Sydney Morning Herald
By Connie Levett
August 1, 2008

ZIMBABWE’S leader, Robert Mugabe, is under pressure to resolve the country’s political deadlock because hyperinflation threatens his ability to pay his key backers, the police and the army, say his opponents.

Power-sharing talks are to resume on Sunday, the South African President, Thabo Mbeki, said after flying to Harare to meet Mr Mugabe amid reports that the talks are at a standstill. Mr Mbeki is mediating the talks.

The opposition Movement for Democratic Change says Mr Mugabe is on a much tighter timetable than it to find a resolution because of the economic freefall.

Today, with annual inflation officially at 2.2 million per cent, Zimbabwe’s Reserve Bank will introduce a currency that wipes 10 zeros off the previous notes – $Z10 billion will be worth $Z1 in the new currency. But as the regime has done nothing to improve economic fundamentals, the inflation will continue.

“We would like to see the speedy conclusion of the talks … and a successful outcome so that we can focus in the future our attention around our economy,” Mr Mugabe said this week in Harare. He voiced his “total commitment” to a successful conclusion to the negotiations in South Africa between his ZANU-PF party and the two factions of the MDC.

David Coltart, a senator-elect for the smaller MDC faction, said the speed of the talks was being driven by what was happening in the economy. “I think Mugabe understands he has no solution to hyperinflation and the looming problem of him not being able to pay the military and police has put enormous pressure on him to reach a settlement,” Mr Coltart said in Sydney yesterday.

The new currency was Mr Mugabe’s last throw of the dice. “We had been told they had new currency printed, that it was done in the hope they could tackle inflation and then introduce the new currency,” he said. “But they have had to do it without tackling hyperinflation to buy themselves some time.”

The regime’s hand was forced last month when its German banknote paper supplier refused to supply any more paper.

“The pressure is off us, we have more time, it gives us considerable leverage,” Mr Coltart said, “though of course, we can’t adopt a callous stance – the people are suffering.”

The Standard
Opinion by David Coltart
28 July 2008

WHILST the MOU will undoubtedly be a positive step forward towards a negotiated settlement in Zimbabwe, many pitfalls still lie ahead and we will need Mandela-like wisdom to negotiate them.

A few weeks ago in London Nelson Mandela commented on the Zimbabwean crisis using four words which are profoundly significant as we move towards a negotiated settlement. He said that the Zimbabwean crisis was, and I quote, a “tragic failure of leadership”. At that time many took his comments as an attack on Robert Mugabe alone. However I do not believe that his comments were directed solely at Robert Mugabe. I believe that he was referring to a collective failure of leadership in Zimbabwe not just this year but over a protracted period.

It is just over 50 years since Garfield Todd’s tenure as Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia ended on the 17th of February 1958. In his farewell statement Todd said “we must make it possible for every individual to lead the good life, to win a place in the sun. We are in danger of becoming a race of fear ridden neurotics — we who live in the finest country on earth”. Those wise words have been disregarded by a succession of political leaders in Zimbabwe for the last 50 years. Zimbabwe has been blighted during the last 50 years by political leaders of all races and of all ideologies who have been guilty of the following errors of judgment:

Since the early 1960s Zimbabwean political parties have generally been led by men who believe that physical force is more important than moral force. The 1961 Constitution would have led to a gradual and orderly transition from white minority rule to majority rule but it was derailed by both black and white politicians who did not believe in compromise and who preferred to place their faith in the use of force and violence either to retain power or to acquire it.

The politics of the 1960s and 1970s were marked by a shocking lack of commitment by most political leaders to seek non-violent means of resolving the then political crisis. Since 1980 we have been led by a regime that has a deep-rooted belief in and commitment to the use of violence to achieve political objectives. Tragically as so often happens under tyrannical regimes, those who oppose tyranny sometimes get poisoned by tyranny and themselves replicate or mirror the methods used by the very tyrannical regimes they oppose. Zimbabwe has been no exception and I have no doubt that the struggle for freedom has been compromised periodically when we in the opposition have lapsed into the thinking that our problems may be resolved through the use of physical force and violence.

I was horrified to read recently statements made by a few senior opposition leaders which betray this thinking. One threatened a “shooting war” and went on to say that the MDC should not be blamed “when we start.” Another wrote that an option was to “pick up arms of war” and drive Mugabe out. Whilst I fully understand the deep sense of frustration which leads to statements like this being made, these utterances are irresponsible. War, or the threat of war, should never be part of our lexicon, especially during any negotiation process. That is the language we expect to hear from Mugabe — it should never come from a democrat at this juncture of our history.

All democratic political leaders must consider the legacy of the last 50 years of violence in Zimbabwe. We need to all understand that it is this continual reversion to violence which has brought our great nation to the sorry state is in today. Unless all political leaders unequivocally revoke the use or threat of violence there will never be a meaningful negotiated settlement in Zimbabwe.

And it is simply no excuse for opposition leaders to threaten the use of violence or war in response to the shocking brutality exercised by this regime against the Zimbabwean people. All those threats will do is perpetuate the horrifying cycle of violence this country has experienced in the last 50 years. In short war or the threat of war is simply not an option. If the talks, which are about to commence, are to succeed that threat should never be used by anyone, certainly not by the democrats.
Accordingly if we are to negotiate a settlement there must be a profound commitment to refrain from the violence of the fist, tongue and heart by the opposition, irrespective of what Zanu PF leaders have done or are planning to do. We must recognise that we occupy the high ground morally as we enter this process and we must not lose that position by making foolhardy threats at this critical juncture.

2. They are concentrated on either the retention or acquisition of power rather than the national interest I question what has happened to all our patriots? It seems to me that our nation has been blighted by a succession of leaders who are more concerned with their personal interests or the narrow interests of their own political parties and supporters then they are in the great nation state of Zimbabwe. This should be a great nation; it is richly endowed with bright articulate hard-working people; with rich natural resources; with the best climate in the world; it is a country of stunning natural beauty. As Garfield Todd said over 50 years ago it is indeed the finest country on earth. How can it then be that the finest country on earth is the location of one of the world’s worst nightmares? I believe that is primarily because our political leadership has for decades put selfish personal interests ahead of the national interest.

One of the reasons the Lancaster house talks did not provide a long-term resolution to Zimbabwe’s problems is because white rights were put before the entrenchment of universally recognised human rights. Instead of ensuring that the new Zimbabwean Constitution deeply rooted democratic principles there was a concentration on protecting white interests. In contrast both FW De Klerk and Roelff Meyer in the South African negotiations recognised that it was more important to entrench democracy for all than it was to seek to protect white privilege.

Likewise the reason the December 22, 1987 Unity Accord has come unstuck is because it accommodated the interests of the political leadership of Zanu PF and PF Zapu rather than the general interests of the Zimbabwean people. One of the reasons there is such antipathy in Zimbabwe today regarding a government of national unity is because of the 1987 Unity Accord. The Unity Accord is viewed by most people, certainly in Matabeleland, as a settlement which benefited a few leaders and did not entrench democracy and so lay the foundation for meaningful economic development which would benefit all Zimbabweans.

Sadly that attitude continues to this day and applies to both Zanu PF and the MDC. I fear that the current negotiations may focus on who gets what instead of what structural reforms are needed to put Zimbabwe back on the road to recovery. If the negotiations focus on how much power is either retained by Zanu PF or acquired by the MDC rather than the policy reforms needed then any settlement that arises from the negotiations will not be wholeheartedly embraced by the Zimbabwean people.

To this extent who leads the country and who is in any Cabinet is irrelevant. Let me be quite clear what I mean. Obviously the democratic will of the people of Zimbabwe as reflected in the 29 March 2008 elections must be respected. However the problems Zimbabwe face are so severe and intractable that we cannot allow petty bickering about who gets what to derail the negotiations. All national leaders must recommit themselves to the national interest and be prepared to subordinate their personal goals and ambitions to what is in the best interests of Zimbabwe. This means that in the interests of compromise there may have to be some power-sharing mechanism during a transitional period.

In this regard let me briefly respond to the statement issued by the civil society organisations on 17 July 2007 in which they call upon a transitional government to have “leadership by a neutral body” and a transitional government “headed by an individual who is not a member of Zanu PF or MDC”. Once again whilst I appreciate the sentiment which lies behind the statement one cannot just disregard the wishes of the Zimbabwean people as expressed on 29 March. Our society remains deeply polarised and we cannot ignore the fact that leaders on both sides of the political divide enjoy the passionate support of their respective supporters. They have been given a mandate by their supporters and that mandate must be respected in the negotiation process. However it is because of that deep polarisation that I believe we will have to consider some interim power sharing mechanism. And it goes without saying that power-sharing involves compromise on both sides.

But the tragic consequences are not solely confined to economic collapse. Almost of greater concern to me is the collapse of the moral fabric of our society. We need to consider the effect of 50 years of violence on our national character. In this regard and I am not only speaking about the victims of violence but also about the perpetrators. In the last few weeks I have seen horrifying injuries inflicted on Zimbabweans by young men. Doctors say that some of these injuries are so severe that they would never occur, for example, in a traffic accident. Bones had been broken repeatedly by young men acting on the instructions of their political leaders. I have no doubt that they will be haunted by what they have done in the years that lie ahead. Scientific studies show that those who inflict violence on political opponents often go on to inflict violence on those they love including spouses and children. It is also a fact that we now have a deeply ingrained culture of violence. If negotiations are to succeed then not only must this violence stop immediately but other measures must be taken to ensure that violence does not derail either the talks or the transition.

In these circumstances the demand by the MDC that all violence should stop, that political detainees should be released and that is NGOs be allowed to distribute food are reasonable. However I would qualify these demands by recognising that even if Zanu PF gives undertakings it will be difficult to verify the compliance of those undertakings in the short term and to change the mind set of a generation of youth militia overnight. I believe that SADC has a key role to play in this regard. I think the state should immediately deploy civilian monitors to report back to the facilitators regarding whether militia camps have been removed, whether NGOs are able to function and other legitimate issues of concern have been addressed. I think that if such a commitment is given by SADC then negotiations should commence without further ado. But we must recognise that unless there are neutral SADC monitors deployed in the country eruptions of violence are more likely to occur and these may have the effect of disrupting the talks.

It follows as well that a crucial aspect of the talks must be how to tackle the culture of violence so that it does not derail any transitional period agreed to in the talks. Suffice it to say that we must not underestimate how serious this problem is and our need for an ongoing presence of SADC monitors even during the transitional period.

For the reasons I have outlined above a government of national unity will be viewed with extreme scepticism by most Zimbabweans. The fear of Zimbabweans is that the government of national unity will draw in unscrupulous political leaders who then become part of a corrupt system. The fear is that those leaders are then compromised and that they will fail to deal with the fundamental problems facing Zimbabwe.

It is for this reason that a transitional authority should be agreed to and I would like to discuss a few aspects of this authority. Before I do so let me respond to those who may say that there is no difference between a GNU and a Transitional Authority. Some argue that this is just about semantics. I disagree – the difference is all about emphasis. A GNU focuses on “unity”; substance is secondary and the notion of a transition to something different is completely subordinate to unity. A Transitional Authority focuses on “transition”. There can, and must of course, be unity in transition but the emphasis is on a transition to something new, not just a changing of the guard at the top.

My own belief is that any transitional authority emerging from the talks should generally respect the will of the people as expressed on 29 March 2008. As stated above because our nation is so deeply polarised there will have to be a power-sharing arrangement during the transition including all the political parties given a mandate by the electorate in March. However during the transition civil society will have to play a major role in certain aspects of the transitional authority’s mandate, especially regarding the process which should culminate in a new democratic constitution.

Any transitional authority agreed to should have a finite mandate. It must be made clear that the authority will not have a mandate to govern indefinitely. In addition the duration of the authority should be as short as possible; and it should be understood that it is to govern in the short term – I would hope for no longer than 18 months to two years.
It seems to me that there are four critical areas that need to be addressed by a transitional authority.

The transitional authority should be mandated to stabilise the economy, to seek balance of payments support, to tackle inflation by engaging institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF. It will need to draw on technical expertise from qualified Zimbabweans and others who can introduce the necessary economic policies to stop Zimbabwe’s economic freefall.
Zimbabwe is arguably suffering the world’s greatest humanitarian crisis at present. The country faces a severe food shortage; our hospitals are devoid of qualified personnel and medication. An absolute priority of the transitional authority should be to engage the international community to ensure the importation of the necessary food and drugs and introduction of policies which will attract qualified personnel to return to Zimbabwe to address the food and health crisis.

At the root of the political, economic and humanitarian crises is our deeply flawed Constitution. The transitional authority should immediately engage all Zimbabwean political parties, civic organisations that trade union movements, churches and other interested organisations to recommence the constitutional debate and to agree on an all-inclusive process which will culminate in a new constitution.

Once the economy has been stabilised, the humanitarian crisis addressed and a new constitution enacted the transitional authority should hand over to a genuinely, and objectively verifiable, Independent Electoral Commission which will then conduct and genuinely free and fair elections supervised by SADC and the AU.

Zimbabwe has reached a political stalemate. There is no way out for Zanu PF. Its nemesis is now the economy. It has no solution to hyperinflation. It knows that in the coming weeks and months it will not even be able to feed key elements of its support base. To that extent it has no choice but to negotiate. Likewise the combined MDC in respecting its moral and practical commitment to a non-violent solution to the Zimbabwean crisis must recognise that it to too has no choice but to negotiate, no matter how unpalatable that may be in certain respects.

Despite our fears and reservations we must see this as a unique opportunity to negotiate a peaceful settlement for our nation. Our country is in great peril today. We can either allow it to continue down its present slide to destruction and oblivion or we can all work together to seize this opportunity to lay the foundations for a great nation. I reiterate again the words of Garfield Todd made over 50 years ago – this is indeed the finest country on earth. It is missing one key ingredient at present – democracy. When that ingredient is rooted I have no doubt that the Zimbabwe will yet become the jewel of Africa.

*David Coltart is Senator-elect for Khumalo Constituency. This is an abridged version of a Speech given to Bulawayo Agenda meeting on Friday July 18, 2008.

COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
25 JUly 2008

• A selection of op-eds and editorials from the U.S. and around the world. Sign up for the email alert or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Obama In Berlin, U.S. Mideast Policy, and Zimbabwe’s National Unity
July 25, 2008

Australian
o National Unity: David Coltart of the opposition MDC in Zimbabwe writes that there should be no consideration of a permanent government of national unity in the country, with Robert Mugabe retaining the presidency indefinitely.

Business Daily (Kenya)
o Dead Doha: In an editorial, the paper considers the importance of the WTO talks in Geneva for the developing world, and says Doha may as well be dead; but developing nations should argue their case strongly at WTO, it says.

Business Day (South Africa)
o Unfair: Brenda Wardle, a legal consultant in Johannesburg, writes on why she believes the president of the ANC, Jacob Zuma, who faces charges of corruption, cannot get a fair trial.

Christian Science Monitor
o Pick Hillary: Madeleine Kunin, a former governor of Vermont, believes Hillary Clinton may be Barack Obama’s wisest choice as a vice-presidential running mate.

Daily Star (Lebanon)
o Welcome Changes: In an editorial, the paper notes changes in American foreign policy recently and says they are both welcome and overdue.

Daily Telegraph
o Swooning Europe: Toby Harnden, the paper’s U.S. editor, writes of Barack Obama’s speech in Berlin on Thursday that while his soaring rhetoric may inspire swoons in Europe, American swing states voters might be a tad more sceptical.

Economist
o Unhappy America: In an editorial, the Economist says nations, like people, occasionally get the blues; and right now the United States, normally the world’s most self-confident place, is glum.

o Troubled Region: In a further editorial, on American policy in the Middle East, the paper detects a change of course by President Bush and says he may bequeath a decent American policy for this troubled region.

o Force For Good: Also in an editorial, the paper says the arrest of Radovan Karadzic shows how much good the EU can do if it stays open to new members.

o Time To Go: The Economist also says, in an editorial, that Morgan Tsvangirai is right to be holding talks with Robert Mugabe – about the dictator’s exit.

Financial Times
o Raise Rates: In an editorial, the paper notes the rising inflation in East Asian economies and says the treatment is clear. Interest rates across Asia must start to rise, it says.

o Fannie Risk: Nobel Prize laureate Joseph Stiglitz writes that the proposed bail-out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac entails the socialisation of risk from an administration supposedly committed to free-market principles.

o China Trade: Jack Ma of Alibaba Group writes that embracing freer trade – with China as an engine of global economic growth – is the best chance to jump-start economies and provide job opportunities in both developed and developing nations.

Guardian
o Different Reaction: Columnist Jonathan Steele contrasts what he calls the raving crowds that greeted Barack Obama in Berlin with the apprehension with which he is met in Israel.

o China’s Games: Columnist Simon Jenkins writes, as the Olympic Games approach, that the only vindication of giving the games to China will be if its rulers are taken to task. To date, he says, they’ve had it all their way.

Hindu
o Nepal Stability: The paper writes, in an editorial, of its disappointment at the way the Maoist candidate for president in Nepal was thwarted, and says this is likely to have serious consequences for the political stability of the young republic.

Independent (UK)
o Scramble For Oil: In an editorial, the paper says the news that the Arctic may contain about one-sixth of the world’s undiscovered oil is bound, at a time of high oil prices, to accelerate what could well be the world’s last great colonial scramble.

International Herald Tribune
o Ballot Problems: In an editorial, the paper says that despite the difficulties with ballots in Florida in the election of 2000 there is still a problem with badly-designed ballots which is likely to be particularly acute this fall.

o True Culprits: Henry Lee of the Harvard Kennedy School writes thatthe true culprits of high oil prices are unsustainable rates of consumption growth and a world oil supply that is unlikely to meet forecasted consumption levels.

Jerusalem Post
o Troubling: In an editorial on an interview the paper conducted with Barack Obama while he was in Israel this week, the Post says the candidate’s apparent sanguinity over an Israel shrunk into the 1949 Armistice Lines is troubling.
Jordan Times
o No Risks: Columnist George Hishmeh writes that Barack Obama is unlikely to take any risks and deviate much from his declared positions on most of the key foreign policy issues, especially the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and certainly not this early in the presidential race.

Mail and Guardian (South Africa)
o Zim Talks: In an editorial on talks between Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai in Zimbabwe, the paper says power-sharing on its own will solve nothing — the first step must be to strip Mr Mugabe and his securocrats of executive power and place management of the economy in different hands.

New York Times
o Wounded Soldiers: In an editorial, the paper says after a flurry of apologies and investigations, the U.S. Army resolved to improve treatment of wounded soldiers. But, the paper contends,things are not getting better.

o Trade Obstacles: In a further editorial, on the WTO talks taking place in Geneva, the paper says the world’s leading trading nations seem ready to abandon the World Trade Organization’s seven-year effort to reduce some of the world’s obstacles to trade.
o Obama’s Rhetoric: Op-ed Columnist David Brooks writes of Barack Obama’s speech in Berlin that the golden rhetoric impresses less, the evasion of hard choices strikes one more.

Times of London
o Alternative Lifestyle: Igor Toronyi-Lalic writes that we shouldn’t be surprised by Radovan Karadzic’s double life as an alternative medicine guru.
o Admiring America: In an editorial, the Times is encouraged by the reaction to Barack Obama in Berlin, noting that Europeans are recovering their admiration for America.

Wall Street Journal
o Barack In Berlin: In an editorial, the paper says Barack Obama’s insistence in his Berlin speech on the importance of defeating terror squares oddly with a political campaign whose central premise is that losing in Iraq is a matter of little consequence to U.S. or European interests.
o Wobbly Germans: Matthew Kaminski, a member of the Journal’s editorial board, describes Germany’s foreign policy as inconsistent and confused and says any American president who seeks to build on the recent progress in forging a new partnership with Europe will have to contend with a wobbly Germany.
o Fannie Scandal: Dick Armey, a former House majority leader, describes the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac bailout as a scandal.
o No Action: In an editorial in the paper’s Asia edition, the Journal criticises ASEAN’s lack of action on Myanmar.

Washington Post
o Lucky Obama: Op-ed Columnist Eugene Robinson notes the role of luck in the election campaign, saying that while the fates had conspired to give Barack Obama a dream photo-op in Berlin, John McCain appears jinxed.
o Iraq Primary: Op-ed Columnist Charles Krauthammer jokes that in a stunning upset this week Barack Obama won the Iraq primary, when the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri Al-Maliki expressed support for his troop withdrawal timetable.
o Political Honor: CFR Senior Fellow Michael Gerson writes about a new biography of the anti-slavery campaigner, William Wilberforce, and says it shows that feats of honor are possible, even in a very political life.

Washington Times
o Anti-American: In an editorial, the paper says the ascension to power of new president, Dmitry Medvedev, in Russia has done little to reverse the anti-American course established by his predecessor and current Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

The Zimbabwe Independent
Opinion
By Constantine Chimakure
25 July 2008

TALKS to find a settlement to Zimbabwe’s decade-long crisis started in Pretoria this week with Zanu PF and the MDC still deeply divided over what the process should produce.

The negotiations followed Monday’s momentous occasion when President Robert Mugabe and leaders of the two MDC factions — Arthur Mutambara and Morgan Tsvangirai — signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) before mediator, South African President Thabo Mbeki.

The Tsvangirai-led MDC, the bigger of the two formations, is pushing for a transitional government (TG) headed by its president, while Mugabe’s Zanu PF insists on an inclusive government with the 84-year-old incumbent at the helm.

The African Union and United Nations have joined the consultative process, thus broadening it beyond Mbeki’s sole remit from Sadc.

Politicians and political analysts this week said what is desirable for Zimbabwe is a construction that is not blinded by the politics of the day, but rather the economics.

Zimbabwe-born South African businessman Mutumwa Mawere argued that the country was bleeding and the politics at play seems to focus on political matters to the exclusion of the fundamentals of the economic situation.

“Whether it will be a GNU or TG, the country needs a change of direction,” argued Mawere. “The policies have to change.”
He said the talks were likely to produce a GNU. “It seems that a GNU will be the preferred outcome. Both Zanu PF and MDC-Tsvangirai have largely the same number of parliamentary votes requiring a scheme of arrangement,” Mawere said. “This may take the form of a new interim constitution providing for the election of a prime minister by parliament. The prime minister will then come from the MDC factions. The president (Mugabe) will remain in situ presumably to ensure a stable transition.” He said the danger with this approach was that given the age of Mugabe, this may not work as it will favour the MDC in future elections.

“Zanu PF urgently needs a leadership renewal and I do not think this will materialise through a GNU,” Mawere argued. “Depending on the succession battle in Zanu PF, there may be strong forces that favour a transitional government that will still give Zanu PF a residual claim on power from the electorate. Either way, Zimbabwe is at the crossroads.”

A GNU is an arrangement that has often been used in post-conflict situations to provide transition from an autocratic to a democratic constitutional order.

The unity government is a construction that responds to a crisis that a purely electoral system cannot resolve. This type of government would not be unique to Zimbabwe. In South Africa it formed an integral part of the post-apartheid governing arrangement. Between April 1994 and February 1997 South Africa was governed under the terms of an Interim Constitution whose Clause 88 required that any party holding 20 or more seats in parliament could claim one or more cabinet positions and enter the government.

This arrangement was deemed necessary given the political, social and economic forces at play at the time. Sudan, Palestine, Lebanon and more recently Kenya have put in place similar governments.

A TG refers to an arrangement where none of the contesting parties elect to remain outside the state waiting for a new election.
This will call for a government comprising new faces who are not part of the contest. They will then form a government typically composed of technocrats under an agreed framework and timetable to elections. The contesting parties would then agree to contest in an election.

Last week, civil society in Zimbabwe met and agreed that the talks should yield a TG born out of consultation with all stakeholders. “We believe that a transitional government would provide an appropriate vehicle for ushering in democratic reform,” a statement from the society said. “The transitional authority would have a specific limited mandate to oversee the drafting of a new, democratic and people-driven constitution and the installation of a legitimate government.”

The civics said they rejected the suggestion of a power-sharing agreement that fails to address the inadequacy of the current constitutional regime. They demanded that the TG be headed by an individual who is not a member of Zanu PF or MDC.

But Mawere argued that the civil society had no role to play in the current talks saying the electorate had spoken on March 29.
“Three parties dominate the lower and upper house of parliament. They can change the constitution because their legitimacy comes from the people,” he said.

“The legitimacy of civil society is something that would require to be tested. Unfortunately, there is no reliable mechanism for authenticating non-state actors as many of them are motivated and driven by funders.” Mawere added that if the March 29 results reflected the will of the people of Zimbabwe then it “cannot be wrong and just to engage the leadership of the parties that came from a process that everyone has come to accept as a largely true barometer for the change” agenda.

David Coltart, the legal affairs secretary of the Mutambara-led MDC, said a GNU would be viewed with extreme scepticism by most Zimbabweans who fear that it would draw in unscrupulous political leaders.

“The fear is that those leaders are then compromised and that they will fail to deal with the fundamental problems facing Zimbabwe,” Coltart argued. “It is for this reason that a transitional authority should be agreed to.”

Coltart is of the view that civil society should play a crucial role in some aspects of the TG.

“During the transition, civil society will have to play a major role in certain aspects of the transitional authority’s mandate, especially regarding the process which should culminate in a new democratic constitution,” he suggested.

National Constitutional Assembly chairperson Lovemore Madhuku said the negotiations for a political settlement were illegitimate because they ignored key stakeholders.

“I think as civil society our reaction is very clear,” Madhuku said. “We believe that the approach taken by the political parties is illegitimate. It is illegitimate because they believe that as political parties on their own they have the responsibility to resolve the crisis and they are excluding the rest of society generally, and not just civil society.”

He said the MoU was simply for a power-sharing arrangement. “So if you just pick out the so-called agenda items you can be misled into believing that there is going to be a serious discussion of the issues there. There is no serious discussion,” he argued.
“You cannot say that you have a new government, which is what the subject matter is, and that the new government must look at the land question and the issue of sanctions.”

He said the land issue and sanctions were not related to the centre of the country’s problems — a governance crisis that must be resolved by Zimbabweans “agreeing to reform our political system, followed by free and fair elections and a legitimate government that has a clear mandate to govern”.

But in an open letter after signing the MoU, Tsvangirai said whatever decision the negotiations would produce, Zimbabweans must endorse it. “We must acknowledge that the outcome of these negotiations will not be acceptable until it has been endorsed by Zimbabwean civil society, the trade unions and the people themselves,” wrote Tsvangirai.

“We are not here to form an elitist pact, but rather to represent the hopes and aspirations of each citizen and every stakeholder. This is my commitment to our partners who have struggled with us for a more democratic form of government.”

The Independent
By Daniel Howden and Tom Armitage in Zurich
Thursday, 24 July 2008

The Mugabe regime’s final lifeline is a small Vienna-based software company that helps it to keep printing the money it relies on for its survival, The Independent can reveal.

Jura JSP, an Austro-Hungarian firm with just 50 employees, has been dealing with the pariah government in Harare, enabling it to keep ahead of its hyperinflation crisis. Officials at the company confirmed yesterday that it supplied the licences and software used to design and print the Zimbabwe dollar, but would review this position if required to do so by the EU.

Fresh EU sanctions announced yesterday do not cover all companies dealing with the Mugabe regime, but other firms named and shamed for profiting from the Zimbabwe crisis have cut all links. The software company enables the regime to print the money it uses to pay the army, police and security agents which keep Zanu PF in power. Without access to paper money, Mr Mugabe would face an immediate crisis.

Inflation is running at nearly three million per cent and the country issued a 100 billion dollar banknote this week, worth only about 7p. The economist say John Robertson said inflation was the greatest threat to the ruling party and the rate was likely to climb to 100 million per cent within the next month. “If the software is withdrawn there is no language to describe what would follow,” he said.

Paper is running out at the state-run mint Fidelity Printers and Refiners after the Bavarian company Giesecke and Devrient stopped deliveries last week following pressure from the German government. Now Austria and Hungary are expected to come under diplomatic pressure to follow Berlin’s lead.

After withstanding years of intense international criticism, targeted sanctions and domestic pressure, a move against the software supplier could be a decisive blow against Mr Mugabe, analysts said. And with crucial negotiations getting under way in South Africa today between the government and the opposition, the timing could be critical. David Coltart, an opposition senator, said: “If the company does stop supplying then that will show the regime that there is no place to hide and that the game is up… That may then even assist the negotiations.”

In Harare, supplies of paper money are already running out. The embattled Central Reserve Bank has capped daily withdrawals to 100 billion dollars per person, but this is barely enough to buy a bus ticket or a loaf of bread. Long queues appear from first light at banks throughout the country in a daily battle to survive.

The regime’s answer to economic meltdown – driven by its own looting of state and private assets – has been to print more and more worthless money, creating unprecedented hyperinflation and the prospect of trillion or quadrillion dollar notes in the coming months.

While Mr Mugabe and his circle of cronies have proven deaf to international calls to hold free and fair elections, his government continues to rely on its control of the central bank and the Fidelity money presses which until recently ran 24 hours a day to keep up with the crisis. Trades union leaders appealed to the government yesterday to lift the cap on withdrawals of Z$100bn, describing it as a “joke”. As recently as 2006 the central bank was still issuing a Z$50 note.

* A new list of Zimbabwean targets for sanctions, including asset freezes and travel bans, by the European Union includes the central bank governor, Gideon Gono, the attorney general Bharat Patel and the cricket chairman Peter Chingoka. Most of the 37 targets posted on the EU website are security officers, “directly involved in the terror campaign” waged around the disputed elections.

The Telegraph
By David Blair
23 July 2008

A Zimbabwean opposition leader, lauded for his brave struggle against Robert Mugabe, arrives in London on an official visit as the new prime minister.

Morgan Tsvangirai asks Britain to recognise his government and offer millions of pounds of aid. He urges the lifting of all sanctions and declares that Harare’s era of isolation is over. Mr Tsvangirai requests Gordon Brown’s help in releasing large sums from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

He returns to Harare and reports back to his boss – one Robert Mugabe. After they formed a “government of national unity”, Mr Mugabe stayed on as president and Mr Tsvangirai became his prime minister. Now Britain faces a cruel dilemma – recognise the government (led by Mr Mugabe) and pour aid into its coffers (controlled by Mr Mugabe), or face the blame for economic catastrophe.

At present, this scenario is pure imagination and fantasy. But events along these lines could unfold in the weeks ahead, confronting the Prime Minister and David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, with a conundrum. Would they recognise and fund a new Zimbabwean government that includes Mr Tsvangirai in a senior position, but keeps Mr Mugabe as president?

The talks which opened yesterday between the opposition and Mr Mugabe’s Zanu PF party could have this outcome. President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa is still mediating between the two sides, despite Britain’s efforts to sideline him. Senior British sources believe the talks will probably fail. If so, London will avoid its dilemma.

But what if they do sign a deal? Aside from total failure, there are two possible outcomes. The MDC wants a shortlived “transitional government” leading to fresh elections, which Mr Tsvangirai would almost certainly win.

Exactly what role Mr Mugabe would play in this interim administration is undefined. Mr Tsvangirai has resisted pressure to recognise Mr Mugabe as rightful president. At his insistence, the two leaders conducted their handshake inside the neutral venue of a Harare hotel, not in the presidential office in State House, where Mr Mugabe wanted it.

Also, their “memorandum of understanding” deliberately describes Mr Mugabe as “president and first secretary of Zanu PF”, not of Zimbabwe. Mr Tsvangirai’s allies robustly declare that he will not serve as the dictator’s subordinate in any coalition government. Instead, Mr Mugabe’s role in a temporary administration before new elections would be as titular, ceremonial president, with real executive power transferring to Mr Tsvangirai. If this takes place, few would complain.

David Coltart, an opposition senator and one of Zimbabwe’s wisest and most humane politicians, has publicly favoured this option. For it to happen, however, would require Mr Mugabe to transform overnight from power-hungry despot to benign elder statesman. Having waged a ruthless struggle to hold power, inflicting untold suffering on thousands, Mr Mugabe would have to surrender everything at the negotiating table.

Because 84-year-old leopards rarely change their spots, this seems unlikely. Instead, Mr Mugabe will obviously press for the second possible outcome: a “government of national unity”. This would leave Mr Mugabe in command as president, with Mr Tsvangirai as a prime minister, able to travel the world, securing aid and diplomatic recognition. London would be his first stop – and Mr Brown and Mr Miliband would face their dilemma.

There is a precedent for this. When President Mwai Kibaki of Kenya lost an election last December, he announced a fake result and stayed in power, triggering bloodshed that claimed 1,500 lives. The killing only ended when Kofi Annan, the former UN secretary general, oversaw the birth of a unity government.

Mr Kibaki stayed on as president, despite having lost the election. Raila Odinga, his leading opponent who actually won the poll, became prime minister. Kenya’s cabinet was doubled, so all the politicians who had lost the election could keep their jobs – and all the winners could have jobs, too. Most senior politicians in Kenya now enjoy ministerial office.

Britain endorsed this subversion of democracy and, astonishingly, senior officials cite Kenya as a recent success story. If the same unfolds in Zimbabwe, the Foreign Office will have no grounds for indignation. If prime minister Tsvangirai shows up at Downing Street, he will doubtless ask: “If this was good enough for Kenya, why not Zimbabwe too?”

The Washington Post
By Craig Timberg
Published: Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai agreed Monday to start urgent negotiations toward forming a new government, a first but very tentative step toward ending that nation’s political stalemate.

The deal signed on national television was vague, leaving aside nearly every key question about Zimbabwe’s future after nearly a decade of ruinous decline.

But it included clear language vowing an end to state-sponsored political violence, and set a deadline requiring that the talks conclude within two weeks.

The ceremony – which included a handshake between Mugabe and Tsvangirai, who had not met face-to-face since Tsvangirai founded the opposition Movement for Democratic Change in 1999 – generated a rare surge of optimism among Zimbabweans. What remains unclear is whether Mugabe and his ruling clique are prepared to negotiate away a significant share of power after 28 years of nearly total control.

Mugabe, looking drained and glum, described the deal as amounting to an agreement to amend Zimbabwe’s constitution and some of its laws.

“Our constitution as it is should be amended variously and in a number of ways,” he said.

The opposition offered a more expansive vision, portraying the agreement as the framework for negotiating a new government that will resolve Zimbabwe’s long-standing political and economic problems, including annual inflation rates that have run into the millions of percent.

“If we put our heads together, I’m sure we can find a solution. Not finding a solution is not an option,” Tsvangirai said.

The deal came together under heavy pressure from the African Union, the Southern African Development Community and its appointed mediator, South African President Thabo Mbeki, who flew to Harare, the capital of Zimbabwe, for the signing ceremony.

The negotiations are planned for Pretoria, the capital of South Africa.

Debate in recent days turned on whether the document would make explicit reference to a transitional authority or a government of national unity, according to two opposition officials familiar with the negotiations. The government, isolated and broke, was eager to re-establish its international legitimacy by signing some kind of deal with the opposition but rejected any references to a “transition” away from Mugabe’s rule.

The compromise signed Monday avoided the issue, saying only that the two sides agreed “to a dialogue with each other with a view to creating a genuine, viable, permanent and sustainable solution to the Zimbabwean situation.”

Negotiations are nothing new to this troubled southern African nation, once one of the continent’s most bountiful and prosperous. Months of talks followed the arrest and beating of Tsvangirai in March 2007, and those negotiations reached several important agreements while also bringing the two sides to the verge of implementing a new constitution.

But the March 29 election, in which Mugabe lost to Tsvangirai but by a margin that election officials said required a second round of voting, prompted the government to ignore its concessions as it battled to win the runoff. What followed was months of rising repression, in which Mugabe’s regime loosed militias led by army officers onto the opposition. More than 120 activists died in the resulting violence. Tsvangirai boycotted the second vote, on June 27, allowing Mugabe to win easily.

For some opposition activists, the pattern appeared to resemble Mugabe’s approach to an earlier challenger to power. A party led by nationalist leader Joshua Nkomo was all but destroyed by massacres in its stronghold, the southwestern Matabeleland region, in the mid-1980s, prompting it to merge with the ruling party in a desperate bid for peace in 1987. Nkomo became a vice president, and several of his deputies took positions in the new government, but power remained firmly in the hands of Mugabe and his security officials.

Tsvangirai’s party is attempting to avoid the same fate. Opposition officials say privately that they will agree to join the government only if some key levers of power – rather than just a few Cabinet posts – are transferred to their control.

They also won an important concession in having the role of Mbeki diminished. Opposition officials contended that he favored Mugabe. Though Mbeki was highly visible Monday, mediation will now be overseen by a group that includes Jean Ping, a top African Union official, and United Nations envoy, Haile Menkerios.

The talks also will include Arthur Mutambara, head of an opposition splinter faction based mainly in the Matabeleland region. Mutambara also signed the agreement Monday.

“This is the beginning of the end of Mugabe’s rule and influence,” said Dumisani Muleya, news editor of the Zimbabwe Independent. “The political and economic fundamentals dictate some transfer of the power.”

Yet Mugabe, 84, has long demonstrated formidable survival instincts, first in rising to the top of the 1970s guerrilla movement that forced the white-supremacist regime of Rhodesia from power and, more recently, in holding off repeated challenges to his authority – including from within his own party.

In each phase so far, he has outmaneuvered or simply outlasted rivals. Among the elements encouraging opposition leaders Monday was the two-week timeline for talks.

“There’s a real sense of urgency,” said opposition lawmaker David Coltart, who is part of the Mutambara faction of the opposition and is not allied with Tsvangirai. “It’s good. It’s positive, but there’s a long way to go.”