"Your posts are becoming so filled with inconsistencies".
"You stated that disengaging from the west was not damaging to Zimbabwe (Not an exact quote, if you want I will track it down) then you go on to say thet the west's sanctions could drive inflation to 10,0000.....% Which is it?"
I think by your own casual look there is no contradiction here, but a mistake of quotation. Your first point (and its good you placed a disclaimer) is not what I said. so you have to come up with what I said and then I can answer your question because if you put it that way then I would be interfering with you when you engage yourself with yourself. I am not prepared to take that risk.
While the WB and IMF are supposed to be institutions serving the countries of the world, they have been reduced to serving a few interests. It is even seenby the manner they operate. They are controlled by Europe and US. That's why there are initiatives to reform those institutions because they have been captured by a manority at the expense of the rest of us. The only majority that you can claim is the majority shareholding and decisionmaking at these institutions.
While the countries are already having problems with their economy is right, but we do not advocate tha we send the to the IMF and WB to be butchered. Unfortunately, that's what we are fighting. That's what Georgr Soros is fighting and that's what many, in the developed and developing nations are fighting. Turn on your TV and see what is happening in Germany with Police beating up protesters. They are fighting against the neoliberal system.
When countries come to the IMF they must get remedies that will get them off their problems and not make them worse as has been in the majority of the cases. No, I did not suggest that, its just your imagination. But now that you have put it across I will have the chance to say it myself with you putting words in my mouth. There are many reasons why countries could be performing badly economically, but the point is that when they go to see the doctor, they come out there worse off. And it is this problem that we want to fix that is at the Doctor's office.
Guys, in all fairness i have to agree with Kuthula here: "A recent Eurocentric research by Peter Stollery tells us that conditions have worsened in Africa compared to 45 years ago."
All statistics will show that this is the case. The rot only started after the 1960's. Before 1960, almost all African states were still colonies. Fascinating, not?
Seems Kuthula is always keen to misuse quotes from Oxfam to defend his undefendable position. This is what Oxfam has to say about Zimbabwe:
Africa remains the continent experiencing some of the greatest human suffering, and some of the most dramatic abuses of human rights, as the daily headlines about Darfur and Zimbabwe show clearly.
In Oxfam’s experience (in Africa), power imbalances and a lack of political will to address poverty, inequality, and hunger are often an important underlying problem.In Zimbabwe a significant factor aggravating food insecurity was Operation Clean Up, a 2005 government-sponsored crackdown on informal traders which affected 700,000 people and caused many to lose their homes and livelihoods.
Political upheaval and the land crisis have contributed to a sharp fall of maize production by commercial farmers, who usually produce one-third of the total cereals for the country. Although the total area planted to cereals actually increased last year, with smallholders planting more, maize production is down by 67% in a country that used to be one of Africa’s main exporters for neighbouring countries.
Production of cash crops for export, such as cotton, soyabeans and groundnuts, which is done largely by commercial farmers, is also considerably reduced, and the government has little foreign exchange to buy food from abroad..
Undoubtly Oxfam sees guys with Kuthula's line of reasoning as part of the food crisis problem in Africa.
JJ You are desperate. I do not like saying this to people because it might seem as a tactic to discourage them from further engaging me. You have become so desperate that you went and plucked a quote from deep inside my contribution to further discredit yourself, albeit unwittingly. You say "Seems Kuthula is always keen to misuse quotes from Oxfam to defend his undefendable position. This is what Oxfam has to say about Zimbabwe:..."
And then you go on and on...
Yet, I SAID NOTHING ABOUT OXFAM AND ZIMBABWE SPECIFICALLY. Here is what I said:
"My attacks on neoliberalism are clearly based on enlightment reasoning. It is not those that are tasked with implementing these policies, but even the theories that inform this system are deeply flawed. I am not saying it. The UNDP says it. George Soros says it. Millions more around the World such as Oxfam, etc. Its only the IMF, World Bank, neoliberals, neocons and you that think these ideas are okay".
This quote is TOTALLY ABOUT A DIFFERENT SUBJECT and yet you took it and said something totally different. Why JJ?
In any case, even if I were maintaning my link of Oxfam and the criticism of neoliberalism, I could easily provide its criticism of that violent economic system and prove my point. Oxfam has criticised neoliberalism extensively.
What's wrong JJ? Why do you embarass yourself thoroughly like this?
Again, regarding your accusations, I will not take the risk of intefering with you while you engage your fantasy ideas with yourself. Good luck.
Sorry Mr. Kuthula but I must address Sandra here.
You say that you agree with Kuthula that conditions have worsened in Africa over the last 40 years but you are are forgetting that under the colonial system that prevailed at the time blacks were marginalised and received barely any of the wealth of their country. Therefore the majority of the wealth was spent on the very small white population who lived very well indeed.
I'm sorry my dear but statistics from colonial times are skewed and cannot be compared to today. We will never return to a time when the majority of the people do not have any place in the economical wealth of their own nation.
The comparison is not relevant at all.
Even if we tackle Oxfam's view of the situation in Zimbabwe, we can see a lot of weaknesses in their analysis. For instance, does Oxfam think that problems and hunger started after Murambatsvina or the land reform? Was there not massive suffering of people in the rural areas and even in the urban areas from 1980-2000, which made them agitate for land reforms? Were those hardships captured as eloquently as those after the land reform? Has Oxfam got those numbers?
I will be accused of hypocrisy...using Oxfam information selectively. However, first I always want to make sure that I use an institution driven by Eurocentrism. Secondly, we just do not take statistics because they are done by A or B, but we look at their credibility and after we are satisfied we can then accept them as facts - and I suppose that is how enlightment reasoning works.
I would not want to go there now because first I want you to be thoroughly embarassed by your own insencerity.
YOU BROUGHT IT UPON YOURSELF AND NOT ME OR ANY OF THE DARK AGES PERSON.
Here is exactly what you said Kuthula
"You perpetuate the idea of Zimbabwe disengaging from the west. Its like it’s the worst sin one can commit. Not that Zimbabwe did it but the opinion you express is like disengaging from the West is the worst sin one can commit. If the West cannot understand our programmes, then tough luck we can go as far as “disengaging”."
Tough luck? Tough luck for who? tough luck for Zimbabwe and theor 10,0000% inflation is that what you meant? In this paragraph I believe that you were denyong that Zimbabwe had in fact "disengaged from the west, but if we were to do so then "tough luck" we could continue. I'm sorry but if you think Mugabe has been genuine in reaching out for dialog with the west then you are a fool on this point. Mugs has tried his best at every turn to be a nuisance.
Post a Comment