Kuthula Matshazi
Perspectives on International Trade
There are several reasons that caused the Doha Round of trade talks to collapse. One might say their failure was already visible considering the reluctance of member countries to address pertinent issues in the previous Uruguay Round that were dividing countries such as agricultural subsidies and antidumping measures as instruments of protectionism. Progress would have been difficult to be achieved if these issues were not addressed. Issues such as agricultural subsidies were of critical importance to the developing countries since they held comparative advantage in agriculture and it also contributes a significant part to the economies of the developing countries.
As Drache and Froese (2007) aptly point out, the shift in the geopolitical arena caused by the rise of China, Brazil and India which has built economic muscle that has brought about a counterforce to the status core, throwing trade power dynamics into flux. That being said, the global South has found its strength and is determined to use it to get a good deal. No longer do they see a bad deal as better than none as has always been the case. Also, the developing countries had given concessions in the Uruguay Round hoping for reciprocity. The developing countries had also convinced the developing countries to open their markets to export goods which they did, but they, in return, refused to allow such a privilege to the developing countries. Coupled with this, the World Trade Organisation trade regimes have proved to be weak and unable to regulate free trade effectively. With such a scenario providing the base upon which the Doha Trade talks were to commence, it was always going to be difficult to hope for a breakthrough.
Also, it seems that developed countries and institutions such as the World Bank have not been frankly committed to making trade mutually beneficial as evidenced by their conduct. To put this point in a clear perspective, Wise and Gallagher (2006) show us some statistics that have been used by the World Bank to justify liberalised trade. According to the World Bank, global trade liberalization would benefit the developing countries to an amount of about US$500 billion as well as alleviate poverty among 100 million people. Therein lies the weakness of the Doha Trade Round. Being perceived as a round of trade talks meant to boost development, the projections of its developmental effect was self undermining. The number of projected benefits was not credible and could not be met while the promise of making the human condition better was not materialising. On the contrary, the situation produced many losers than winners.
Among the developing countries, China seemed to benefit more from liberalized trade than the rest of countries in the liberalized world as evidenced by a study carried out by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Their projection of potential benefits in global trade of US$21.6 billion accrues to developing countries. However, China gets almost half of those gains amounting US$10.5 billion. The CEIP therefore argues that these supposed gains will, in fact, leave many developing countries worse off.
Critical in examining these numbers and scenarios is to notice that the trade debate has been framed to discuss the benefits only as opposed to discussing the costs, which are many and more significant. For instance, Wise and Gallagher (2006) cite liberalization as having the potential of leading to de-industrialization, tariff losses and adjustment costs.
What the above information demonstrates is that despite the structural changes that happened in the world such as the rise of new economic giants in the South and the weak WTO rules, the trade talks are being conducted in bad faith. For instance, while the developed countries have promised to reduce the agricultural subsidies, they have taken advantage of loopholes in the WTO rules to, in fact, increase them, while the promise of “aid for trade” has been faltering. Through the G8 and other fora such as the United Nations the developed countries have made commitments which they have found difficult to keep. Against such a background, it was always going to be difficult for anyone to see how the Doha Round trade talks were going to succeed. There were already underlying problems besetting the talks. These fundamental problems should first of all be tackled before we can ever dream of successful round of trade talks. As Drache and Froese (2007) rightly point out, it seems that regionalization seems to be the way trade deals are going to be structured. Of course, this route has its own huge problems which require detailed examination.
18 comments:
Underdeveloped nations have to realize that there is no such thing as a free lunch. I do not mean that in a negative way but what I mean is that they have to go beyond just thinking that these types of talks will result in benefits without movement on their part. I don't know much about Brazil as an up and coming power but both China and India took it upon themselves to push their economies into the stratusphere. China used its cheap labor force to create a manufacturing base that is unrivaled. India used it's highly educated and technical workforce to provide cheap highly skilled computer experts and leveraged there english speaking to provide call centers to western companies. They did not rely on Doha or a G8 meeting to improve their situations.
In this vein Zimbabwe for example needs to find a niche where it can provide a service that is cost effective and required by the west, I say the west because they are simply the largest consumers on the planet. Selling unprocessed raw materials will never get us far, we had a very educated populace that we could have trained as programmers or some other high level occupation. Who knows what the answer will be but we must find it soon.
No one nation thinks of free lunch Dave. Your neo-classical and liberalism approach to trade talks musks the many political and powerissues inherent in these talks.
Developing countries are not relying on Doha to develop rather they are trying to negotiate within the Doha talks to extricate themselves from the chains that bind them to the monstrous trade framework...which is inherently linked to colonialism and post colonialism ordering.
It is neat neoclassical theorising about comparative avantage but the reality is different. There are so many other factors that mitigate against the assumptions of comparative advantage. We have never seen comparative advantage working anywhere in the world alone excepte with the support of other measures including force. For all you want, you can have an educated population, innovative but still fail to achieve anything. You have to see beyond the neoclassical economics ASSUMPTIONS. They are nothing but just ASSUMPTIONS. I wonder why you turn assumptions to axioms?
Ok so what do you suggest, let us continue going to these Doha talks and begging for these chains to be removed. Let us cry out to the G8 so that they finally come to their senses and allow free and fair trade that world over.
I think you are smart enough to know that first and foremost these countries will act in their own interest. In fact all countries have the responsibility as nations to act in the best interest of their citizens.
Comparative advantage worked in Japan in car production without force, it worked in Hong Kong without force, it worked in Taiwan without force, it worked in India without force. What are you talking about or referring to when you imply that comparative advantage does not succeed with force. Do you think Zimbabwe can force anyone to do anything?
You said
"For all you want, you can have an educated population, innovative but still fail to achieve anything."
This is very true, however I would rather start there than going to any Doha talks with my begging bowl. I say this because you are right, the current system with it's colonial underpinnings is unfairly stacked against developing nations.
From past discussions I have already seen that you are an idealist and not a realist. Your ideas stem from the notion that you think that fairness is the right thing to do. I operate from the fact that fairness is rarely ever an option that is on the table and if you want to succeed you have to take it upon yourself to navigate the unfair system and succeed despite of the obsticals.
I have had enough of your accusations of neoclassical this and liberalism that, I am for self determination. I have the cynical expectation that doha or any other talks will not leave us any better off and therefore I want to find real ways to get ahead in the framework we currently live in.
You on the other hand think that we can somehow exctricate ourselves from what you call the "monstrous trade framework", by attending talks with the G8. Good luck with that.
If I could edit my last statement I would but I want to add that I do suppot liberalism if by that you mean
Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal. Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government.[2] All liberals – as well as some adherents of other political ideologies – support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.
If that is how you define your liberalism then yes I totally agree.
I realize as well that I have an idea of what you mean by neoclassical and you have an idea of what you mean but these definitions may not coincide.
Would you mind explaining to me what you mean when you call my ideas neoclassical.
I'll be honest, the way you say it comes across to me as an insult, so I immeidately feel that I have been slighted when in truth you may be accurately describing what you are reading. So I would appreciate an explanation so the next time you say this about me I will react appropriately.
Kuthula places everyone that he debates with in this little boxes. If he labels you as an ‘neo-classical’, he knows exactly where your comments are coming from, and what motivates your ideas. He uses the same system to paint ‘whites’, ‘westerners’ and ‘americans’ into little ideological boxes, heaping all the bad baggage from previous generations onto your little box. This type of tagging is really prevalent in Africa, and use to great effect by guys like Mugabe: if you differ from him or criticize, you are a stooge of the ‘neo-imperialist’, bent on re-establishing colonialism!
Most people will realize immediately that there is little difference between racism and the tagging as practiced by kuthula and his kin. In Africa we see it everyday in the black-controlled press, and is swallowed feet and all by the average African reader. We that know just laugh at these pathetic ‘intellectuals’, and would like them to read “Animal Farm” to be enlightened!
I have followed for a long time the intensity of feelings when Dave and Kuthula engage in debate. It appears in Dave's comment "What caused Doha to go off the rail and fail" he disapproves the idea of dialogue to reach a consensus as he seem to be opposing "going to these Doha talks and begging for these chains to be removed". I do not see anything wrong when developing nations, present their case in such fora and try to strike a balanced deal. It is the very same people like Dave who will cry foul if such engagement is ignored and radical measures taken in an effort to redress an unfair and unjust set up. Zimbabwe is a typical example, Its Land Reform Programme, an issue that was at the heart of the masses, The Land that led to the whole lot of the deprived and oppressed volunteering to pay the ultimate sacrifice in their quest to re-establish ownership. Dialogue and the dilly dallying went on , until compulsory acquisition became the only sensible alternative. Dave can see the prize Zimbabwe is paying for daring to interfere with western interests (British in Zimbabwe's case), regardless of their criminal past in the process of acquisition of those interests and imposition of their will.But Zimbabwe is acting in the best interests of its citizens. It found a way to navigate the unfair system, Why then attract such a hostile reaction, coming in all forms. It is wise that developing nations still go and refer to the Doha talks, make our position known and pressure for common sense to prevail.Why cling on an unfair and unjust advantage over another just for the selfish interests of one's citizens.Fairness of course must be the right thing.
For WITMOER, Eeee, he says any one who disagrees with President Mugabe is called a stooge of the neo-imperialists, bent on re-establishing colonialism, can he support that statement with facts. Edgar Tekere disagreed with him,and challenged him for presidency,so did Margaret Dongo, Shakespear Maya, Egypt Dzinemunenzva, Cont Mhlanga the list is very long, we never heard such "tagging". The only people I know who have been labelled stooges and rightfully so are Abel Muzorewa and Morgan Tsvangirai.
If one classifies my views as influenced by Marxist,Socialist, Communist theories or neo-classical as in Kuthula's assessment of Dave's views, should we call that tagging or racism, NO NO NO WITMOER,. debating demands more openness.The truth has to be said ,no matter how inconvenient it can be to whoever.
Mashie, you call the farm redistribution effort in Zimbabwe the only sensible alternative. Most Zimbabweans will agree that land redistribution was necessary, where we differ is the manner in which it was done. As a result of ZPFs poor management of the process we as Zimbabweans are now worse off that we were before.
Did you get farm? How many people do you know are now proud land owners? I did not get a farm and noone in my family received any land, we have however seen the food which was once affordable and plentiful vanish from the stores. Is this the sensible solution we were looking for?
As for DOHA please keep me up to date on whatever benefits Zimbabwe enjoys as a result of those talks. I won't be holding my breath.
Kunjani Bro Kuthula and CO.
It was reported in The Independent 2day that Gono has blamed the failure of the Economy squarely on the lack of Government commitment."The Economy turnaround is affected by lack of commitment to fight corruption and indiscipline,Stakeholder unilaterism and pursuit of selfish sectorial interests and failure to enhance agricultural productivity",This is what Zimbabwe Chief Economist Gono said.No Mention of Zimbabwe Democracy Act or a hint of an forms of Sanctions.
Where does this leave Kuthula and Nancy argument on Sanctions?
As for Mashie,I laughed when i read your statement,coz you made me to laugh by exposing your ignorant on Zim issues.You deny that anyone who disagrees against Mugabe is called a the Stooge of the West?You even mentioned Cont Mhlanga!!!!!!ASk Makoni the latest victim of those sick Zanu Pf accusations and lies.In his defence Makoni told the media what we exactly know that this is "Typical of the country Leadership when ever one has a different opinion with theirs"
I wish MAKONI !!!!
Nhlanhla how many times has Dr Gono mentioned the declared and undeclared sanctions as the major hindrance to Zimbabwe's development. Do not pick and chose material that tend to satisfy your own opinion. Are you denying that Zimbabwe is under economic sanctions that have caused havoc to its economy?
Mashie please tell us how these sanctions have destroyed thge economy using specific examples. We all know that not all Zimbabweans have been placed under these sanctions so you are suggesting that these Zanu PF members are so powerful that targeted sanctions against them have destroyed the economy. If only top brass of ZPF have been targeted I fully expect them to blame these sanctions and not their failed economic policies for the state of the economy.
Hi Dave, first and foremost Dave, example number one ZIDERA (2001).Is the United States's sanctions law the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act (2001) about banning VaMugabe, Mai Joice Mujuru, Cde Mnangangwa and Dr Simba Makoni from travelling to European and North America's territory. From the moment that guy in Whitehouse whose coats until today are still releasing choking sulphur residue (Hugo Chavez will tell you) signed it into law, Zimbabwe has been denied from a fund called "global fund" funding for its HIV/AIDS projects solely on political grounds on several occassions.This should be humanitarian Aid. Whats humane about this Aid when some sufferers are condemned to death only because of their nationality, political leadership and their economic policies?.Does that only affect the Zanu Pf elite? When a country warns its nationals from visiting and having a nice time in Zimbabwe and all the goodies it offers on purely falsehoods and demonising the country to scare off investors and tourists, doesn't that kill the tourism industry and have the same effects as economic sanctions, in actual fact they are economic sanctions with nothing to do with Cde Joseph Chinotimba helping hurricane Katrina victims in New Orleans, which prompted the US administration in including him on the Banned List (apartheid style "No pass no travel".
Zimbabwe's economy has been sabotaged by external forces, ships carrying fuel to Zimbabwe have been stopped and diverted and offered payments designed to strungle Zimbabwe's supplies. We can go on and on Dave, the list is endless. Do you deny that Zimbabwe is under economic sanctions.If so do more searching about sanctions, Kuthula has written a lot about this subject and Tawanda Hondora and many others. I think if you apply objectively all that you gather, you will agree with me and all those with the view that Zimbabwe is under economic sanctions, which are illegal and racist to an extent.Its not about denying Cde Chinotimba to shop at Harrods.
Mashie, you are so typical of the crap I have to read through. why must everything be racist to you? I am so sick of our people blaming racism on every little thing that happens. Is it racism when whites born in Zimbabwe are denied citizenship? Is it racist when Mugabe calls Tsivangirai a puppet of the west which we all know is code for whites? Racism is alive and well but if my success is dependent on the whim of racists then we will never succeed. This is why claiming racism is simply a non starter in my books.
Secondly, when we speak of sanctions we are talking about the targeted sanctions, travel warnings are not one and the same as those sanctions, Americans and other westerners are not blocked from travelling to Zimbabwe. In fact it was Mugabe who turned away from western tourists with his look east policy. He is a copy of the US travel warning, I fail to find anything objectionable.
"This Travel Warning is being issued to alert Americans to the political, economic and humanitarian crises in Zimbabwe.
The Department of State warns U.S. citizens of the risks of travel to Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is in the midst of political, economic, and humanitarian crises with serious implications for the security situation in the country. All U.S. citizens in Zimbabwe are urged to take those measures they deem appropriate to ensure their well being, including consideration of departure from the country.
The Zimbabwean economy is in precipitous decline, with extremely high rates of employment and inflation. The economic crisis has led to an increase in crime. Zimbabwe is experiencing nationwide fuel shortages that have hindered in-country travel.
Approximately half the population of Zimbabwe faces an urgent food crisis and possible famine. The humanitarian crisis is expected to worsen in coming months and may lead to unrest and possible large-scale migration of Zimbabweans to urban or border areas, with further disruption and an increase in crime and instability.
Commercial farms should be avoided at all times, especially those occupied by settlers or so-called "war veterans," who are typically young government supporters acting with impunity outside the law. In November 2002, U.S. Embassy staff members were detained and one was beaten by war veterans on a farm near Harare.
All Americans who travel to or reside in Zimbabwe despite this Warning are urged to register with the U.S. Embassy in Harare located at 172 Herbert Chipeto Ave. The U.S. Embassy in Harare can be contacted by phone at (263) 4-520-594/5.
Updated information on travel and security in Zimbabwe may be obtained from the Department of State by calling 1-888-407-4747, or from the U.S. Embassy in Harare. U.S. citizens should also consult the Department of State's Consular Information Sheet for Zimbabwe, and the World Wide Caution Public Announcement, which are located on the Department's Internet web site at http://travel.state.gov."
This is in fact prudent advice to all travellers visiting foreign nations. AIDS aid is not the cause of Zimbabwes economic failure. Where are these ships that are delivering fuel to Zimbabwe, you are talking about what happened to the Rhodesians and not in 2008, ha ha make sure you do your research. Zimbabwe doesn't even have the forex to buy fuel.
Dave, you can call it crap this or crap that, may you just please explain ZIDERA.It is naive to interpret it as targeted to a few ZANU pf elite.
Zidera is an acronym for the US Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, 2001. The act allows the president of the US to restrict
(1) any extension by the respective institution of any loan, credit, or guarantee to the Government of Zimbabwe; or
(2) any cancellation or reduction of indebtedness owed by the Government of Zimbabwe to the United States or any international financial institution.
These restrictions are subject to
(1) RESTORATION OF THE RULE OF LAW- The rule of law has been restored in Zimbabwe, including respect for ownership and title to property, freedom of speech and association, and an end to the lawlessness, violence, and intimidation sponsored, condoned, or tolerated by the Government of Zimbabwe, the ruling party, and their supporters or entities.
(2) ELECTION OR PRE-ELECTION CONDITIONS- Either of the following two conditions is satisfied:
(A) PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION- Zimbabwe has held a presidential election that is widely accepted as free and fair by independent international monitors, and the president-elect is free to assume the duties of the office.
(B) PRE-ELECTION CONDITIONS- In the event the certification is made before the presidential election takes place, the Government of Zimbabwe has sufficiently improved the pre-election environment to a degree consistent with accepted international standards for security and freedom of movement and association.
(3) COMMITMENT TO EQUITABLE, LEGAL, AND TRANSPARENT LAND REFORM- The Government of Zimbabwe has demonstrated a commitment to an equitable, legal, and transparent land reform program consistent with agreements reached at the International Donors' Conference on Land Reform and Resettlement in Zimbabwe held in Harare, Zimbabwe, in September 1998.
(4) FULFILLMENT OF AGREEMENT ENDING WAR IN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO- The Government of Zimbabwe is making a good faith effort to fulfill the terms of the Lusaka, Zambia, agreement on ending the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
(5) MILITARY AND NATIONAL POLICE SUBORDINATE TO CIVILIAN GOVERNMENT- The Zimbabwean Armed Forces, the National Police of Zimbabwe, and other state security forces are responsible to and serve the elected civilian government.
Once these obligations have been met then Zimbabwe could potentially re-engage with the IMF and World Bank.
The act also will allow for the following
(1) identify and share information regarding individuals responsible for the deliberate breakdown of the rule of law, politically motivated violence, and intimidation in Zimbabwe;
(2) identify assets of those individuals held outside Zimbabwe;
(3) implement travel and economic sanctions against those individuals and their associates and families; and
(4) provide for the eventual removal or amendment of those sanctions.
Unless you are in some way financed by individuals caught up in this group then you are not part of these targeted sanctions. Anonymous please tell us how you have been personally affected.
What makes me laugh is the government of Zimbabwe rails against the west and then at the same time government supporters cry when these western menetary institutions don't lend them money. Exactly who is being naive?
It's naive to think that the IMF and World bank don't have an agenda to see democracy and open markets spread across the world. You can argue for or against the benefits of open markets but like it or not that is their agenda.
The fact remains that Zimbabwe's economy was in decline before these measures were in place and only went into freefall when Mugs and company decided to kill Zimbabwes cash cow, that being commercial farming. Here is an excerpt from an article about Zimbabwes so called land reform.
"The results of the land reform have been disastrous for the economy of Zimbabwe. Prior to land redistribution, land-owning farmers, mostly white, had large tracts of land and utilized economies of scale to raise capital, borrow money when necessary, and purchase modern mechanised farm equipment to increase productivity on their land. The reforms broke this land into smaller tracts (thereby destroying the economies of scale) and gave it to former farmworkers and peasants, mostly black, who had little knowledge of how to run the farms efficiently or raise productivity. Further, the refusal of banks to lend them money has limited their ability to purchase equipment or otherwise raise capital. As a result, the drop in total farm output has been tremendous and produced widespread claims by aid agencies of starvation and famine. However, Mugabe's expulsion of the international media has prevented full analysis of the scale of the famine and the resultant deaths. What is not in dispute is that a country once so rich in agricultural produce that it was dubbed the "bread basket" of Southern Africa, is now struggling to feed its own population. A staggering 45 percent of the population is considered malnourished. Foreign tourism has also plummeted, costing tens of millions of dollars a year in lost revenue."
There can be no doubt that the majority of the economic crisis in Zimbabwe was caused by the stupid way in which land reform was implemented. Mugabe was seeing his support wane and had to take action quickly. Obviously something had to be done about the land situation in Zimbabwe but the way Mugabe handled it split a nation and destroyed our economy. Travel restrictions preventing Gono from travelling to New Zealand or Australia is simply not the cause.
Dave, you got it right this time.You are indirectly admitting that Zimbabwe is under economic sanctions, but what you fail to convince the multitudes of Zimbabweans is the legality and justification of those sanctions.Majority of Zimbabweans including me and may be you deep inside you hold the same view that they are Illegal, Racist and unfair.
A lot of your kind DAVE, still do not see the racial issue in the SLAVE trade, Australia just recently apologised after several previous governments refused to accept the racial side of the treatment aborigines of mixed races got and their parents.
I hope one day you will wake up to see the racism in the treatment of Zimbabwe by the Westerners, or may be those after your generation and my generation.
A white Zimbabwean born in Zimbabwe will never be refused citizenship.It is a clear cut case, which a recent graduate from a law school can win with ease.Half the story is not told on that, either one holds dual citizenship or has annulled Zimbabwean citizenship more than twice, etc.
I don't believe anyone has suggested that Zimbabwe is not under sanctions, however these sanctions have a purpose which was outlined in my previous comment. Anonymous, I do not view these sanctions as racist because these same types of sanctions were imposed against Rhodesia and Aparteid South Africa when the international community viewed their political and economic systems as blatantly unfair. Why is it that when a black leader treats his people unfairly that sanctions against him are racist? It is clear to me that any action taken by the western nations against any black African leader will be construed as racist by people like you, in my opinion that makes you the racist.
As a matter of fact white Zimbabweans born in Zimbabwe have been refused citizenship and have had to go to court to restore their rights. Mugabe introduced laws that would make it more difficult for them by requiring Zimbabweans to renounce any foreign citizenship even if none existed in the first place, these cases are well documented if you would take the time to look.
No one can deny that in the past racial injustice has taken place but just becuase that is the case does not mean that every action taken by a western nation is racist. I doubt Kuthula would have been allowed into Canada if that were the case.
It is plain to see that you probably realize that the sanctions are not to blame for Zimbabwes steep economic decline but like most people in this modern age your national pride refuses to allow you to admit that Zimbabweans are responsible for their own troubles by allowing our current leaders to take advantage of their positions of power for personal gain at the expense of those of us whose only political power is the right to vote.
In my mind Mugabe is no different from George Bush, using lies and deceipt to pursue their own agendas instead of doing what is best for the people. All of you apologists seem to forget the other being factor in Zimbabwes financial decline which was the war in the Congo. We don't even fully know Zimbabwes financial involvement in that fiasco. Yet all you can do is cry about a few sanctions from western organizations who your very leader claims not to need. It was people like you who claim that organizations like the IMF and World Bank actually increase poverty in places like Zimbabwe but then you cry when their loan facilities are withdrawn. You arguments are simply not cohesive, you claim these organizations are racist and then you want a loan from them? You want them to forgive old loans? C'mon seriously.
Yes Dave, you seem to contradict yourself, one time you were saying its only ZPF elite (which I believe you meant Zanu Pf elite) and now you agree with everyone else that its Zimbabwe that is under sanctions. If we had started this way, our debate would have been very constructive.We must not deny naked facts just for the sake of denying.
Your arguement seem to be on whether the sanctions are justified, fair and not racist as per the general view of many Zimbabeans.You argue Dave that the sanctions are not racist because Rhodesia anmd apartheid South Africa had ther same sanctions. May you draw distinctions between those two regimes and Independent Zimbabwe.They are parallel lines which will never meet.What has Zimbabwe done wrong to deserve such treatment.They claim rigged elections, how many observers agree with those few hostile westerners with a hidden agenda, that the elections were rigged,They claim violation of property rights whose property had its rights violated, Stolen property that was given back to rightful owners, thats restoration of property rights.
we might disagree with IMF and World bank for prescribing conditions that are obnoxious, like ESAP, but we still can do business with them, seek assistance from them, but still saying out loud where they go wrong.We can not be silenced for the sake of the assistance we might need from them.Zimbabweans seek a just, very fair and democratic world.
Post a Comment