The Battle over Zimbabwe?s Future
by Gregory Elich
Global Research, April 13, 2007
Email this article to a friend
Print this article
Amid heightened tension, an all pervading crisis is afflicting
Zimbabwe. The economy is close to collapse, the standard of living has
plummeted, and the political scene is marred by recent violence. To
hear Western leaders tell it, it is Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe
who has brought this state of affairs upon his nation through economic
mismanagement and repression, and what would have been an otherwise
prosperous country is instead on the edge of ruin. The U.S. and Great
Britain trade barbs with Zimbabwe, and relations are perhaps at their
lowest point, with pressure mounting in the U.S. and Great Britain for
harsher measures.
There are many in the West who have joined the chorus denouncing
the Mugabe government and call for its replacement with a ?democratic
government.? The hostile reaction against Zimbabwe is not surprising
when one considers that the flood of news reports is notable for its
uniformity and lack of context. A single message is repeated in the
media. The ruling party, the Zimbabwean African National Union ?
Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF), rules through undemocratic means, we are
told, while the opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change
(MDC) enjoys wide support and is kept from power through repression.
Western leaders seek only to promote democracy and prosperity in the
region. This is the popular image in the Western press, and few
question its veracity. How information is formulated, including what
does not get reported, demonstrates some of the ways perception is
managed and support for policy objectives is generated.
The beating of several MDC members while in police custody
following their arrest triggered the latest upsurge of condemnation of
the Zimbabwean government. MDC supporters were arrested merely for
holding an innocuous prayer meeting, we were told, and the government?s
resort to violence was unprovoked.
The ?prayer meeting? was in fact a demonstration that was part of the
MDC-led Save Zimbabwe Campaign?s month-long ?defiance? campaign. By
calling the demonstration a ?prayer meeting,? organizers hoped to get
around the government?s four-month ban on demonstrations that had been
instituted after a rally the month before resulted in running battles
between the police and crowds of MDC supporters. The ?prayer meeting?
tag was also useful for managing Western perception. (1)
Troubles began on the morning of March 11 when a handful of
demonstrators were arrested as they headed to the rally site. At around
noon, a group of MDC supporters attacked three unarmed police officers.
One officer managed to escape, but the other two were beaten and
suffered serious head injuries.
During the next hour several more demonstrators were arrested as
they attempted to enter the rally site, including Arthur Mutambara,
leader of one faction of the MDC. A while later, MDC gangs at a
shopping center hurled rocks at a bus, smashing its windows, and then
attempted set an army vehicle afire. (2)
Despite a determined effort by the police, more than a thousand
demonstrators did make it to the rally. When Morgan Tsvangirai, leader
of a second MDC faction, arrived with his arms raised in the air, the
crowd responded noisily. According to an MDC supporter, ?the situation
was getting heated? after police attempted to keep Tsvangirai apart
from the crowd. ?Tsvangirai and the police were arguing, and we were
carrying on singing and shouting, louder and louder. In all there were
only about thirty police and there were more than one thousand ? we
were too many for them. They could not control what was happening.?
Police lobbed tear gas canisters to disperse the crowd and Tsvangirai
and other MDC officials were hustled into two police cars and driven
away. (3)
Demonstrators responded by throwing rocks and tear gas canisters
at the police, while some in the crowd used slingshots to fire metal
bolts. The crowd advanced, as the police fired 19 warning volleys in
the air without effect. At this point, one officer aimed his rifle at a
demonstrator and shot him dead. ?Then everything became worse,?
recalled an MDC supporter. ?We went on the rampage and we did not even
fear for our lives. There was a lot of action? as demonstrators ?threw
punches.? Chased by the crowd, the police ran to their pickup trucks,
but not all of the officers were lucky enough to escape. ?About six or
eight of them were left with us,? said the MDC supporter. ?As they ran
some of them dropped their batons so we picked up their discarded
sticks and used them to beat? them. ?The police were badly beaten,?
after which the crowd ?left the police on the side of the road and ran
away.? (4)
Meanwhile, MDC supporters elsewhere in Harare overturned a
commuter omnibus and later stopped a kombi (commuter van). After
looting the luggage, they doused the vehicle with gasoline and set it
afire. A number of cars were stoned and one was overturned. (5)
Demonstrators who had been taken into custody and were brought
to police stations in Avondale and Harare Central were treated with
respect. A different fate awaited those taken to the Machipisa station,
where detainees were ordered to lay down in the courtyard, whereupon
they were kicked and beaten with clubs for about an hour. It is not
entirely clear who administered the beatings, and at least one report
suggests that it was not police but either a commando group or a pro-
government militia that was responsible. (6)
Western governments and media wasted no time in condemning the
government of Zimbabwe. The beatings were severe, and several
individuals suffered broken bones. Western critics ignored MDC violence
and singled out the government for sole blame, making the most of the
incident?s propaganda value.
Faced with a barrage of criticism by its Western detractors,
Zimbabwe badly mishandled the situation. That no attempt was made to
investigate the beatings only fueled the anti-Zimbabwe campaign and
handed the opposition a catalyzing issue. The government?s inaction
contrasted with the period of the run up to the March 2005
parliamentary election, when President Mugabe declared a policy of
?zero tolerance? for political violence, during which members of both
parties were arrested for such acts.
It was clear by its behavior that the government of Zimbabwe
felt threatened, as it had reason to. Years of sanctions and Western
meddling, coupled with an increasingly truculent opposition, had indeed
menaced ZANU-PF?s ability to govern the nation. Western intervention
followed well-established patterns. Soften the target nation with
sanctions and cripple the economy. Blame the resulting economic
disaster on government ?economic mismanagement,? in order to build
support for the opposition. Fund the opposition party and press, as
well as anti-government NGO?s, to tilt the democratic process in a
direction favorable to Western interests. If the opposition lacks
sufficient support to come to power through democratic means, then
encourage and sponsor ?regime change? through mass action, as in
Yugoslavia, Georgia and the Ukraine.
The West began to apply significant pressure on Zimbabwe late in
2001. In September of that year, the IMF declared Zimbabwe ineligible
to use its general resources, and three months later President George
W. Bush signed into law the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery
Act of 2001. The law directed the U.S. Treasury Department to instruct
U.S. members of international financial institutions to oppose and vote
against any extension of any loan, credit or guarantee to Zimbabwe. The
law also authorized President Bush to directly fund opposition media as
well as ?democracy and governance programs,? a euphemism for
organizations opposed to the government. (7)
Western financial restrictions made it nearly impossible for
Zimbabwe to engage in normal international trade. External balance of
payments support was eliminated and nearly all external lines of credit
were obstructed. ?The current wave of declared and undeclared sanctions
is negatively affecting the image of the country, thereby distorting
how financial markets assess the risk profile of Zimbabwe,? pointed out
Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Governor Gideon Gono. ?As a result, Zimbabwean
companies are finding it extremely difficult to access offshore lines
of credit because of the perceived country risk.? Zimbabwean companies
are therefore compelled to deal ?with their international suppliers
strictly on a cash up front basis, with very minimal credit terms.? If
companies are fortunate enough to secure external financing, it is
generally only at very high interest rates. ?A vicious circle has thus
evolved since the imposition of sanctions on Zimbabwe. The resultant
decline in economic activity emanating from the sanctions has given
rise to rising external payment arrears, and high country risk, which
in turn, has adverse effects on economic activity.? (8)
It was not only the U.S that was using its influence to hamper
Zimbabwe?s economy. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw revealed that
he was ?building coalitions? against Zimbabwe, and he stated that Great
Britain would ?oppose any access by Zimbabwe to international financial
institutions.? (9) British officials threatened to eliminate financial
assistance to southern African nations unless they imposed sanctions on
their neighbor. President Benjamin Mkapa complained that African
Commonwealth members had ?endured a bombardment for an alliance against
Mugabe.? (10)
The World Bank and IMF played an important role in the economic
sabotage of Zimbabwe?s economy, and sought to dissuade others from
extending financial credit to Zimbabwe. According to one source in
Zimbabwe, ?Our contacts in various countries have indicated that these
institutions are using all sorts of tactics to cow all those who are
keen to assist Zimbabwe.? (11)
For a nation that had to import 100 percent of its oil, 40
percent of its electricity and most of its spare parts, Zimbabwe was
highly vulnerable to being cut off from access to foreign exchange. Any
modern economy must rely on international financial institutions in
order to transact normal trade. But Western nations had largely
disrupted Zimbabwe?s ability to do so, and the result was immediate and
dire. The supply of oil fell sharply, and periodically ran out
entirely. It became increasingly difficult to muster the foreign
currency to maintain an adequate level of imported electricity, and the
nation was frequently beset by black outs. The shortage of oil and
electricity in turn severely hobbled industrial production, as did the
inability to import raw materials and spare parts. Business after
business closed down and the unemployment rate soared above 70 percent.
Inflation raged, driving incomes in real terms to a point so low that
people struggled just to survive. (12)
U.S., British and Western European governments sought to exploit
the resulting discontent by bankrolling the opposition MDC, supplying
it with tens of millions of dollars. But passage of a law in Zimbabwe
making it illegal for political parties to receive funding from abroad
forced both the MDC and its Western backers to be more circumspect
about their relationship. The West had reason to feel that it was not
getting its money?s worth, as the MDC?s electoral performance was
generally disappointing. Although the party could count on substantial
support in urban areas, the more populous rural areas stood solidly
behind the ZANU-PF government. There was little appeal for the rural
population in the MDC?s program, which called for near total
privatization of state owned firms and government services and a return
to neoliberal economic policy. The ZANU-PF government, on the other
hand, had done away with the land ownership pattern inherited from
apartheid Rhodesia, with its extreme concentration of land and wealth
in the hands of a relatively few white commercial farmers. The MDC?s
adherence to neoliberal principles, on the other hand, posed the
potential risk of a reversal of the land reform process, in whole or in
part.
Left to its own merits, the MDC would have little prospect of
coming to power through electoral means in the foreseeable future. The
option of bringing down the government through non-democratic means
therefore has considerable appeal for the opposition and Western
governments. As early as 2000, MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai told a
rally, ?What we would like to tell Mugabe is please go peacefully. If
you don?t want to go peacefully, we will remove you violently.? (13)
The MDC has since that time periodically organized mass actions against
the government, including one that Tsvangirai dubbed ?the final push.?
Tsvangirai had at one point even contacted a Montreal-based
public relations firm led by a former Israeli intelligence official,
believing that the company would have contacts with the CIA. Disturbed
by Tsvangirai?s requests, the firm taped their final two meetings. The
first tape, in which Tsvangirai was more explicit, proved to be
inaudible due to nearby construction work, but the public relations
firm did warn the Zimbabwean government and the second tape was sent as
evidence. Tsvangirai was more careful with his words at the second of
the recorded meetings, and it was therefore not entirely clear whether
he was seeking the assassination of President Mugabe, as the public
relations firm claimed, or a coup d?etat. Tsvangirai talked of the
?elimination? of President Mugabe, and worried that the army would take
over instead of him in the ensuing ?chaos.? Tsvangirai went to trial on
charges of treason over the case, but was found not guilty. The tapes
were fairly incriminating but not specific enough, and the charge of
treason carried the prospect of the death penalty. Furthermore the
prosecution?s case was not particularly well prepared. Despite all
that, the most charitable view of the content of the tape was that at a
minimum Tsvangirai planned to come to power through extra-legal means.
(14)
The opposition eventually split over the issue of whether or not
to even participate in the electoral process. The MDC was trounced in
the last election, partly due to the Tsvangirai faction?s decision to
boycott the process and partly due to lukewarm public support for the
party. Tsvangirai met with Western officials following the election,
after which he announced that the way forward for the opposition would
be ?an era of democratic mass confrontation with the dictatorship - an
era of non-violent mass resistance.? (15) Power was to be seized
through ?mass confrontation,? which in reality would be neither
democratic nor non-violent. Washington and London dreamed of another
?color revolution,? such as the one that had overthrown the government
in the Ukraine, and the installation in power of a compliant leader
eager to take orders.
On January 9 of this year, both factions of the MDC met with U.
S. Ambassador to Zimbabwe Christopher Dell, who urged them to unite.
Soon thereafter, the MDC launched its ?defiance campaign,? marked by a
series of demonstrations and sporadic acts of violence, including the
knifing of a police officer. By the time of the March 11 ?prayer
meeting,? the political atmosphere had become highly charged. (16) By
relentlessly roiling the political waters, the U.S. and Great Britain
had created an intensely contested political culture in Zimbabwe, and
it was no secret that the aim was to topple the government. In such
circumstances, political passions had reached the point where patience
with the MDC and its efforts to bring down the government had worn
thin.
Encouraged by the unreserved backing it was receiving in the
West since the beatings at Machipisa station, the MDC stepped up its
efforts. Arthur Mutambara announced that the MDC was ?in the final
stages of the final push,? and planned to continue with the defiance
campaign. ?We are talking about rebellion, war.? (17) This was followed
by a flurry of violent acts. A police station in Harare was fire
bombed, causing serious facial injuries to two policewomen. The
demonstration at the funeral of the slain MDC demonstrator turned
violent, and MDC supporters battled with police for several hours. A
passenger train passing through a Harare suburb was fire bombed,
causing five injuries, and the next day another police station, this
time in Mutare, was the target of a gasoline bomb. By the end of a
three-week period, the tenth target was bombed, a business owned by a
former ZANU-PF member of Parliament. (18) The West?s high dudgeon over
the issue of violence was nowhere to be seen and the incidents went
without comment. After two gasoline tankers were bombed, a sweep by
police nabbed 35 MDC suspects along with more than 50 explosives and
two dozen detonators. It was said that the explosives were of the same
type as those used against the passenger train. (19) Western media,
silent on the wave of bombings, castigated the government of Zimbabwe
for the arrests, and falsely asserted that Tsvangirai had been arrested
in the sweep.
The Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) called for a
general strike to be held on April 3-4, and the MDC and its Western
backers held high hopes that the strike would degenerate into such
chaos that the nation would become ungovernable. Relations between the
MDC and ZCTU are closely intertwined, and indeed it was the ZCTU that
launched the MDC. Tsvangirai was at one time the leader of the trade
union organization and in its early years, the MDC used the ZCTU?s
offices and facilities. So cozy is the relationship that it is probable
that the strike was in fact an MDC initiative. The opposition regarded
the strike as part of its larger strategic plan. ?You are going to see
more of these actions coming,? warned MDC spokesman Nelson Chamisa.
(20) Expectations, however, were to be disappointed when the strike
fizzled as businesses continued to operate as normal.
Internal pressure on the government of Zimbabwe was combined
with external threats. The U.S. and Great Britain were once again
urging African nations to pressure Zimbabwe. Australian Foreign
Minister Alexander Downer said that African nations should impose
sanctions. Western leaders arrogantly lectured African leaders in a
demeaning manner, trying to dictate to them how to act, and treated
them as if they were mere servants to do the West?s bidding. When the
Southern African Development Community (SADC) met to discuss regional
matters, the subject of Zimbabwe was high on the agenda. Western
political leaders and media did not hide their expectation that
Zimbabwe?s neighbors would choose the occasion to join the Western
campaign.
Instead, the SADC issued a firm rebuff to the West. The
statement issued by the organization pointed out that ?free and fair
democratic presidential elections were held in 2002 in Zimbabwe,? and
the SADC ?reaffirmed its solidarity with the government and people of
Zimbabwe.? South African President Thabo Mbeki would work to facilitate
dialogue between the government and the opposition. In a clear message
to the Western powers, the SADC appealed to Great Britain to ?honor its
compensation obligations with regard to land reform,? and called for
?the lifting of all forms of sanctions against Zimbabwe.? (21) Zimbabwe?
s neighbors knew that Western sanctions had inflicted severe harm on
the economy and had in large part turned the political environment into
a fight to the death that only encouraged violence. If what was wanted
was a reduction in violence and political passions, then that could
best be achieved by removing sanctions and allowing the economy to
recover.
U.S. Ambassador to Zimbabwe Christopher Dell spurned the appeal
a few days later by saying that the U.S. would not lift sanctions
against Zimbabwe. ?It?s simply not going to happen.? (22) The U.S. and
Great Britain liked to point to the targeted sanctions against selected
officials in Zimbabwe, which consisted of restrictions on travel and
financial transactions abroad, claiming that such sanctions could not
affect the economy of the entire nation. That claim was disingenuous,
leaving out as it did the substantial efforts to block Zimbabwe?s
access to foreign currency and international trade. ?They use the term
targeted sanctions,? observed Zimbabwean information minister
Sikhanyiso Ndlovu, ?yet any company that deals with Zimbabwe ? they
have been threatened; ordered not to deal with Zimbabwe. External
financial institutions and banks have been told not to deal with
Zimbabwe?so that the country does not have foreign currency. These
targeted sanctions are a smoke screen.? (23)
Further measures are in the works. In addition to current
sanctions, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, ?it?s
really a matter of looking at what else we might do with the
international community, and part of that effort is to work with states
in the region to get them to increase the pressure? on Zimbabwe. (24)
This was confirmed by U.S. State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey
when he said, ?There?s always other tools in the toolbox, though, and I
certainly expect we?ll look at those.? (25)
The Western destabilization campaign coupled interference in the
internal affairs of Zimbabwe with sanctions. In addition to aid and
advice to the MDC, funding is provided to media and NGO?s in support of
the opposition. Due to the illegality under Zimbabwean law of many of
their actions, the U.S. and Great Britain have generally avoided
spelling out too many specifics. But the aim is clear, as indicated by
the U.S. State Department: the strategy is ?to maintain pressure on the
Mugabe regime? and ?to strengthen democratic forces,? that is, the MDC.
The campaign against Zimbabwe is international in scope, and ?the
United States emphasized international cooperation and coordination. U.
S. officials engaged multilaterally and bilaterally to expand
international support of sanctions against government and ruling
officials.? The U.S. also sponsors ?public events? inside Zimbabwe,
which are intended to ?discredit? the government?s claim that sanctions
are harming the economy, and to shift blame for economic decline onto
the government. The U.S. provides what it vaguely refers to as
?support? to the political opposition, and which in fact is quite
extensive. (26)
Training has been provided to some opposition members of
Parliament, as well as to ?selected democratically oriented
organizations.? The United States also directly funds ?a number of
civil society organizations? (NGO?s) and provides them ?with training
and technical assistance to help them advocate to the parliament on
issues of national significance.? In other words, so-called civil
society organizations are being paid and trained to influence
legislation in an amenable manner for Western interests. Opposition
media are generously funded in order to ?fortify? their efforts to
swing public support to the opposition. Nearly a third of a million
dollars was given to the U.S. Solidarity Center to establish a program
?to assist trade unions in Zimbabwe to become more accountable and
responsive to their members.? (27) It would be more accurate to say
that the intent was to encourage trade unions to become ?more
accountable and responsive? to Western interests. Affiliated with the
AFL-CIO, Solidarity Center receives funding from the National Endowment
for Democracy, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
and the U.S. State Department, and it often acts as an extension of U.
S. foreign policy. (28) Among the myriad organizations involved in
Zimbabwe on behalf of U.S. interests are Freedom House, the National
Democratic Institute for International Affairs, the National Republican
Institute, and a host of others.
The interventionist liberal-left in the West has jumped on the
bandwagon of support for Bush and Blair?s campaign to topple the
government of Zimbabwe. But critics who call for a Western-imposed
?transition process? in Zimbabwe forget that the nation already has a
transition process -- an election which is scheduled for next year. No
amount of imperial posturing can change the fact that it is only the
people of Zimbabwe that have the right to choose their government --
not the U.S. and Great Britain. The Zimbabwean people made their choice
in the last presidential and parliamentary elections, both of which
were deemed free and fair by African observers on the ground.
Predictably, the U.S. and Great Britain, having no election observers,
condemned the elections from afar as fraudulent even before they took
place in a blatant attempt to discredit election outcomes that every
poll had foretold. Western condemnation was prompted by the
uncomfortable realization that a different outcome could not be
imposed, no matter how many tens of millions of dollars were pumped
into the coffers of the opposition.
If the Western-funded MDC has been incapable of coming up with a
program that would appeal to a majority of voters, it is because the
party has preferred to focus its attention on policies that would
benefit Western corporate interests. For the Western liberal-left to
call for the U.S. to ?mediate? in a transition process is nothing less
than a demand for U.S. meddling to initiate a coup to remove the
legally elected government of Zimbabwe. There is something unseemly in
the attitude that the U.S. and Great Britain have the right to dictate
the fate of other nations and to determine who shall hold power, and
that it is the duty of activists to support imperial domination.
If the police in Zimbabwe have acted harshly at times, it is
because Western interference has created a life or death struggle for
survival in Zimbabwe. That the U.S. and Great Britain are using every
means possible to effect regime change and to encourage the opposition
to bring down the government through mass action can only have resulted
in a deeply polarized society. The government of Zimbabwe is cognizant
of previous Western-backed campaigns that successfully removed the
governments of Yugoslavia, Georgia and the Ukraine and installed
compliant puppets in their place. Zimbabwe is vigilant against Western
attempts to incite opposition supporters to bring about a violent
change of government.
It is dismaying that so many would call for U.S. and British
intervention in the affairs of a sovereign nation. It was British
colonialism that stole the land from the African people and introduced
the horrors of the apartheid system in Rhodesia. Over the decades of
colonial rule, the British government expropriated untold billions of
dollars from the land, labor and resources while depopulating the rich
farmland regions and herding those expelled from their homes into the
most barren areas. Is it not ironic that the U.S. and Great Britain
condemn government violence in Zimbabwe when they have done so much to
create the circumstances that almost guarantee such an outcome? Is it
not relevant that the West has fostered myriad acts of violence by the
opposition? And what could be stranger than for the U.S. and Great
Britain to act as self-appointed moral authorities on the subject of
violence and democracy as they crush Iraq and Afghanistan under the
boot of occupation? Whatever acts of violence may have taken place in
Zimbabwe pale in comparison to the vast numbers of victims of Western
firepower in Iraq. If the U.S. and Great Britain are as committed to
peace, democracy and the rule of law as they claim to be, then let them
leave Iraq now, without delay.
Western liberal-left critics demand more meddling by the U.S.
and Great Britain in the affairs of Zimbabwe, under the delusion that
Western-imposed regime change would be a ?democratic?act. It is only
corporate and elite interests that would be served, for Zimbabwe?s
crime in the eyes of Washington is that it jettisoned the ruinous
structural adjustment program several years ago, rejected the
neoliberal economic model and redistributed land on a more equitable
basis. It is not lack of democracy in Zimbabwe that worries Western
elites; it is the fact that democracy has produced a government that
those in the halls of power in Washington and London wish to remove.
What the West wants is to overturn democracy in Zimbabwe and impose a
government of its choosing. Zimbabwe, to its credit, has refused to
bend to intense pressure and remains committed to the course it has
charted, in which the economy is geared to the interests of its own
people, not that of Western corporate interests.
?Zimbabwe is a strategic country for the United States because
events in Zimbabwe have a significant impact on the entire region,?
points out USAID. (29) Indeed, President Mugabe says that the struggle
Zimbabwe has embarked upon is nothing less than Africa?s second
liberation. The continent, having freed itself from direct colonial
rule, has yet to free itself of economic domination. In Namibia and
South Africa, the formal end of apartheid rule has done nothing to undo
the concentration of land in the hands of the wealthy white few, while
millions of black peasants remain without land. Throughout Africa, the
neoliberal economic model has crippled prospects for development.
Zimbabwe?s example, were it allowed to flourish unhindered, might
threaten to set an example that would make an indelible continent-wide
impression. Conversely, the U.S. and Great Britain hope that a defeated
Zimbabwe would send a signal that resistance to Western economic
domination is futile. There is much that rides on the outcome of
Zimbabwe?s struggle against its imperial enemies -- perhaps the fate of
Africa itself.
Gregory Elich is the author of Strange Liberators: Militarism, Mayhem,
and the Pursuit of Profit
NOTES
?More Arrests, Tension Rises,? UN Integrated Regional Information
Network, March 12, 2007.
Cesar Zvayi, ?It?s the MDC: See, Hear, Say No Evil,? The Herald
(Harare), March 15, 2007. ?Man Shot Dead as MDC Thugs Attack Police,?
The Herald (Harare), March 12, 2007.
?Eyewitness: Harare?s Brutal Clash,? BBC News, March 13, 2007.
David Samuriwo, ?Deal Decisively with Security Threat,? The Herald
(Harare), March 16, 2007. ?Eyewitness: Harare?s Brutal Clash,? BBC
News, March 13, 2007.
David Samuriwo, ?Deal Decisively with Security Threat,? The Herald
(Harare), March 16, 2007.
Sarah Huddleston and Dumisani Muleya, ?Mugabe?s Henchmen Unleash
Torture Fury,? Business Day (Johannesburg), March 15, 2007.
?IMF Declares Zimbabwe Ineligible to Use IMF Resources, IMF Press
Release, September 25, 2001. ?Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery
Act of 2001,? Public Law 107-99 ? Dec. 21, 2001.
Gideon Gono, ?An Analysis of the Socio-Economic Impact of Sanctions
Against Zimbabwe: Supplement 7 of the Fourth Quarter 2005 Monetary
Policy Review Statement, January 24, 2006.
?Stop Talking and Start Acting Against Mugabe, Say Tories,? Daily
Telegraph (London), March 15, 2002. ?Zimbabwe Steering Towards
Sanctions,? Afrol News, November 30, 2001.
Peter O?Connor, ?Zimbabwe Decision Reveals Deep Rift,? Associated
Press, March 5, 2002.
?Standoff Against Zimbabwe Taken to Extreme Levels,? The Herald
(Harare), December 12, 2002.
For a detailed account of Western sanctions and the effect on the
economy of Zimbabwe, see: Gregory Elich, Strange Liberators:
Militarism, Mayhem, and the Pursuit of Profit, Llumina Press, Ft.
Lauderdale, 2006.
Grant Ferrett, ?Opposition Warning to Mugabe,? BBC News, September 30,
2000.
For a detailed account of the case, see: Gregory Elich, Strange
Liberators: Militarism, Mayhem, and the Pursuit of Profit, Llumina
Press, Ft. Lauderdale, 2006.
Tony Hawkins, ?Mugabe?s Real Election Victory: An Opposition Split
Down the Middle,? Financial Times (London), November 30, 2005.
Caesar Zvayi, ?It?s the MDC: See, Hear, Say No Evil,? The Herald
(Harare), March 15, 2007.
Jam Raath, ?Mugabe Arms Police as Opposition Prepares ?Final Push? to
Oust Him,? The Times (London), March 17, 2007.
?Harare Base Fire-Bombed, Two Cops Suffer Serious Facial Injuries,?
Real Time Traders, March 15, 2007. ?Slain Activist Buried Away from
Public View,? Institute for War & Peace Reporting (London), March 21,
2007. ?Sakubva Police Station Bombed,? The Herald (Harare), March 24,
2007. ?Zim Train Petrol-Bombed,? News24 (Johannesburg), March 24, 2007.
?Wholesaler Bombed,? The Herald (Harare), April 2, 2007.
?Police Nab 35 MDC Activists, Confiscate Arms, Explosives,? The Herald
(Harare), March 29, 2007. ?Petrol Bomber Arrested,? The Herald
(Harare), March 28, 2007. ?Seven Petrol Bombers in Court,? The Herald
(Harare), March 30, 2007.
Craig Timberg, ?Few Honor Strike in Zimbabwe,? Washington Post, April
4, 2007.
?Communique from the 2007 Extra-Ordinary Summit of Heads of State and
Government Held in Dar es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania 28th to
29th March 2007,? SADC.
Ndimyake Mwakalyelye, ?US Ambassador Rebuffs Southern African Call to
Lift Zimbabwe Sanctions,? Voice of America, April 4, 2007.
Tendai Maphosa, ?Sanctions May be Key to Political Reform in
Zimbabwe,? Voice of America, April 5, 2007.
Daily Press Briefing, Sean McCormack, Spokesman, U.S. Department of
State, March 30, 2007.
Stephen Kaufman, ?Additional Sanctions Possible, State Department
Says,? U.S. Department of State, March 14, 2007.
?Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: the U.S. Record 2006,? U.S.
Department of State, April 5, 2007.
?Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: the U.S. Record 2003-2004,? U.
S. Department of State, May 17, 2004.
Alexandra Silver, ?Soft Power: Democracy-Promotion and U.S. NGOs,?
Council on Foreign Relations, May 17, 2006.
?USAID/Zimbabwe Annual Report, FY 2005,? U.S. Agency for International
Development, July 16, 2005.
いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい
|