WARNING: This is Version 1 of my old archive, so Photos will NOT work and many links will NOT work. But you can find articles by searching on the Titles. There is a lot of information in this archive. Use the SEARCH BAR at the top right. Prior to December 2012; I was a pro-Christian type of Conservative. I was unaware of the mass of Jewish lies in history, especially the lies regarding WW2 and Hitler. So in here you will find pro-Jewish and pro-Israel material. I was definitely WRONG about the Boeremag and Janusz Walus. They were for real.
Original Post Date: 2008-04-27 Time: 00:00:00 Posted By: Jan
[This is most amazing indeed, and I can’t help wondering how hard the Western Globalists and Liberals have gone to work on the SADC nations? That Mozambique did not want to the ship to dock was quite surprising. But utterly surprising was how Angola changed.
Of course I am still concerned that they’re not saying one thing but doing another. The USA has been heavily engaged in Angola with its oil. Perhaps the deal-making there between the communists there and the USA is going too well.
It could easily be that the old Liberation movements of Mozambique and Angola are dying for Western investment, and so their own economic hell has dampened their support even for their greatest ally.
Methinks some serious Western horse-trading, pressure, carrots-and-sticks are being used behind the scenes. The Western world has been heavily involved in Zimbabwe in the last few weeks playing a diplomatic game.
It could be that the Blacks were keen to support Mugabe as long as it was all done hush-hush… They were happy to let Mugabe murder people behind the scenes but they feel to nakedly ashamed of this when it is paraded before the whole planet. Mugabe on the other hand is an unashamed Marxist piece of trash who will kill people in broad daylight and think nothing of it.
It could also be that Mugabe’s allies do not want to be caught in the bright glare of the spotlight.
I am still somewhat suspicious of Angola and my biggest suspicions relate to South Africa itself. I will only accept that this is all over when Morgan Tsvangirai is inaugurated as the President of Zimbabwe. I have to see Mugabe stepping down.
Kevin Woods in his last email to me was very convinced that Zimbabwe is now under military rule and that a secret coup has taken place. If that is so, then a real battle still awaits for Mugabe’s die-hard-supporters.
There is something else that interests me. I almost get the sense that something is very wrong inside Mugabe’s structures – as if perhaps there is some kind of defection already.
The situation will have to be watched. I will only say this is over, once the MDC has actually taken over and Tsvangirai has occupied the official residence and Mugabe has vacated it.
The ANC scum continue to concern me. On the one hand they seem desperate to try to hold this economy together using strings, selo-tape and various magic. So are they willing to do more to bolster Zim? They are such lying scoundrels, that I wouldn’t be surprised if they tried to slip Mugabe some guns. I also remain concerned that Mugabe may get SECRET WEAPONS SHIPMENTS from some of his other low-life friends in the rest of the world. Jan]
By Martin Rupiya
The Southern African Development Community (SADC) has always couched the political crisis in Zimbabwe as a conflict between pan-Africanism on the one side and colonialism, neocolonialism and racism on the other, and so has given President Robert Mugabe its uninterrupted support since 2000 – at least, as far as outsiders could see.
The region perceived the crisis as the result of former imperialists ganging up on Mugabe and his Zanu-PF party for daring to take back land and other assets, mainly from white farmers, and commercial and business interests.
In this scenario, the internal political opposition was cast as proxies and fifth columnists of the departing imperialists.
However, the poll on March 29 appears to have changed this discourse.
In an unprecedented result, not predicted by most analysts, the ruling party was removed from control of the national assembly, placed equal in the senate and Mugabe – according to the empirically calculated figure of the independent Zimbabwe Election Support Network – lost to the opposition candidate.
It now looks as though this electoral result has become a tipping point for SADC leaders, nudging them to align themselves more with the popular sentiment of the ordinary Zimbabwean, as revealed by the poll result. It is a position that has also drawn strong international support from the African Union and Ban Ki-Moon, the United Nations secretary-general.
Soon after the poll result, the defeated government busily embarked on a strategy to nullify it, including ordering the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) to refuse to release the results and the arbitrary arrest of electoral officials.
Many of them have since appeared before the courts but have been released for lack of evidence.
This was followed by the electoral commission being instructed to begin reversing the national assembly majority of the opposition by recounting the ballots in 23 of the constituencies, well after the constitutionally provided 48 hours.
Parallel to this process, security-sector organs have been put in command of the militia, the so-called war veterans and party activists to unleash violence, intimidation and repression on the hapless electorate perceived to have voted for the opposition.
The fact that the real poll results are widely known, and the fact of Mugabe’s barely concealed use of repressive state machinery to try to thwart the democratic will of his own people, have begun to turn the tide of opinion against him among the democrats in the region.
This has put pressure on the SADC leadership.
But what evidence is there that the balance of opinion in SADC governments has really begun to tip away from Mugabe and Zanu-PF?
The first sign of a shift is the difference in interpreting the events. This has been particularly true of a new regional leadership that is not beholden to the liberation myths of the region.
Examples include Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa who, even before this election went public, likened the Zimbabwe crisis to the sinking Titanic.
Though this was later played down, the tone had been set for further differences in interpreting developments.
The second example has been the readiness to welcome Zimbabwe’s opposition Movement for Democratic Change and listen to its side of the story, even within an extraordinary meeting of the SADC and by the leaders of Botswana, Zambia, South Africa and Mozambique.
Hitherto, the MDC had been viewed as sell-outs and the unashamed representatives of the West, and any government seen to be supporting them was lumped in the same basket.
Now, as Mugabe’s propaganda begins to wear thin, the new democrats in the SADC leadership have been emboldened and have begun to wrest power from the old boys’ club that SADC used to be.
Third, the arrival of arms and ammunition in Durban aboard the Chinese vessel the An Yue Jiang gave substantial impetus to this paradigm shift by SADC leaders, aligning them with the feeling that most ordinary people in the region have had for years.
The Transport Federation Union concluded that if these arms were to reach the regime in Harare they were likely to be used against the ordinary people. So the dockers refused to unload the 77 tons of cargo, comprising 3 million rounds of AK-47 ammunition, 1 500 rockets and 3 000 mortar shells, on moral grounds.
Soon afterwards, church groups sought court orders to seize and detain the shipment, forcing the ship to leave Durban harbour.
While the Chinese sought permission to dock elsewhere – in Mozambique, Tanzania, Namibia or Angola – the outcry concerning the issue reverberated around the world and focused attention on the SADC and its leaders
As if on cue, Mwanawasa, who is also the SADC chairperson, provided the region with leadership on how to proceed: he came out strongly against the shipment, arguing that the delivery of arms to Zimbabwe would exacerbate the volatile situation. He called for SADC countries to refuse to handle the cargo.
Incredibly, the call was heeded and all the maritime SADC governments refused to receive the ship – except South Africa, which simply stood behind the action of its more active civil society organisations and the trade unions.
The power exerted by the organised workers of South Africa is considerable, connecting directly to the beleaguered Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions and to other workers’ organisations in Southern Africa, whose combined voices proved it could not be ignored.
Finally, the sentiment expressed by the SADC also finds resonance with the position taken by the post-Polokwane leadership of the ANC, led by Jacob Zuma.
With all these forces now converging, the shift that we have witnessed in the SADC is likely to accelerate.
What are the implications?
So far, the SADC’s hands-off attitude has tended to prolong the crisis. Perhaps it will now take a more balanced position, call a spade a spade and find credible and workable solutions that will be acceptable to all sides.
The support of the region has always been crucial to a lasting solution.
As Zanu-PF continues its systematic dismantling of the will of the people, as expressed on March 29, that support is more vital than ever.