I noticed on Ceefax last night that a very significant news story leaked out about Zimbabwe. Naturally the serious situation in Burma is now receiving the most attention from the news.
It seems that Zanu have passed a law requiring all businesses to have a controlling 51% shareholding by a black Zimbabwean. In practice, of course this will mean a 51% interest by a Zanu-PF party member or chroney.
The result of this will be that those large agro and mineral companies with holdings still in Zimbabwe will withdraw. And, the main boards of such bodies are unlikely to be willing to sponsor inward investment to the country in the future, where there is a controlling interest in the local operating company which is directed by Zanu. The consequence will be a further decline in the manufacturing and raw material producing base of the Zimbabwean economy. It may very well also lead to the withdrawl of capital from the country.
Last week's TV documentary contained a segment on Zanu grabbing property. It seems that in fact Zanu are going after capital.
Thursday, 27 September 2007
Sunday, 23 September 2007
Its been quite a week
The situation in Zimbabwe has received a great deal of media attention in the last week. Various news reports on TV from ITN and BBC, plus writing press, even a statement from the Archbishop of York.
Let's examine some of the suggestions and proposals:
Gordon Brown has suggested that sanctions against Zimbabwe, and has declined to go to the African Summit if Mugabe is there. I am not persauded that sanctions against an already desperately poor country are the optimal policy, though the international community may well be left with nothing else. Clearly any such moves must be led by other African nations. Refusal to participate in meetings involving Mugabe and to widen the circle of prescribed persons is a good move. It is necessary to get that message communicated into the interior of the country since most Zimbabweans have no idea that other countries are doing this. Support of other African nations is critical.
Possibly South Africa are using Zimbabwe as cover for their own growing crisis. And SA are gaining from the brain drain from Zim into SA. In truth of course the UK are also gaining in the same way (see todays Mail on Sunday). For these reasons, plus solidarity with old ANC and Zanu campaigners there will be little heard from ANC leaders in SA.
It may also be that western money is behind Zimbabwe supporting him covertly while other interests are gaining, possibly in the mining sector or other mineral producers either in Zim or nearby nations. It would be interesting to know more about the situation in DRC and Mozambique to see whether there are any operations hosted out of those countries that are based in Zim.
The Archbishop of York John Sentamu has gone on record about Zimbabwe. I welcome the fact that he has spoken. The fact that he criticised PM Brown for being too moderate seems a little strange. ++John's view seems to be that military intervention may be required. In the end, he may well be right...in order to feed the populace as part of a humanitarian intervention.
But again it would be necessary to obtain the support of other African governments and preferably the UN before tasking the armed forces. The idea of the UK mounting any military operation is fantastic - we do not have the resources (all over committed in Afghanistan and Iraq already) and there is certainly no political will to entertain such action in the UK polity.
Perhaps the worst of all possibilities remains - the situation in Zimbabwe has a long way to run down before it recovers. A colleague this week told me that Mugabe has now claimed the right to name his succcessor. As Brett put it - normally one speaks of "where there is death there is hope" but with this move that doctrine is in question. A successor chosen by Mugabe - incompetent, corrupt, venial, grasping and evil - are words that come easily to mind.
The question is:- what do we do to help and support people in Zimbabwe?
Let's examine some of the suggestions and proposals:
Gordon Brown has suggested that sanctions against Zimbabwe, and has declined to go to the African Summit if Mugabe is there. I am not persauded that sanctions against an already desperately poor country are the optimal policy, though the international community may well be left with nothing else. Clearly any such moves must be led by other African nations. Refusal to participate in meetings involving Mugabe and to widen the circle of prescribed persons is a good move. It is necessary to get that message communicated into the interior of the country since most Zimbabweans have no idea that other countries are doing this. Support of other African nations is critical.
Possibly South Africa are using Zimbabwe as cover for their own growing crisis. And SA are gaining from the brain drain from Zim into SA. In truth of course the UK are also gaining in the same way (see todays Mail on Sunday). For these reasons, plus solidarity with old ANC and Zanu campaigners there will be little heard from ANC leaders in SA.
It may also be that western money is behind Zimbabwe supporting him covertly while other interests are gaining, possibly in the mining sector or other mineral producers either in Zim or nearby nations. It would be interesting to know more about the situation in DRC and Mozambique to see whether there are any operations hosted out of those countries that are based in Zim.
The Archbishop of York John Sentamu has gone on record about Zimbabwe. I welcome the fact that he has spoken. The fact that he criticised PM Brown for being too moderate seems a little strange. ++John's view seems to be that military intervention may be required. In the end, he may well be right...in order to feed the populace as part of a humanitarian intervention.
But again it would be necessary to obtain the support of other African governments and preferably the UN before tasking the armed forces. The idea of the UK mounting any military operation is fantastic - we do not have the resources (all over committed in Afghanistan and Iraq already) and there is certainly no political will to entertain such action in the UK polity.
Perhaps the worst of all possibilities remains - the situation in Zimbabwe has a long way to run down before it recovers. A colleague this week told me that Mugabe has now claimed the right to name his succcessor. As Brett put it - normally one speaks of "where there is death there is hope" but with this move that doctrine is in question. A successor chosen by Mugabe - incompetent, corrupt, venial, grasping and evil - are words that come easily to mind.
The question is:- what do we do to help and support people in Zimbabwe?
Friday, 14 September 2007
BBC Coverage
The coverage of the situation inside by Sue Lloydd-Roberts last night on the News at Ten and Newsnight was outstanding. The situation inside Zim is grim. The leadership of the country is deeply at fault. It appears that the complicity of South Africa in this matter is based on a win/win - as skilled people leave Zim they go to SA. SA is booming and needs their skills.
Kenneth Kowunda long ago said to Robert Mugabe that he had a jewel and he should be sure to keep is that way. Mugabe and his chronies are deeply to blame for what has occurred and is occurring. And, it may not yet be the end of the road. A slow decline over another twenty years is entirely possible. Though it is to be hoped that Mugabe will not last that long.
The key question, for us, is however what are we to do? Should Africa solve Africa's problems? Many inside Zim are now looking outside for help.
Kenneth Kowunda long ago said to Robert Mugabe that he had a jewel and he should be sure to keep is that way. Mugabe and his chronies are deeply to blame for what has occurred and is occurring. And, it may not yet be the end of the road. A slow decline over another twenty years is entirely possible. Though it is to be hoped that Mugabe will not last that long.
The key question, for us, is however what are we to do? Should Africa solve Africa's problems? Many inside Zim are now looking outside for help.
Wednesday, 12 September 2007
Zim Update
It's been a while since my last post, due to being on holiday. On my return I read a piece in the The Times of Tuesday 4th posted by Jan Raath in Harare concerning the deplorable situation. It is worth reading. Here are a few selected highlights:
- A loaf of bread now costs $Z30,000 but it costs $Zim50,000 to produce.
- Current inflation rate is 7600%
- Next year 450,000 tons of wheat are needed to be produced but only 78,000 are produced. Back in 1990 325,000 tons were produced.
- Now 80% of the population in Zimbabwe are living beneath the poverty line.
- An astonishing 3.4m of the population of Zimbabwe have left the country.
The country is in crisis. Two conversations with those who live, or have lived in Zimbabwe in recent years, by friends suggest that now there is a feeling that only external help can result in a change.
Thursday, 9 August 2007
Does the UK care about Zimbabwe?
Last night I was in conversation with a friend, who has worked in press and PR in national politics, including a stint at the House of Commons. I asked him what is the key to raising Zim as an issue for national political consideration.
His view was that Zimbabwe is a very low priority issue in UK politics. Given the awful press coverage of events in Zimbabwe over the last couple of years, e.g. the bulldozering of homes by Mugabe's thugs, there has been every possible opportunity for action on Zimbabwe by the UK government. Yet main stream politicians are for the most part indifferent largely to the plight of ordinary Zimbabweans suffering under the present regime. He also felt that the general position is that (and we have heard this mantra many times) "Africa must find a solution to Africa's problems". Our withdrawl from Zimbabwean affairs began in 1923 and accelerated under the Wilson government of the mid-1960's. The policy line taken by the Thatcher government after the 1979 election sealed the position with the election of Mugabe as Prime Minister, even after direct evidence of subversion of the electoral process and intimidation arguably skewed the election results. Today it is hard to generate any genuine political velocity over Zim in the UK.
What is therefore the alternative? It seems that given this backdrop, that the only line is to focus on the humanitarian crisis that will follow the economic crisis that has already developed. By focusing on individual stories of suffering it may be possible to generate a level of interest and concern on the part of the public in the UK. A long term patient campaign of awareness raising is required. ITN have shown the way by focusing on simple human tragedies.
I take the view that it is not simply a question of Africa finding a solution to Africa's problems. I think that is too simplistic. Where it is a matter of finding a path to responsible government and wise economic policies then I would say that it is for Africa to develop a general infra-structure of leadership capacity. However, in situations of extreme suffering by children and adults due to governmental incompetence, corruption or just plain poor management then the point does come where other nations have to show an interest. At that point, I would support liberal interventionism for the purpose, if nothing else, of providing aid to crisis situations. Naturally this has to be led by an international forum such as the UN or the pan-African governments' conference.
I am minded to give myself to a campaign of quiet and patient long-term awareness raising in the UK.
His view was that Zimbabwe is a very low priority issue in UK politics. Given the awful press coverage of events in Zimbabwe over the last couple of years, e.g. the bulldozering of homes by Mugabe's thugs, there has been every possible opportunity for action on Zimbabwe by the UK government. Yet main stream politicians are for the most part indifferent largely to the plight of ordinary Zimbabweans suffering under the present regime. He also felt that the general position is that (and we have heard this mantra many times) "Africa must find a solution to Africa's problems". Our withdrawl from Zimbabwean affairs began in 1923 and accelerated under the Wilson government of the mid-1960's. The policy line taken by the Thatcher government after the 1979 election sealed the position with the election of Mugabe as Prime Minister, even after direct evidence of subversion of the electoral process and intimidation arguably skewed the election results. Today it is hard to generate any genuine political velocity over Zim in the UK.
What is therefore the alternative? It seems that given this backdrop, that the only line is to focus on the humanitarian crisis that will follow the economic crisis that has already developed. By focusing on individual stories of suffering it may be possible to generate a level of interest and concern on the part of the public in the UK. A long term patient campaign of awareness raising is required. ITN have shown the way by focusing on simple human tragedies.
I take the view that it is not simply a question of Africa finding a solution to Africa's problems. I think that is too simplistic. Where it is a matter of finding a path to responsible government and wise economic policies then I would say that it is for Africa to develop a general infra-structure of leadership capacity. However, in situations of extreme suffering by children and adults due to governmental incompetence, corruption or just plain poor management then the point does come where other nations have to show an interest. At that point, I would support liberal interventionism for the purpose, if nothing else, of providing aid to crisis situations. Naturally this has to be led by an international forum such as the UN or the pan-African governments' conference.
I am minded to give myself to a campaign of quiet and patient long-term awareness raising in the UK.
Tuesday, 31 July 2007
Darfur
The decision by the UN today regarding Darfur was landmark. It is the fruit not just of a passionate speech by Gordon Brown at the last minute, but more than a year's work lobbying the UN by many individuals, including we are told Desmond Tutu.
Gordon Brown summarised the position into a stick and carrot approach to the government of Sudan. Now some 26000 troops are to be sent into Darfur, mostly from the African Union (7000 of which are already in place). It is to be hoped that the fragmented situation in Darfur will be postively impacted by this initiative. The difficulty may be that with the scale of collapse in government in Sudan substantially more troops will be required before disengagement is possible. If so, this appears to be a common pattern among many similar situations internationally.
In Zimbabwe the parliament opened last week amid a blaze of grandeur, while 80% of people are unemployed. As Martin Meredith has written it appears that Robert Mugabe and his network of chronies simply regard Zimbabwe as their private spoils of the struggle against the Smith regime thirty years ago. It is to be hoped that the situation does not decline further in Zimbabwe into a humanitarian crisis on the propoertions of Darfur where already 200,000 are dead.
Gordon Brown summarised the position into a stick and carrot approach to the government of Sudan. Now some 26000 troops are to be sent into Darfur, mostly from the African Union (7000 of which are already in place). It is to be hoped that the fragmented situation in Darfur will be postively impacted by this initiative. The difficulty may be that with the scale of collapse in government in Sudan substantially more troops will be required before disengagement is possible. If so, this appears to be a common pattern among many similar situations internationally.
In Zimbabwe the parliament opened last week amid a blaze of grandeur, while 80% of people are unemployed. As Martin Meredith has written it appears that Robert Mugabe and his network of chronies simply regard Zimbabwe as their private spoils of the struggle against the Smith regime thirty years ago. It is to be hoped that the situation does not decline further in Zimbabwe into a humanitarian crisis on the propoertions of Darfur where already 200,000 are dead.
Tuesday, 24 July 2007
Moral Question on Military Interventino
I have received a fair bit of feedback from people who have read the blog about military intervention in Zimbabwe or the Stephen Glover article.
The heart of the moral question appears to be this:- at what point does a crisis situation in Zimbabwe justify intervention by other nations in order to preserve the lives of vulnerable people in the country?
A related question will be:- what forms of intervention are justified?
I feel that, unfortunately, this is a question (about what is known as liberal internationalism) that the churches have signally failed to address meaningfully in relation to other similar situations, e.g. Somalia, over the years. Often the church is to be heard saying "war is not licit" or "military intervention is not justified" without ever quite stating what policy is licit.
In Zimbabwe the church has more moral force than in Europe. It is therefore a question that should receive attention.
The heart of the moral question appears to be this:- at what point does a crisis situation in Zimbabwe justify intervention by other nations in order to preserve the lives of vulnerable people in the country?
A related question will be:- what forms of intervention are justified?
I feel that, unfortunately, this is a question (about what is known as liberal internationalism) that the churches have signally failed to address meaningfully in relation to other similar situations, e.g. Somalia, over the years. Often the church is to be heard saying "war is not licit" or "military intervention is not justified" without ever quite stating what policy is licit.
In Zimbabwe the church has more moral force than in Europe. It is therefore a question that should receive attention.
Friday, 20 July 2007
Military Intervention
Yesterday (Thursday 19th) Stephen Glover writing in the Daily Mail compared the UK government's policy of military intervention in Afghanistan with Zimbabwe. It is the first time that I have seen a piece that was examining military intervention in Zim. It is actually quite a good article outlining the arguments for this form of action. I am not convinced, but neither do I think his points should be too quickly set aside.
His argument was that Afghanistan has been a graveyard for British forces for over 100 years, which is undoubtedly true. We have no ties nor obligations toward Afghanistan, yet we are committing forces in a spurious war against a concept - terror. In contrast, Zimbabwe was a dependency until 1980. The political system that elected Robert Mugabe as Prime Minister in 1980 was setup by the UK. Even at that time it was clear that Mugabe was guilty of a genocide against the Ndbele people - also true. (I notice that those involved at that time in negotiations with Zim over independence are now seeking to distance themselves from the process that lead to Robert Mugabe's appointment as Prime Minister. For example, time, Lord David Owen who was Foreign Secretary in 1980 has now made it clear he preferred Joshua Nkomo). Therefore since arguably the mess has been created by the UK we may be said to have a moral obligation to sort it out, says Glover.
Glover's argument is that a humanitarian crisis is iminent in Zim and that the correct, moral action may be to intervene to prevent a catastrophe. Intervention would be military in his view, and would need to receive a UN mandate, probably being undertaken by NATO. He points out that the United States have this week suddenly woken up to the existence of Zimbabwe. Glover argues that any force must crucially include South African troops. Indeed South Africa have self-interest at stake because of the growing refugee exodus to SA from Zimbabwe.
Glover points out that the fierce grip Mugabe has on power may mean that he is liable to assassination. If so, the departure of Mugabe may mean that a void is created that results in a destablised country leading to worse problems. Glover therefore is advancing a 'lesser of two evils' argument that military intervention in Zimbabwe is preferable to total governmental collapse.
Glover also argues, more dubiously, that any forces assigned would be welcomed by the people of the country as rescuers. He feels that even forces loyal to Mugabe would soon defect. I somehow doubt that this is a correct diagnosis of the feelings of many ordinary, especially rural, Zimbabweans.
I cannot see any prospect of the UK public being willing to committ troops and fund a campaign in Zimbabwe, especially if it results in the deaths of soldiers (which would be inevitable). As Dame Stella Rimington recently commented in relation to the war in Iraq the UK public will consent to foreign wars only where there is some legitimate threat or at least interest at stake. In Zimbabwe, since independence, there is no threat to these shores and little interest.
However, I feel that Glover's article should not be too quickly dismissed, because military intervention covers a range of possibilities from an invasion (as per Iraq) to much more focused involvements, such as Peace Enforcement (where there is a civil war), Peace Keeping (where there is tension but not an all out shooting war) and may cover an exercise to bring in food supplies under armed guard by a competent authority. My feeling is that the situation in Zimbabwe may yet come to that, given the warnings by Tear Fund this week on the death of children from malnutrition.
In the end, I think it is highly significant that Stephen Glover has raised this issue. He is right to do so, in my view. But I do not think his argument is sound in the end for the following reasons:
His argument was that Afghanistan has been a graveyard for British forces for over 100 years, which is undoubtedly true. We have no ties nor obligations toward Afghanistan, yet we are committing forces in a spurious war against a concept - terror. In contrast, Zimbabwe was a dependency until 1980. The political system that elected Robert Mugabe as Prime Minister in 1980 was setup by the UK. Even at that time it was clear that Mugabe was guilty of a genocide against the Ndbele people - also true. (I notice that those involved at that time in negotiations with Zim over independence are now seeking to distance themselves from the process that lead to Robert Mugabe's appointment as Prime Minister. For example, time, Lord David Owen who was Foreign Secretary in 1980 has now made it clear he preferred Joshua Nkomo). Therefore since arguably the mess has been created by the UK we may be said to have a moral obligation to sort it out, says Glover.
Glover's argument is that a humanitarian crisis is iminent in Zim and that the correct, moral action may be to intervene to prevent a catastrophe. Intervention would be military in his view, and would need to receive a UN mandate, probably being undertaken by NATO. He points out that the United States have this week suddenly woken up to the existence of Zimbabwe. Glover argues that any force must crucially include South African troops. Indeed South Africa have self-interest at stake because of the growing refugee exodus to SA from Zimbabwe.
Glover points out that the fierce grip Mugabe has on power may mean that he is liable to assassination. If so, the departure of Mugabe may mean that a void is created that results in a destablised country leading to worse problems. Glover therefore is advancing a 'lesser of two evils' argument that military intervention in Zimbabwe is preferable to total governmental collapse.
Glover also argues, more dubiously, that any forces assigned would be welcomed by the people of the country as rescuers. He feels that even forces loyal to Mugabe would soon defect. I somehow doubt that this is a correct diagnosis of the feelings of many ordinary, especially rural, Zimbabweans.
I cannot see any prospect of the UK public being willing to committ troops and fund a campaign in Zimbabwe, especially if it results in the deaths of soldiers (which would be inevitable). As Dame Stella Rimington recently commented in relation to the war in Iraq the UK public will consent to foreign wars only where there is some legitimate threat or at least interest at stake. In Zimbabwe, since independence, there is no threat to these shores and little interest.
However, I feel that Glover's article should not be too quickly dismissed, because military intervention covers a range of possibilities from an invasion (as per Iraq) to much more focused involvements, such as Peace Enforcement (where there is a civil war), Peace Keeping (where there is tension but not an all out shooting war) and may cover an exercise to bring in food supplies under armed guard by a competent authority. My feeling is that the situation in Zimbabwe may yet come to that, given the warnings by Tear Fund this week on the death of children from malnutrition.
In the end, I think it is highly significant that Stephen Glover has raised this issue. He is right to do so, in my view. But I do not think his argument is sound in the end for the following reasons:
- I do not think that a re-occupation of Zimbabwe in order to re-establish a competent democratic government will ever receive poliitcal support in the UK. The reason is that political consent for military engagement in the UK requires some threat or at the least an interest at stake. Zimbabwe presents no threat and there is little interest.
- I doubt we have the logistical capability to undertake such an operation. Without South Africa it would be impossible, for sure. With our army under strength and engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan it would be impossible to sustain. The Chief of the Army yesterday made comments about the ability of the army to sustain existing campaigns.
- The same question will arise in Zimbabwe as has arisen in Iraq - how long is needed to establish a stable state? Therefore how long will the occupation be? It is often overlooked that there are still troops stationed in West Germany today 61 years after the end of WW2.
- I am doubtful that UK or NATO troops would be welcomed as liberators. The result may therefore entail sufficient casualties to cause an adverse public reaction in the UK.
However, should Zimbabwe be discussed by the UN? The answer must be 'yes'. Should the logistical issues be considered by NATO - 'yes' again. In the end, if we see a catastrophe in Zimbabwe there may well be a case for humanitarian intervention to feed the populace. At what point must the crisis must have reached when international intervention is licit? I write as a member of the clergy and this moral dimension must be a proper concern for the churches.
Thursday, 19 July 2007
Good on Gordon!
Yesterday a press release sneaked out, spotted by my friend Carl, saying that Gordon Brown will not attend the EU-African Summit in December if Robert Mugabe is there. I hope this is evidence of a firmer line from the FCO over the issue of Zimbabwe. Gordon Brown promised change and maybe we are seeing some in foreign affairs.
Wednesday, 18 July 2007
Mugabe Criticised by US
Today on the television news coverage was carried of criticisms of Mugabe's economic policies by the United States. It has been pointed out that attempts to legislate for price reductions will lead to economic distortions that will create further shortages, either due to hoarding or panic buying of essential goods, such as diesel oil.
The fundamental problem is economic mismanagement. Statistics suggest that there has been rapid decline in each of the three key sectors to the Zimbabwean economy over the last ten years:- agriculture, manufacturing and tourism. Mugabe managed to negotiate a deal with Libya to provide continued supplies of oil, and that relationship goes back at least 7 years til 2000.
Now that the Zim dollar is effectively worthless on the international exchanges the unsurprising result is that essential supplies that have to be imported are escalating in price! Mugabe's response is to try and force a change on the internal price index. It is a short sighted policy that will lead to further economic distortions and greater problems.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Mugabe' regime is economically incompetent. Moreover, the likelihood is the key ministers of government have their assets salted away overseas and therefore the crisis in the economy of Zimbabwe is of comparatively little interest to them, with only minor personal impacts.
The fundamental problem is economic mismanagement. Statistics suggest that there has been rapid decline in each of the three key sectors to the Zimbabwean economy over the last ten years:- agriculture, manufacturing and tourism. Mugabe managed to negotiate a deal with Libya to provide continued supplies of oil, and that relationship goes back at least 7 years til 2000.
Now that the Zim dollar is effectively worthless on the international exchanges the unsurprising result is that essential supplies that have to be imported are escalating in price! Mugabe's response is to try and force a change on the internal price index. It is a short sighted policy that will lead to further economic distortions and greater problems.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Mugabe' regime is economically incompetent. Moreover, the likelihood is the key ministers of government have their assets salted away overseas and therefore the crisis in the economy of Zimbabwe is of comparatively little interest to them, with only minor personal impacts.
Tuesday, 17 July 2007
Quiet
The media coverage of Zimbabwe appears to have gone quiet over the last week or so. The developing tension with Russia over the expulsion of diplomats from London may be the reason for this break in coverage. Sadly Zimbabwe seems all-too-easily to slip down the rankings of media interest in the light of really any other development.
However, there was one piece in the Church Times a week ago about the findings of Tear Fund who are fearing for the malnutrition of children in Zimbabwe. It is worth reading.
In the meantime, I continue pondering what action may usefully be taken to progress the cause of democratic change in Zimbabwe. A new foreign secretary in post may be an opportunity for another round of letter writing perhaps? Similarly a new Prime Minister in office? I am pondering other actions within the Church of England too.
Let me know your views.
However, there was one piece in the Church Times a week ago about the findings of Tear Fund who are fearing for the malnutrition of children in Zimbabwe. It is worth reading.
In the meantime, I continue pondering what action may usefully be taken to progress the cause of democratic change in Zimbabwe. A new foreign secretary in post may be an opportunity for another round of letter writing perhaps? Similarly a new Prime Minister in office? I am pondering other actions within the Church of England too.
Let me know your views.
Friday, 6 July 2007
Article in Church of England Newspaper
Today my piece on what the Anglican Church can usefully do in relation to Zimbabwe appeared in the Church of England Newspaper. It contained one inaccuracy - the date of the Feast of S Bernard Mizeki is June 18th - hardly a show stopper!
It is my hope that by publishing a few initial suggestions about action by the Anglican Communion that this matter might at least be discussed informally among the delegates at General Synod in York, which meets over this weekend. However, there are many very heavy subjects on the list for the GS meeting including senior appointments and the matter of finding a legal formula around the ordination of women as bishops.
I wonder what you feel would be the correct next step towards making a small intentation on a major issue, which is Zimbabwe? Offer a comment to this blog. It is really easy.
It is my hope that by publishing a few initial suggestions about action by the Anglican Communion that this matter might at least be discussed informally among the delegates at General Synod in York, which meets over this weekend. However, there are many very heavy subjects on the list for the GS meeting including senior appointments and the matter of finding a legal formula around the ordination of women as bishops.
I wonder what you feel would be the correct next step towards making a small intentation on a major issue, which is Zimbabwe? Offer a comment to this blog. It is really easy.
Monday, 18 June 2007
Meeting of MDC and Zanu
Last weekend there was, according to South West Africa Radio, a meeting of Zanu-PF with the MDC. It seems that this was brokered by the President of South Africa, Tabo Mbeki. It took several attempts to get the meeting together.
One wonders whether the Prime Minister of the UK, Tony Blair, during his recent "farewell tour" had a hand in encouraging President Mbeki to take this initiative? It was pretty much in line with the remarks that he made in the media to that effect.
It is also to be hoped that in a small way the letters sent by many readers of this blog to the Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, recommending the very course of action pursued by Tony Blair had some small influence on achieving this outcome. We will never know, but it is to be hoped so.
It is clear that the most effective pressure can come from local regional governments on the government of Zimbabwe. The reality of modern macro-economics is that all the economies in the region are interlocked with that of Zimbabwe. It has been estimated that a detrimental effect on the economy of South Africa has been experienced due to the decline in Zimbabwe by around 3% of Gross Domestic Product. It is therefore in the interest of the local economies that Zimbabwe returns to a path of sensible economic management.
It is also very much in the interest of all the local countries that Zimbabwe does not decline further into bloody and violent civil war as desperate people seek for desperate remedies.
One wonders whether the Prime Minister of the UK, Tony Blair, during his recent "farewell tour" had a hand in encouraging President Mbeki to take this initiative? It was pretty much in line with the remarks that he made in the media to that effect.
It is also to be hoped that in a small way the letters sent by many readers of this blog to the Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, recommending the very course of action pursued by Tony Blair had some small influence on achieving this outcome. We will never know, but it is to be hoped so.
It is clear that the most effective pressure can come from local regional governments on the government of Zimbabwe. The reality of modern macro-economics is that all the economies in the region are interlocked with that of Zimbabwe. It has been estimated that a detrimental effect on the economy of South Africa has been experienced due to the decline in Zimbabwe by around 3% of Gross Domestic Product. It is therefore in the interest of the local economies that Zimbabwe returns to a path of sensible economic management.
It is also very much in the interest of all the local countries that Zimbabwe does not decline further into bloody and violent civil war as desperate people seek for desperate remedies.
Saturday, 9 June 2007
Grimness and Intimidation
A fellow blogger - The Man from Catford - saw an article at the end of the last week in The Independent about the terrible situation inside Zimbabwe. He described the article as 'grim'.
Also on the TV on Thursday there was a documentary piece about the action of the CIO in Zimbabwe. It seems there are those Zimbabweans now living in South Africa who are terrified of the reach of the CIO, even in South Africa. The evidence for the actual action of the CIO outside Zim is mixed.
What is clear is that many are afraid. I have been informed that in Zimbabwe if one visits a supermarket then the CIO are around listening in to conversations. Zimbabweans need to be careful about what they say, except in the privacy of their own homes. I am reminded of the programme of denunciation within Nazi Germany, the Soviet Republic's Secret Police and the novel 1984.
Also on the TV on Thursday there was a documentary piece about the action of the CIO in Zimbabwe. It seems there are those Zimbabweans now living in South Africa who are terrified of the reach of the CIO, even in South Africa. The evidence for the actual action of the CIO outside Zim is mixed.
What is clear is that many are afraid. I have been informed that in Zimbabwe if one visits a supermarket then the CIO are around listening in to conversations. Zimbabweans need to be careful about what they say, except in the privacy of their own homes. I am reminded of the programme of denunciation within Nazi Germany, the Soviet Republic's Secret Police and the novel 1984.
Thursday, 7 June 2007
Edinburgh University
Good on 'The Wise Men' (sic) of Edinburgh University. Yesterday they decided to review the honorary degree conferred on Rubert Mugabe in 1984 for services to education in Africa. I know from my friend in Zimbabwe that Robert Mugabe was originally a teacher, before entering politics.
One wonder why it is that other venerable agencies, such as the UK government and even the Crown do not reconsider the honoraria conferred on Mugabe, such as an honorary knighthood dating from around the same time? Such a move would do something to isolate Mugabe. It would make the point that dissatisfaction relates to this management of the country, and maybe isolate him within Zanu-PF. Certainly there is no quarrel with the nation of Zimbabwe.
Why does the UK government not consider similar steps?
One wonder why it is that other venerable agencies, such as the UK government and even the Crown do not reconsider the honoraria conferred on Mugabe, such as an honorary knighthood dating from around the same time? Such a move would do something to isolate Mugabe. It would make the point that dissatisfaction relates to this management of the country, and maybe isolate him within Zanu-PF. Certainly there is no quarrel with the nation of Zimbabwe.
Why does the UK government not consider similar steps?
Sunday, 3 June 2007
Tony Blair Again
Yesterday I was travelling and listening to the radio. I heard that Tony Blair has reinforced the message, while meeting with President Mbeki of South Africa, that local regional governments are best placed to place pressure on the government of Zimbabwe. This appears to me to be the correct tactic in dealing the situation in Zimbabwe. Further and continual pressure needs to be placed on South Africa, Namibia, Botswana and other African governments to call for change in Zimbabwe, and the resignation of Robert Mugabe.
Thursday, 31 May 2007
Tony Blair
Today I heard on the radio some remarks made by Tony Blair concerning Zimbabwe.
- He pointed out that the situation in Zimbabwe is declining in economic crisis.
- He pointed out that the decline in Zimbabwe's economy is impacting the economy of South Africa by about 3% of GDP per annum in the latter.
- He pointed out that around 3 million people have been forced to leave Zimbabwe as a result of the crisis there, and that life expectancy has fallen to 37 years.
- He also pointed out that an intervensionist policy should not mean military force. The situation in Sierra Leone was of a different kind.
I take heart from his words on the subject of Zimbabwe, because they show some form of interest and engagement with the plight of ordinary people in Zimbabwe.
Tuesday, 29 May 2007
PCC Tonight
Tonight the PCC of St Barnabas Eltham met to discuss a motion about Zimbabwe. We aim to use the Anglican system of democracy to raise an issue for discussion at General Synod of the Church of England. The route between the parish the General Synod is long and nothing is guaranteed.
However our new PCC discussed a motion for reference to the Deanery Synod (the first step in the process) and it was passed nem con. It calls upon the Deanery Synod to discuss the situation in Zimbabwe. To refer the issue to the Southwark Diocesan Synod for further discussion and reference to the General Synod. The goal is not merely to 'study and reflect' on Zimbabwe, our feeling is that we know enough about the situation. The goal is to identify some active steps that will help to add pressure for change in Zimbabwe.
It would be appropriate if the Anglican Communion, perhaps in the shape of the Archbishops, found the courage to make an unambiguous statement about the present situation in Zimbabwe. A declaration that the present situation cannot be morally justified would be a beginning. It would send a signal to Christians in Zimbabwe, if nothing else, that the present position is unacceptable and that the wider church supports them in their plight.
I hope that it may be so over the coming months, but we will see...
However our new PCC discussed a motion for reference to the Deanery Synod (the first step in the process) and it was passed nem con. It calls upon the Deanery Synod to discuss the situation in Zimbabwe. To refer the issue to the Southwark Diocesan Synod for further discussion and reference to the General Synod. The goal is not merely to 'study and reflect' on Zimbabwe, our feeling is that we know enough about the situation. The goal is to identify some active steps that will help to add pressure for change in Zimbabwe.
It would be appropriate if the Anglican Communion, perhaps in the shape of the Archbishops, found the courage to make an unambiguous statement about the present situation in Zimbabwe. A declaration that the present situation cannot be morally justified would be a beginning. It would send a signal to Christians in Zimbabwe, if nothing else, that the present position is unacceptable and that the wider church supports them in their plight.
I hope that it may be so over the coming months, but we will see...
Friday, 25 May 2007
First Day Blog
The purpose of this blog is to chart the progress of a pressure group - Zimbabwe Concern UK - which is based in the Anglican Parish of St Barnabas in Eltham.
In 2000 a group of about twenty people went to Zimbabwe from south east London. Over the last 5 years I have been trying to find a way of helping the people of Zimbabwe, as the situation within the country gets worse. Today in Zimbabwe inflation is out of control, the economy is in crisis, human rights violations are common place. The people are frightened of Zanu-PF and President Robert Mugabe. Robert Mugabe takes the view, that critics can 'go hang'.
About two months ago, I held a straw poll before a service of this interested in Zimbabwe at St Barnabas and put out an offering bowl. £100 was raised in one day to help towards a campaign from the congregation.
The campaign has so far accomplished two things:
1. Letters expressing support for the people of Zimbabwe have been sent to Rt Hon Margaret Beckett MP, the Foreign Secretary. About 100 people have sent letters and replies have come back from the FCO stating their position.
2. An Article was published in the Church of England Newspaper - Why diplomacy may not help Zimbabwe. Actually I think it will help Zimbabwe, but the diplomacy needs to be correctly directed. The reality is that the government of Zimbabwe are, at present, beyond reasonable persausion. The local governments (South Africa, Zambia, Botswana, Namibia) have the best chance to bring pressure to bear on Zimbabwe to end human rights violations and return to democracy. But the signs are not good.
More needs to be done to put pressure on the British government to engage with Zimbabwe. More can be done by the government in terms of symbolic actions, diplomacy and sanctions to move the situation ahead.
In 2000 a group of about twenty people went to Zimbabwe from south east London. Over the last 5 years I have been trying to find a way of helping the people of Zimbabwe, as the situation within the country gets worse. Today in Zimbabwe inflation is out of control, the economy is in crisis, human rights violations are common place. The people are frightened of Zanu-PF and President Robert Mugabe. Robert Mugabe takes the view, that critics can 'go hang'.
About two months ago, I held a straw poll before a service of this interested in Zimbabwe at St Barnabas and put out an offering bowl. £100 was raised in one day to help towards a campaign from the congregation.
The campaign has so far accomplished two things:
1. Letters expressing support for the people of Zimbabwe have been sent to Rt Hon Margaret Beckett MP, the Foreign Secretary. About 100 people have sent letters and replies have come back from the FCO stating their position.
2. An Article was published in the Church of England Newspaper - Why diplomacy may not help Zimbabwe. Actually I think it will help Zimbabwe, but the diplomacy needs to be correctly directed. The reality is that the government of Zimbabwe are, at present, beyond reasonable persausion. The local governments (South Africa, Zambia, Botswana, Namibia) have the best chance to bring pressure to bear on Zimbabwe to end human rights violations and return to democracy. But the signs are not good.
More needs to be done to put pressure on the British government to engage with Zimbabwe. More can be done by the government in terms of symbolic actions, diplomacy and sanctions to move the situation ahead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)