Politicians should respect voters

YESTERDAY I heard on one UK based radio station a very graphic description of the state of the health system in Zimbabwe; and could not agree more with the views expressed in that report. Many people are dying in Zimbabwe of HIV/AIDS and recently of cholera and other communicable diseases.

I also listened to the sentiments of all the people who are concerned about the humanitarian crisis in the country and their call on the international community to open up an urgent crisis response in the country. Physicians for Human Rights expressed their concern about the humanitarian crisis in the country and rightly so.

I am sure these people have genuine concerns about the welfare of the people of Zimbabwe just like every other Zimbabwean whose parents, siblings and relatives are dying daily in the country. The urgency of this matter cannot be overstated.

The irony of the report is that many of the people who expressed these concerns did not, for one minute, mention the role of the international community in promoting the current crisis in the country.

While the international community, especially the European Union and the United States are calling for aid groups and NGOs to intensify humanitarian assistance in the country, they are at the same time talking about increasing “targeted sanctions” against Zimbabwe.

US Ambassador to Zimbabwe, James McGee was at the forefront of highlighting that over 1,200 cases of cholera had been reported in the country and about 300 deaths recorded. In that same statement, he said that his Government (due to leave office at the end of January) was considering more “targeted” sanctions against the Government of Zimbabwe. He told reporters in the US via video link that Zimbabwe was on the brink of a humanitarian disaster, yet his solution of averting that disaster was to increase “targeted sanctions”. Is that all America, EU and other Western countries can come up with to avert a humanitarian disaster?

There are arguments from many critics that Ian Smith managed to beat sanctions during the UDI period. That is a lame excuse as Smith had the blessings of Apartheid ruled South Africa and the part of the Western world had no real commitment to effect the sanctions. Elements of the British establishment secretly allowed Smith to “bust” sanctions by allowing illegal backdoor dealings, despite the sanctions.

We have to remember that sanctions against Zimbabwe are not approved by the UN, but are either bilateral or imposed by Britain and its allies.

Smith also had the blessings of white-owned companies that traded with him in order to bust sanctions. Many government companies were registered in the UK and elsewhere as individuals’ companies. The ‘White world’, so to speak was united in sanctions busting and the White people in then Rhodesia did not put any pressure on Smith to relinquish power. He had the support of all Rhodesians, save a few. Some of these Rhodesians who helped Smith retain power for that long are champions of democracy today and are aided by Black Zimbabweans.

I do not think that President Mugabe should be saved from criticism. No one should, but I also think that criticising to score cheap political points and sharing and recycling ignorance can never be condoned.

Ambassador McGee’s statement yesterday that his Government, the US Government, was considering more sanctions against Zimbabwe was fraught with a lot of inconsistencies.

The ambassador continues to refer to sanctions against Zimbabwe as “targeted”. Targeted on who? On the people of Zimbabwe?

Would the ambassador care to tell the people of Zimbabwe how targeted the Zimbabwe Democracy Recovery Act of 2001 is? Specifically and in simple terms, ZIDERA stops US companies from trading with Zimbabwean companies. Such trade would have created jobs for people and put food on store shelves. How targeted is that?

The EU has forced companies to close down with threats of fines and deregistration in the EU. The German company that was offering paper and software for printing money was bullied into stopping doing business with Zimbabwe after decades of working with Zimbabwe. How targeted is that?

How targeted is a decision by Tesco in the UK to stop buying fruit and vegetable from Zimbabwe, or buying fish from Kariba – both activities that would have brought foreign currency into the country and helped with Balance of Payments problems and provide jobs to thousands.

One would say, indeed, that decision is well targeted – targeted on the Zimbabwean people, who, when they are hungry, will revolt against their Government.

In any case, what benefit are these sanctions? The people of Zimbabwe have continued to suffer even though the US has toughened their stance on government officials.

Thus far this tactic has failed. Zimbabweans have “sassed” out exactly what is going on. They have been called names by those who seek only the removal of President Mugabe and not the welfare of Zimbabweans. Zimbabweans have been called “docile” and many other derogatory terms for failing to respond to opposition calls for an uprising or Western predictions of “the hungry toppling a Government”.

Ambassador McGee also says that the US has increased humanitarian aid to Zimbabwe, and the EU says the same. The figure floated is US$200 million a year by the US and double that amount by the EU, presumably. If this is true, how come Zimbabweans are on the brink of starvation? We understand these handouts are not distributed through government channels anymore, since the sanctions, so how come that aid is not helping the general population that has resorted to eating wild fruits? Surely a month of a food distribution ban could not have driven the country to such extremes.

We will not be deterred from scrutinising the efficacy of these statements.

If the agenda of the US, EU and other critics is to remove President Mugabe, let that be their agenda, but they should never take the people of Zimbabwe for granted.

It is not a secret that elements within Zanu PF are greedy, arrogant and inconsiderate. These people should also never take us for fools. We are beginning to find out the true characters of many of these individuals as the crisis in Zimbabwe deepens, but they are not the only ones.

Currently, there is an ongoing debate about Gukurahundi – only confined to those people who want to use that debate to score political points; including Morgan Tsvangirai.

Last year this MDC leader told the BBC that President Mugabe was ‘alright’ until ten years ago. Why 1998? Is it a coincidence that this was the time he started harbouring Presidential ambitions? Is that the time he was approached (by someone) to form a party out of the labour movement? What does that statement mean for victims of Gukurahundi?

The debate about Gukurahundi should indeed be opened up, but those individuals who choose to play politics with such a dark episode in our history should be shunned upon; and they should spare us their thoughts.

Gukurahundi was indeed a dark episode in our country and we should never use the vulnerable to seek personal glory.

The issue of Gukurahundi is “cherry-picked” at opportune times by non-ideological politicians who prey on people’s vulnerabilities to achieve political success. None of those politicians have sustained the Gukurahundi argument long enough to help those who suffered during that era. They only come back to it when it is convenient for them to do so.

Zimbabweans will never understand where they are going unless they understand what shaped the current crises and seek proper solutions. “Mugabe must go” rhetoric without a corresponding “what then” argument will remain just that: rhetoric. One thing should, however, be clear: “Those who seek political office by preying on the weak and vulnerable should never be allowed to get away with it.” Zimbabweans are a learned bunch and they should cut all this bull from selfish politicians: in Zanu PF, MDC-T, MDC-M, Zanu (Ndonga, etc), PF Zapu, Super Zapu, independents, or any other party for that matter.

philipmurombedzi@yahoo.com