Morgan Tsvangirai, the new Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, writes compellingly in The Times today of his determination to build a free and prosperous society out of the ashes of his ravaged country.
It is an admirable and inspiring vision, one shared by the millions of Zimbabweans who have continued to fight for democracy in the face of terrible persecution. But it is a vision which cannot be realised until Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe's President, is out of office and out of power.
The urgency of Mr Tsvangirai's appeal for help from the West reflects his nation's desperate situation. Half the population is dependent on food aid to survive. Over 90 per cent of them have no job. Thousands have died of cholera, and more will succumb, weakened by the artificial famine created by the Mugabe regime while it feasted on lobster and champagne. Yesterday, a South African documentary revealed that prison inmates are starving to death, in scenes reminiscent of concentration camps. A whole generation has been brutalised.
In these circumstances, such a powerful call for help should not go unanswered. Yet the difficult question for the West is what assistance can be given which will not simply strengthen the hand of the dictator and his henchmen.

Robert Mugabe is still President of Zimbabwe, and his power has been glimpsed in multiple ways since the power-sharing government was established in February: in the continued invasions of farmland and eviction of farmers by so-called war veterans, and in the arrest and savage treatment of Roy Bennett, Mr Tsvangirai's nominee for deputy agriculture minister. Under these circumstances, there can be no rapid increase in foreign aid, except perhaps to areas which are controlled by the opposition.

Mr Tsvangirai writes that he would like Zimbabwe to move beyond being a mere beneficiary of emergency aid, to becoming “a true economic partner” of the West, and an “investment opportunity”. That is a laudable aim, and undoubtedly the right path to Zimbabwe's ultimate salvation. It is a country rich in natural resources. But the hope is premature. The truth is that private investment will not return to Zimbabwe until the rule of law is clearly re-established, property rights are respected and the law of contract is guaranteed. Nor can Western governments realistically “partner” with Zimbabwe, until its government is truly democratic.

Mr Tsvangarai needs to do everything in his power to move his country towards law and order and democracy. But it will be a long road. It is tempting to argue, as he does, that Zimbabweans should not have to wait for more help from the West until their government meets some idealised standard, some “clean slate”. But turning a blind eye to the abuses in Zimbabwe, as South Africa and some other African countries have repeatedly done, has had the effect of simply entrenching dictatorship. Those countries now face internal economic problems which may make them even more reluctant to act.

Zimbabwe's problems are too pressing for the West to wait on the outcome of the elections which are to be held next year. The truth is that only the removal of Mr Mugabe can put Zimbabwe on the road to the future so powerfully painted by Mr Tsvangirai.

Zimbabwe is on its own Muagbe and Zanu-PF have finally got their way.

The MDC has now finally admitted that it has been dumped by its friends and allies in the West. They have instead decided to seek the intercession of Zimbabwe's neighbours to talk to its former allies in the West about helping the limping Inclusive government.
Yesterday, Tendai Biti, the MDC Minister of Finance in the new Inclusive Zimbabwean government, together with Robert Mugabe and Prof Welshman Ncube, asked the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Heads of State to intercede on Zimbabwe's behalf with Britain, America and other rich nations. SADC itself repeated at the same meeting that they could not give Zimbabwe any money, as had been hoped for by Tendai Biti. Of all the SADC countries, South Africa is the only one that has offered to give Zimbabwe immediate assistance. They pledged US$30 million, to be disbursed in monthly US$10 million tranches over three months.

This is HOWEVER not even enough to cover the government wage bill, which stands at about US$50 million a month when you factor in allowances. Salaries alone need a total of US$30 million a month.

Interestingly, though, Biti adopted Mugabe's and ZANU PF language this week, after "touring banks" according to the government newspaper, The Herald. Biti told the state-owned paper that he is "aware of saboteurs who want the Inclusive government to fail" because they are questioning whether the government can sustain the payment of foreign currency salaries.

It was Mugabe who said during his birthday interview that he did not think the payment of salaries in foreign currency for the civil service was sustainable because "we do not have the money." He said.

The Finance Minister Tendai Biti also shoulders the blame because of his alarmist talk that the Treasury coffers are "empty". He carries blame for his statements warning of "chaos" unless the donor countries give him money to pay the salaries of this bloated government.

Political commentators believe Biti is perhaps still learning the effect of his words. He probably is not aware that as Minister of Finance his words carry a lot of weight. He is no longer an opposition politician whose words have no impact on the running of the country and he must realise this and start to work accordingly.

Still, even after those dire warnings that Zimbabwe was about to become another Somalia, apart from South Africa that pledged US$30 million (enough for a month's salary bill), no other southern African country pledged any money during the SADC meeting and after its conclusion.

Even Botswana, the MDC friend in the region, appears to also be dumping the Inclusive government. They did not pledge anything. Namibia said it will continue working with the Zimbabwe Power utility, ZESA, to refurbish Hwange Power station.

The bottom line appears to be that the West, the people with the "deep pockets", as Biti called them at the summit in Swaziland yesterday, are keeping their money deep in their pockets.

Was it not the MDC that always insisted that there must be good governance before aid is given to Zimbabwe is one of the questions political analysts have been asking after the just ended SADC summit? That good governance does only mean doing what the MDC wants, which is what the opposition thought before they joined government.

Good governance also means not buying luxury cars when taps are dry because water treatment chemicals cannot be bought added one commentator.

Good governance means setting priorities right, deciding whether it is better to bloat a government by providing "jobs for the boys" when there is no money to pay those "boys".

Good governance means coming up with workable policies to turn the economy around and not simply announcing an "it will be alright on the night" STERP document, which is bereft of any policy except begging for money.

Good governance means demonstrating fiscal responsibility, deciding what is more urgent, furniture for minster's offices or US$1.5million to refurbish Harare Hospital (this is the sum that Morgan Tsvangirai said was needed to get the hospital in top condition).

In effect, the West has dumped the MDC because the party has failed to demonstrate, just demonstrate, that its presence in the corridors of power has resulted in a shifting of priorities.

It is unlikely that SADC will succeed in garnering the aid that they have undertaken to demand from the west. Britain and American and the IMF and the Word Bank are not amenable and no one can force them.

Their position is still the same: they do not see any meaningful change in the way the affairs of the country are being run and they are not keen to part with their money under these circumstances.

With Biti cutting away all the infrastructure development provisions in the budget and leaving only consumptive budget provisions in his "hunter-gatherer" economy as he himself has called it , there is no policy in place to stimulate growth of the economy from within.

Their hopes were pinned on others giving them money to spend on salaries and also money to start production in Zimbabwe.

South Africa, by giving the US$10 million a month, is only looking after its own interests. As long as Zimbabwe does not have a manufacturing sector, South African companies have a dollarized market in Zimbabwe that will give them even more money and grow the South African economy even more.

Meanwhile, dumped by the West, the MDC can only flounder, together with its new best friend, ZANU PF

Zimbabwe’s economy is in the intensive care unit and urgently needs to be revived. The only way to revive the economy is to get aid from external sources.

The party that secures aid, and therefore revives the economy will get the credit in the eyes of the electorate.

It is common cause that MDC is widely viewed as having friends in the international aid community and that ZANU-PF has burnt all bridges with the international donor community.

Therefore, ZANU-PF’s political challenge would be how to secure aid without giving credit to MDC. And this is where the SADC Summit comes in.

The SADC Summit’s true purpose was to get SADC to collectively accept and endorse ZANNU-PF’s rhetoric and propaganda that Zimbabwe’s economy was destroyed by the ‘cruel sanctions of developed nations’ and that continuation of such ‘sanctions’ would undermine any efforts by Zimbabwe and SADC to normalise the situation in Zimbabwe.

The SADC Communiqué at the end of the Summit embraced this view and by so doing achieved two things; it explained both the past failure of Zimbabwe’s economy and the potential future failure to revive the economy as a direct consequence of sanctions. We all know very well that this is nonsense.

The SADC Summit Communiqué further proclaimed support for Zimbabwe’s fundraising efforts and immediately set up a ‘Committee of Ministers of Finance comprising South Africa, Zambia, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Botswana, Zimbabwe as well as the Executive Secretary of SADC to coordinate SADC support to the Zimbabwe recovery process.’

This is a classical diplomatic coup that ZANU-PF pulled. It means MDC is no longer responsible for fundraising for Zimbabwe, but instead, SADC has that mandate, and necessarily, MDC cannot claim to have rescued the country and brought it back from the brink of collapse.

Looking to elections ahead, l can predict ZANU-PF will be quick to dismiss the contribution of MDC and give all credit to ZANU-PF and the SADC Coordination Committee tasked with fundraising in Europe and the United States.

The mandate of the SADC Coordination Committee is to ‘visit major capitals in Europe, Asia and America as well as major financial institutions to mobilise support for Zimbabwe’s economic recovery programme.’

The other purpose that the SADC Summit serves for ZANU-PF is that it gives ZANU-PF opportunity to save face and justifies going to the west to beg under some twisted logic that in fact ZANU-PF has not changed its stance, but rather, it is the west merely lifting sanctions.

It would be interesting to find out from ZANU-PF what became of their glorified ‘Look East Policy.’ One would have expected China to be the knight in shining armour riding to Zimbabwe’s rescue.

The problem with President Mugabe and ZANU-PF is that they are in denial.

They are in denial about the huge role they both played in destroying the economy through mismanagement, cronyism, corruption and use of knee-jerk reaction policies such as the ill-fated look east policy.

They are in denial that they have failed to deliver and as such must necessarily step aside and allow fresh brains and fresh blood to try new policies.

Therefore, the driver who refused to take directions from anyone and landed us in this ditch, still insists on (ostensibly) driving us out of the ditch, and again, believes he knows the right direction! God have mercy on us.

The unfortunate part of it all is that for the past ten years of struggle for democracy in Zimbabwe, ZANU-PF has managed to run circles around SADC with the result that SADC has become a mere appendage of ZANU-PF unable to independently and objectively come to the aid of the people of Zimbabwe.

Quite ironically, the same SADC, in the same Summit Communiqué, had quite strong language for Madagascar where a military coup took place two weeks ago.

SADC leaders said they, ‘condemned in the strongest terms, the unconstitutional actions that have led to the illegal ousting of the democratically elected Government of Madagascar and called for an immediate restoration of constitutional order in the country’.

SADC suspended Madagascar, with immediate effect, from participating in any of its organs until it returns to normalcy.

Talk of double standards!

Mugabe bankrupts Zimbabwe, his party Zanu-PF loots the public wealth for personal gain, they do not govern and public infrastructure is left to rot and then Mugabe goes cap in hand for aid to the West. Why doesn't anyone say to him liquidate what you and your cronies have stolen and repatriate the money to Zimbabwe. Why doesn't anyone in Zimbabwe have the strength of character to do this? I'm confused.

President Robert Mugabe has appealed for international assistance to rebuild his self-battered country.

African governance standards, particularly in Zimbabwe, Sudan, Swaziland, Democratic Republic of Congo and Somalia are not exactly models of excellence.

A recent UNDP report entitled "Comprehensive Economic Recovery in Zimbabwe - a Discussion Document" seems to concur with the common sense knowledge that dishing out development assistance to any African country, no matter how deserving in the eyes of Western Philanthropists, adds very little value to lives of common citizens. UNDP says of Zimbabwe: "The real extent of external indebtedness is unknown, partly because of the contingency liabilities of the government and the central bank in respect of offshore loans for which they have provided guarantees, partly because the full extent of the current payments pipeline is unknown, and also because details of loans from non-OECD countries such as China, India, Iran and Venezuela are not in the public."

If one then takes economic indicators as a country’s test of ‘good health’, it is during Zimbabwe’s 2000-2007 `deep crisis period´ of gross indebtedness that indicators show an exponential decline and the highest negative trends. There is also no doubt in one’s mind that this is the same period that Zimbabwe experienced the highest and crudest levels of political rights abuses. In simple terms, there is converse relationship between aid and development.

The latest publication of the Business Council of Zimbabwe titled `Blue Print for Zimbabwe’s Economic Revival´ shed more light on this paradox: "Even where we apply for `Least Developed Country´ status to get preferential treatment in OECD markets, Aid surges can cause distortions and harm competitiveness. They can also breed dependency - build in obsolescence into programs." They then dilute an otherwise good argument by proposing "effective management" of aid as a panacea - but has this ever happened anywhere in the developing world? For us in Zimbabwe we even have firsthand experience on how free money in the hands of incorrigible rascals results in unmitigated disaster. Beleaguered Reserve Bank Governor Gideon Gono had for the past five years poured millions of foreign currency into what he termed `agricultural mechanisation programs´ for the benefit of President Robert Mugabe’s political support base. The Chinese, Libyans, Iranians and South Africans followed suit, yet the World Food Program reports that almost nine million Zimbabweans will require food aid this year.

Now that Morgan Tsvangirayi’s MDC is an appendage of the Government of National Unity (GNU), how do we propose that this `fledgling democracy´ satisfies its reconstruction requirements without a Jeffery Saachs `jumpstart´ or Marshall Plan approach? A report from electronic newspaper ZimOnline says: "A high-level International Monetary Fund this week returned to the country after a two-year break to assess the economy and review policies to address the economic and humanitarian crisis. Regional leaders have put Zimbabwe’s needs at around US$2 billion." About the same time, a memo from new GNU Finance Minister Tendai Biti warned that if Zimbabwe did not immediately get cash injection of US$ 1 billion, "failure to pay some of these obligations urgently would weaken the country’s credit rating..."

Expectedly some promises are being made. Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith then immediately announced that his country would provide USD$10 million to help with clean water and attract professionals back to the country's health system.
He pontificated: "Now is the time for Australia to assist Zimbabwe's reconstruction by giving as much help and assistance as possible to its people and Zimbabwe Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirayi." Meanwhile, Mozambique, Tanzania and Uganda’s national budgets are probably forty percent ODA-funded, but they still languish in the lower leagues of least developed economies.

Yet the International Monetary Fund concluded that Zimbabwe still owes too much to qualify for any realistic ODA. This cruel reality could be long term good news, but flies in the face of Minister Biti’s short term requirements. My idea of reconstruction is not the overnight wine-at-Cana miracle approach.

First, we should disabuse ourselves of the cap-in-hand mentality. The poisoned chalice is the bloated GNU predisposition towards recurrent expenditure, which really is the second point - reducing the size of Government.

Thirdly, we can restore the viability of the banking sector by getting them to re-capitalise via offshore, not ODA financing.

Fourthly, Zimbabwe is sitting on a wealth of public property that can be liquidated to raise working capital for infrastructure reconstruction.

Fifth, almost thirty years of plunder and state-assisted pillaging have stashed billions of foreign currency in tax havens and discrete foreign accounts. If that money can be repatriated, it will be sufficient to sustain us until our entire productive capacity has been restored.

This is the madness that is Zimbabwe.

When Daleen Joubert heard last week's promise that Zimbabwe's new Government would protect the country's remaining white farmers, she and her husband Willem dared to believe that their ordeal could soon be over.

After a decade of violence and vandalism against their dairy farm in southern Zimbabwe, there was fresh hope. Within hours, that had been extinguished and Mr and Mrs Joubert were forced into hiding.

On the evening of last week's pledge by Tendai Biti, the Finance Minister in Zimbabwe's coalition Government, to “arrest any further farm invasions” the locks on their farm gate were smashed, the door to Mrs Joubert's elderly father's home was broken down and its contents taken out and dumped.

The police, who had taken part in the eviction, left a message for Mr and Mrs Joubert, who was away on business, with their farm workers - they were to be arrested for staying on the land in defiance of Lovemore Matuke, the local chairman of President Mugabe's Zanu (PF) party.

In the days that followed Mr Matuke took over the Joubert's own homestead and threw out their goods. Mr Matuke has previously seized three other farms, none of which now produces anything. The couple are now in hiding in the town of Masvingo. They have with them a suitcase of clothing, their car, and a parrot rescued from their farm, Mijn Rust.

Their only hope is that ministers such as Mr Biti can restore their rights. Under radical land reform legislation introduced by Mr Mugabe, about 4,000 white farmers have lost their farms, and only 100 remain. Production in what was once a regional breadbasket has plummeted, leaving Zimbabwe on the verge of famine.

Most potential foreign donors, whose cash is vital to restoring the country's devastated economy, want to see the farm seizures cease before committing towards the $5 billion (£3 billion) Mr Biti believes is needed to restore basic government functions.

However, in the 38 days since the new power-sharing Government involving the opposition Movement for Democratic Change was formed, the seizures have escalated.

Yesterday Tom Venter, a farmer, was found guilty in the central city of Gweru of failing to get off his farm and was ordered to remove all his goods, while in Chegutu, 50 miles west of Harare, Simon Keevil received a summons for the same offence.

On Monday in the Chiredzi district in the southeast, two farmers were arrested, and on two other farms black managers were arrested because their employers were not there. At the weekend in Chegutu, squatters looted the home of Brian Bronkhorst, who is barred from entering his property.

Since the Government abolished freehold title on farms in 2007, rural land tenure rests on an “offer letter” issued by the Ministry of Lands. Farm union officials say that Didymus Mutasa, the department's head, signs batches of the documents without checking to see who gets them.

There is a constant scramble for them among army and police, civil servants, judges and friends and relatives of Mr Mugabe's inner circle. In the eyes of the police the presentation of the offer letter to a white farmer is enough to have him thrown him off. It is not clear if Mr Matuke, the Jouberts' persecutor, has an offer letter. The Jouberts have endured a sustained period of harassment since their farm was first invaded in June last year. The fodder for their 120 pedigree cows was destroyed and the cattle starved to death, putting the second-last milk producer in the province of Masvingo out of business. Miles of fencing have been stolen, workers have been assaulted and last week a court ruled that the staff were illegally on the farm.

The farmers' rights leader Ben Freeth, who has still not recovered from a savage assault by farm invaders in June last year, said: “More and more farmers are getting summonses.”

HAVING been given little choice by the Southern African Development Community (Sadc) but to join Robert Mugabe and his corrupt Zanu (PF) cronies in a unity government under less than ideal circumstances, the Movement for Democratic Change’s (MDC’s) worst fears are in danger of being realised.

The party has assumed token responsibility for critical aspects of the country’s governance such as the running of the economy, but does not have the political power or access to resources to turn things around. Meanwhile, an unrepentant Mugabe has been given a new lease on life and
Zanu (PF) thugs continue to run rampant, grabbing land from the few remaining white farmers and preventing free political activity.

It is clear that Mugabe never had any intention of living up to his side of the unity deal, which included promises of wide-ranging political and social reforms, and the Sadc’s “guarantee” has proved worthless. Meanwhile, MDC Finance Minister Tendai Biti has started the process of reviving the economy, including scrapping price controls and legalising the use of foreign currencies, but has been reduced to holding out the begging bowl for the financing foreign donors are reluctant to give for fear that it will disappear into Zanu (PF) pockets.

The Sadc meets in Swaziland this week, and will undoubtedly pat itself on the back for a job well done in Zimbabwe while pointing accusing fingers at the west for failing to throw money at Mugabe. But it will all be hot air; without billions of dollars in foreign aid the Zimbabwean economy is going nowhere, and Biti’s best intentions will come to nought. The goods may be back in the shops, but few can afford to buy them without access to far more hard currency than Zimbabwe’s crippled export sector can generate or the Sadc countries can hope to donate without bankrupting their own economies.

This is the stalemate analysts feared would be the outcome of the Sadc’s insistence on a unity government on Mugabe’s terms. The implications could be dire, not only for ordinary Zimbabweans but also for the MDC, which is now part of government and will carry the can if people’s lives do not start to improve.

What is needed to break the impasse without playing into Mugabe’s hands is for the west to set out clear and detailed conditions that must be met before funding can begin, starting with the concessions Zanu (PF) made in the original unity agreement but has failed to fulfil.

If and when that modest hurdle is cleared to everyone’s satisfaction, funds could be provided in tranches, with monitoring systems in place to ensure the money is used wisely and the Zanu (PF) securocrats do not revert to their bad old ways. Getting the economy producing again is the immediate goal, but full recovery demands a legitimate government, which will not be the case in Zimbabwe until properly supervised elections have been held.

A tycoon blacklisted by Britain for his links to Zimbabwean despot Robert Mugabe has been revealed as a major investor in Camec, the mining company headed by former England cricketer Phil Edmonds.

The British government named Billy Rautenbach two months ago as having links to the Mugabe regime.

Rautenbach was described as a 'businessman with strong ties to the government of Zimbabwe' and an order was issued making him the target of UK sanctions against the southern African state.

Now, Rautenbach's holding in Edmonds' Camec mining group - thought to be around 6 per cent - has been frozen.

He cannot sell his shares in the company nor receive dividends from his investment.

His holdings are thought to be through two companies, Harvest View and Meryweather.

Camec insisted yesterday that it took action to freeze Rautenbach's shareholding in early February, just a few days after the Treasury issued its list of Mugabe-linked targets.

The company said: 'As soon as the sanctions were announced Camec took appropriate legal advice and subsequently, in early February, made a notification to the Treasury.

'Camec is in full compliance with its requirements under the sanctions.'

Sanctions have been placed on Zimbabwe thanks to Robert Mugabe's despotic rule
The British action was part of a Europe-wide attempt to isolate individuals involved with the Mugabe regime.

It froze assets and imposed travel bans on 203 people.

Rautenbach, 49, was born in South Africa, but fled the country in 1999 while he faced theft and fraud charges - all of which he denies.

He is now thought to live on a farm outside the Zimbabwean capital, Harare.
Rautenbach has also been the target of action by the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The country declared Rautenbach persona non grata in 2007.

And last month, it emerged that the DRC has contacted the Financial Services Authority, voicing concerns about Rautenbach's involvement with Camec.

Edmonds, who runs Camec with his longstanding ally Andrew Groves, has himself come under attack for his company's links to Zimbabwe.
Last year, the company made a £120million investment in the country.

Zimbabwe's opposition Movement for Democratic Change accused Edmonds of providing the Mugabe regime with economic support just as the international community was calling for tougher sanctions against Mugabe's brutal regime.

Rautenbach is more than just a shareholder in Camec. His company Harvest View supplied 'services and assets' to Camec worth £19.22million, according to accounts for 2007.

THE MDC last week released names of seven of its members who were abducted between October and December last year and are still missing. It is almost certain they were abducted and kept captive by state security agents at a time when there was a massive crackdown against the MDC.

They most probably were murdered.

It is important to name the seven abductees so that they do not swell the ranks of nameless and faceless victims of Robert Mugabe’s brutal reign. They are Gwenzi Kahiya, Ephraim Mabeka, Lovemore Machokoto, Charles Muza, Edmore Vangirayi, Graham Matewa and Peter Munyanyi.

They were abducted because of their membership of the MDC.

But that is the least important aspect of their identities. They are sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces, cousins, grandparents and children. They are friends, neighbours and work colleagues. The lives of those who loved them have been shattered.

They pray daily that their loved ones are still alive and will one day re-unite with them. They desperately hope that wherever they are they will soon be freed from their sadistic captors.

Between the March 29 election and the one-man June 27 presidential run-off last year, savage violence was unleashed against Mugabe’s opponents. About 200 people were murdered with many more brutally assaulted, tortured, raped and displaced from their homes. Livelihoods were destroyed in a barbaric orgy of state-sponsored violence. There has been no official acknowledgement of these crimes against humanity.

Ever since the Gukurahundi massacres of the 1980s, Mugabe’s government have never accepted responsibility for the many crimes it committed against the people of Zimbabwe to maintain its hegemony. The closest it got to doing this was when, many years after the unity accord between Zanu-PF and ZAPU in 1987, Mugabe referred to Gukurahundi a “moment of madness.” It was not genuine remorse but a cynical ploy to keep Mugabe’s obsession for a one-party state on track.

There has never been regret expressed about the murder of hundreds of people in the elections of 2000 and 2002 and the cruel violence against thousands more. The mass suffering caused by Operation Murambatsvina has never been officially acknowledged. Its silent victims remain aggrieved.

The seven people named above whose fate remains unknown are just the latest victims of Mugabe’s brutal regime. There is no talk of perpetrators of these heinous acts being brought to justice. How can there be such talk when people who gave the orders still run the country?

There is no talk of compensation for victims of Gukurahundi and others who followed. The country is expected to forge ahead as if these atrocities and injustices never happened. If Zanu-PF and the MDC believe a new decent society can be built on such rotten foundations they are seriously deluded.

Violence and other egregious violations of human rights continue today despite conciliatory noises emanating from the inclusive government. Looking ahead it is hard to imagine how Zanu-PF can win a free and fair election. It is only through violence, especially in rural areas, that they can win an election. Violence therefore remains an essential tool in Zanu-PF political armoury.

A warning by the director of Human Rights Watch Georgette Gagnon must be seriously heeded. She said: “Unless the new power-sharing government promptly brings perpetrators of abuses to account and makes clear that no further abuses will be tolerated, the country risks sliding back to possibly even greater political turmoil.”

The MDC is reported to have withdrawn a motion in Parliament to discuss last year’s state-sponsored violence. It was persuaded that this was in the interest of national reconciliation. As usual there was no reciprocal gesture of goodwill from Zanu-PF. Members of the MDC and civil society still remain victims of a vicious and vindictive regime.

In contrast, perpetrators of crimes against innocent Zimbabweans continue to enjoy impunity. The MDC leadership, desperate to keep its positions and privileges in government, acquiesces to this blatant injustice. The party’s leadership only pays lip service to cries for justice from its members languishing in Mugabe’s dungeons. It ignores the pain and anguish of those whose loved ones were murdered and abducted by Mugabe’s thugs.

The sad reality is that there is nothing the MDC can do now. It capitulated when it was still in a strong bargaining position. It now has nothing to bargain with. Mugabe realized before the MDC joined government the psychology of its leadership. He knew the MDC leadership was possessed of a petty bourgeois mentality that places emphasis on government positions, status and material comforts.

The old wily fox knew that so eager were the MDC leadership to get into government they were blinded to his own desperate position. Mugabe played a game of brinkmanship confident that the MDC leadership would cave in. They had no stomach for a protracted struggle against him. They were fearful of more repression. When Mugabe threatened to go it alone the MDC found it too risky to call his bluff.

The gravy train was at the station about to depart. They had to get on board before it departed. All outstanding matters would be addressed once they were on the gravy train.

Having taken a “plunge into the unknown” to quote Tsvangirai, Mugabe had no reason to give in to any of the MDC’s demands. Mugabe knows the MDC is now hopelessly compromised. All it can do is bark while the caravan moves on.

Wearing his Prime Minister’s hat Tsvangirai last week pledged to end farm invasions to a distinguished audience of diplomats, business persons and civil society leaders. He said: “Those continuing to undertake these activities will be arrested and face justice in the courts. I have tasked the minister of home affairs to ensure that all crimes are acted upon and the perpetrators arrested and charged.”

This statement begs many questions that go to the heart of Tsvangirai’s power in this government. Given that there are two ministers of home affairs, which one did he give instructions to? Was it the MDC’s Giles Mutsekwa or Kembo Mohadi of Zanu-PF? Given the critical importance of land invasions to Mugabe, it is safe to assume that Mohadi will only take instructions on this matter from Mugabe.

Besides that, Mugabe is head of cabinet not Tsvangirai. What can Mutsekwa do? Police Commissioner Augustine Chihuri has to issue any orders from politicians for enforcement on the ground. The Commissioner does not even salute Tsvangirai. He is part of a collective of service chiefs who vowed never to accept Tsvangirai’s leadership. When Tsvangirai makes promises he cannot fulfill he only makes a fool of himself and runs the risk of eroding his political credibility.

It is also common knowledge that farm invasions which rekindle the revolutionary fervour of the liberation struggle are critical to the mobilization of Zanu-PF’s support in rural areas. Therefore, Mugabe cannot and will not condemn farm invasions. At his birthday party in February he made that clear. Tsvangirai does himself no favours by pretending to wield powers he does not really possess. Only the police and army can at an operational level stop invasion of farms.

Both institutions take their orders from Mugabe.

I have repeatedly warned that the MDC would be marginalized and humiliated in a putative unity government in which it had no power. Even at this early stage the evidence is there for all to see. MDC officials and members continue to bear the brunt of repression while Mugabe’s murderers, torturers and abductors roam free. None of the issues raised by the MDC pertaining to media freedom, arbitrary arrests, illegal imprisonment, appointment of senior government officials and denial of basic civil liberties have been addressed. Mugabe is in no mood to compromise on any of these crucial issues. He knows that the MDC leadership is willing to swallow anything to keep its petty privileges and empty portfolios.

The MDC’s capitulation is, however, too high a price for the country to pay.

No fundamental change will happen under this Zanu-PF regime which has absorbed the MDC without losing its essence. All Mugabe wants from Tsvangirai is to raise money, get sanctions lifted and launder his regime.

Tsvangirai seems to be a willing tool. In his quest to endear himself to his benefactor, Mugabe, Tsvangirai forgets the seven missing people named above who might have perished in his name. He also forgets thousands others who have suffered and perished in a quest for democracy and freedom in Zimbabwe.

Defence minister Emmerson Mnangagwa and state security minister Sydney Sekeramayi have been fingered as the culprits that are promoting fresh farm invasions through the state apparatus by using rowdy war veterans, army, police and the central intelligence organisation.

According to a source privy to the behind-the-scenes meetings to launch ZANU PF campaign of retribution, Mnangagwa was said to have echoed that the campaign of more violence is the only solution and trump card for the former ruling party to upstage MDC in the forthcoming elections after the expiry of the all-inclusive government.

Lands minister Herbert Murerwa said yesterday that he held meetings with controversial provincial governors of the ZANU PF origin and was told that there were no fresh farm invasions as expected.

It has now emerged that most opposition forces, white farmers and vocal elements in the era of the all-inclusive government are the prime targets of ZANU PF retribution.

Zimbabwe Telegraph has also heard that most white farmers are planning to vacate their farms once they harvest their crops in fear that Robert Mugabe’s dogs of terror might come after them as elections draw near.

ZANU PF is clandestinely issuing out land offer letters to the purpoted landless activists further fuelling confusion in the national healing process.

The 99-year leases are being issued with the reported approval by President Mugabe despite his denial.

According to impeccable confirmations the letters will be used by the activists to argue their case they were offered the land and they will have the platform to fight out the occupants, even if it means killing them.

The killing will again be used to smear campaign MDC as a violent party.

Sekeramayi is also reportedly having secret meetings with CIO senior personnel advising them to offer valuable support to other arms of ZANU PF with the intention of upstaging MDC.

CIO has reportedly drawn up a hit list of MDC elements that it wants to "deal" with before elections in two years time.

Among them is prime minister Morgan Tsvangirai, Finance Minister Tendai Biti, co-Home Affairs Minister Giles Mutsekwa, Deputy Prime Minister Thokozani Khupe, among the others

Zimbabwe’s new power-sharing government isn’t ideal. Robert Mugabe remains president, despite losing last year’s election. His loyalists remain in charge of the army, the Justice Ministry and other key posts that allow them to arrest and intimidate opponents.

Yet respected and competent former opposition leaders now run important ministries like health, education and finance. These reformers ran on the promise of improving the lives of Zimbabwe’s long-suffering people.

The United States and Europe can help them deliver on those promises by providing increased financial resources. Zimbabwe’s own economy has been bled dry by decades of Mr. Mugabe’s disastrous policies, which have destroyed its currency, crippled its agriculture, mining and industry, and blighted millions of lives through preventable famine and epidemics.

Any new resources must be packaged in ways that ensure they are used for their intended purposes. And without continued sanctions targeted against Mr. Mugabe and his thuggish collaborators, even the limited progress so far achieved could easily be reversed. The challenge is to keep the pressure on the relatively few villains committed to keeping Mr. Mugabe in power, while providing some relief to the millions of victims of his catastrophic misrule.

To this end, the United States and the European Union have rightly restricted travel and frozen assets of Mr. Mugabe and his top collaborators. They have banned trade with businesses and banks used to finance the repressive apparatus. These targeted steps mainly discomfit a narrow, privileged elite.

Washington has also suspended direct development aid to Zimbabwe’s government but provides considerable humanitarian aid, channeled through private and international agencies, to pay for emergency shipments of food, medicine and clean water. Over the last 18 months, while Zimbabwe has been ravaged by a cholera epidemic, American aid has been more than $250 million.

That conduit should now be expanded to cover such life-sustaining items as seed, fertilizer and water and sewage systems to help Zimbabwe stand on its own feet.

At least for now, American aid should continue to be channeled indirectly, not to Zimbabwe’s government. But increased humanitarian aid could free up more of Zimbabwe’s own funds to pay living wages to teachers, doctors and other essential civil servants. If Zimbabwe’s government acts on that opportunity, it might then be time to reopen discussion on resuming direct aid.