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: 2010-04-06 Time: 13:00:01 Posted By: News Poster
Harare – Zimbabwe’s frosty relationship with the West in the last decade has been characterised by continuous isolation or attempts to isolate Harare and frustrate the local people into submitting to the whims and wishes of the latter.
Whichever angle you look at the impasse, the truth remains that President Mugabe and his people are being punished for demanding control over natural resources of their birthright. All the other stories are smokescreens and whoever tries to avoid this truth must be living in Mars or some other planet.
Zimbabwe’s crime has been its drive to give the indigenous people their right place in the matrix of national development and ownership of resources.
In the view of the imperialist, Zimbabwe is setting a precedence and sending signals to other African countries that the resources that the West so mush desire, are in fact, not theirs but a birthright for Africans who should set trade terms not vise versa. This is what Zimbabwe epitomises.
Western behaviour has been anything from bullying to childish avoidance of the Southern African country at international forums in their desperate attempt to punish Zimbabwe and effectively deter similar thinking African countries from attempting land reform, and indigenisation of resources.
Last week, France and EU lived true to this billing by denying Justice, Legal Affairs Minister Patrick Chinamasa a Belgian visa. France is in charge of granting Belgian visas to Zimbabweans.
The French said Chinamasa was on a list of people barred from travelling to the EU.
Charge d’Affaires at the embassy, Mr Dietmar Peprausch said they had advised Minister Chinamasa to get his visa from South Africa.
“France represents Belgium for the granting of visas for Zimbabweans but as Mr Chinamasa is on the EU travel ban list, it is only Belgium itself which can decide whether it accepts the visa or not for the Minister.
“So we told him we could not deliver the visa — and not that we did not want to — and told him to apply directly to the Belgian Embassy in South Africa, which is competent.
“France is supporting the inclusive ministerial visit to Brussels to promote the EU-Zimbabwe political dialogue and will do all it can to facilitate this visit for the whole delegation,” he said.
On the other hand, EU has deferred the meeting scheduled for this week to April 21 though no reasons were given.
The resumption of dialogue will be in the context of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement, which lays out the parameters for engagement between the EU and the African, Caribbean and Pacific bloc.
The EU prematurely invoked Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement in 2002 to slap sanctions on Harare ahead of that year’s presidential elections.
Foreign Affairs Minister Simbarashe Mumbengegwi heads an inter-ministerial committee representing Zimbabwe at the talks.
Other members of the committee are ministers Chinamasa, Tendai Biti (Finance), Elton Mangoma (Economic Planning), Priscilla Misihairabwi-Mushonga (International Co-operation), and Welshman Ncube (Industry).
The recent move by France is not without precedent.
In June last year, Deputy Prime Minister Arthur Mutambara had to intervene at the last minute — at President Mugabe’s instruction — to get the British and French embassies to issues visas to members of the delegation.
After that, Chinamasa was delayed at Frankfurt International Airport for six hours by immigration authorities.
The current dialogue process started soon after the formation of the inclusive Government with a number of meetings being held between the inter-ministerial committee and EU ambassadors in Zimbabwe.
Little headway has been made mainly due to EU’s failure to fully embrace the inclusive Government as they continuously seek to isolate Zanu-PF.
This explains double standards France and the EU have when it comes to Zimbabwe, making it hard to believe that France supports the inclusive ministerial visit to Brussels.
Last year, French Foreign and European Affairs Minister Bernard Kouchner told Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai that his government supported Zimbabwe but wanted to see progress.
Since then, Zimbabwe has recorded considerable progress on political, economic and social fronts, yet the West, especially United States of America which sets the vibes for the rest of the West.
Zimbabwe has instituted key commissions on media, elections and human rights but the West does not see this progress until Zimbabweans seed their rights to ownership of their natural resources.
Considering that the isolation of Zanu-PF has been predicated on the so-called governance and human rights issues, the recent move betrays the dishonest side of France and company. It defines their blind loyalty to lies and imperialism. In fact, every African country worth its salt and every African leader worth his salt should emulate President Mugabe.
Not only have they stalled re-engagement talks, but they have also tried to undermine the Zimbabwean team.
In February, Zimbabwe wrote a letter to the European bloc requesting resumption of the dialogue after it had stagnated for months.
However, the EU did not respond to the request and instead slapped more sanctions President Mugabe and his party Zanu-PF for another year. The dialogue is to explore the lifting of the widely discredited embargo.
The sanctions were imposed in February 2002 on the instigation of Britain that had been upset by the land reform programme in Zimbabwe.
Zanu-PF spearheaded the historic programme that benefited hundreds of families previously condemned by British settlers to inhospitable and arid areas.
The sanctions, designed to hurt the economy and foment a humanitarian catastrophe, deny Zimbabwe trade opportunities with Europe, which had been traditional Zimbabwe’s biggest partner.
They are on individuals and companies perceived to be instrumental in keeping the country afloat.
The ploy to frustrate and intimidate Chinamasa, negotiator in the inter-party dialogue in Zimbabwe is a clear sign to emasculate the Zimbabwe delegation.
It is also surprising how the EU in its re-engagement talks with Zimbabwe would like to interface with “yes men” or those who would give them a strong challenge.
Whether this is pure dishonesty or cowardice, it would seem this has been a draw card by the West.
One of the preconditions the West has given for mending relations with Zimbabwe is the removal of President Mugabe and his replacement with somebody less vocal or principled.
This “anybody but Mugabe” view seems to have inspired the moribund project called Mavambo Kusile Dawn led by former Finance Minister Simba Makoni who vied for the presidency in the last elections.
This has even applied to President Mugabe abroad.
The West has always attempted to black him out whenever he takes to the podium at international forums.
One of these incidents is the 2009 Food Summit in Rome where some EU countries tried to block the invitation of President Mugabe on the basis that he would take the opportunity and speak about the ill-treatment of Zimbabwe.
On other occasions, some European leaders have childishly boycotted sessions addressed by the veteran Zimbabwean leader.
The uncultured nature of EU diplomacy, including the recent bullying of Chinamasa does little to dispel the notion that they can be trusted.
EU and France are simply not interested in playing fair ball, even by their own rules.
A 2007 study on the implementation of the Cotonou Agreement by the EU itself admitted that the bloc had slapped sanctions on Zimbabwe as a political tool to manipulate the outcome of the 2002 presidential elections and to punish Harare for embarking on the revolutionary land reform programme before options available under Article 8 had been exhausted.
The study, commissioned to evaluate the coherence, co-ordination and complementarity of Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement, acknowledges that the body precluded dialogue with the country in a rush to slap sanctions.
Article 96 outlines the procedures to be followed should a country be deemed to be in violation of certain governance, rule of law and human rights requirements as defined in Article 8.
EU did not engage Zimbabwe after which they could invoke article 96.
The Cotonou Agreement provides that ACP countries are engaged in dialogue for a maximum of 60 days over any contentious issues and are given a chance to respond to any allegations before a decision is made.
Appropriate measures could be taken if human rights, electoral policy and rule of law in the country did not improve.
“The explanation for the haste was the forthcoming elections. In other words, foreign policy goals were safeguarded and considered more important than the partnership principle in the Cotonou Agreement,” says the study.
The EU thus deliberately fouled its own procedures so that the sanctions regime could be mobilised in time to influence the elections.
Original Source: 
Published by the government of Zimbabwe
Original date published: 6 April 2010
Source: http://allafrica.com/stories/201004060019.html?viewall=1