Showing posts with label Top News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Top News. Show all posts

Society a two Edged Sword

Customs and values in our society are stronger than the law, stronger than religion and pave way for male domination over females.  Some things apply to men and if the same happens to be done by a woman there are all sorts of connotations attached to the very same activity.  We can argue the finer points about this issue and we may even get to a place where some people can believe that men and women are equal.  To the contrary, this is not true.  The only statement that rings true in our African society is the fact that “men are more equal than women”.  There is nothing more and nothing less to it.  We live in a patrilineal society, where a man can force his partner or spouse to have intercourse, and can never be charged for it.  This is unlike the newspaper headlines screaming “women rape man at gunpoint”.  A man can have multiple partners and it is called “barika” but a woman in the same position “ari kuhura”.  Double standards? Yes  and it does not end there.

Zuma's Three Wives

 I read a story once about a woman in a rural part of Zimbabwe who had multiple husbands and there was a great outcry from the village in which she lived.  Many people expressed “disgust” at her behaviour and her son is even said to have disowned his mother.  I found it very interesting that a whole village would make it their business to speak about this -her delicate situation.  At the same time the fact that this was an even newsworthy story speaks volumes of what our society thinks about women in polygamous relationships.  Apparently there is a term for this and it is called polyandry.  It goes without saying though that for many men, there is no excuse for having many women at his beck and call.  I have heard the statement a million times that no woman should ever think they are alone in a relationship.  Our society allows men to have multiple partners and its okay, women cannot do the same as it ultimately makes them a prostitute, and a horde of other names I can think of but will not dare to write in this forum.  We are ignorant to the fact that in some Tibetan societies, polyandry is common.  The widely marketed reason for this practice is the general belief that any child should be financially secure, and one father might not be able to provide for that particular child sufficiently. This therefore results in a woman carrying out multiple relationships openly so as to support her children.  Unfortunately for us, African women, particularly Zimbabwean women, we cannot have the best of many worlds.  We stick to one partner, sometimes not because that is what we want, or because there are sexually transmitted infections out there, but because society says so.

My mother often talks to me about the major differences between courting and dating. She has given me enough the lectures about staying “pure’ until I get married, and that I can achieve this by staying away from situations that can potentially lead me to temptation.  It is a fact that rings true lately that more and more, young girls are sexually active before they get married, in fact statistics show that at least 45% of girls between 12 and 18 are sexually active.  I am sure that many parents are actually unaware of this fact, unless something goes horribly wrong and their young wards get pregnant.  Why are parents unaware of their children’s extracurricular activities? It is because they do not talk to them, and they want to believe that all girls get married virgins.  Our society has many expectations of the female child and we often expect that to be the path that they follow.  Funny how after the wedding night, in some parts of our country people still expect that the bride’s sheets be paraded around the household so that they can establish that she was indeed pure. If we however take a good look at this practice, it might be no surprise that it is flawed and one sided- the bridegroom was probably responsible in his hey days, for deflowering many girls.  Who then gets to marry those ones? If society applauds the young man for exploring his sexual capabilities, while restricting the young woman, how do we expect things to really turn out? Is this not then the very reason why many marriages are founded on deception and lies? As women try to maintain a saintly appearance to her in-laws and the society at large?


I wonder if women have duty placards written on their foreheads.  She cooks, she cleans up after him, she does the laundry, she nurtures the children and sometimes she is responsible for all this after she has been through an eight hour working day.  It is nevertheless of note that women are still below her male counterpart in the workplace. The entry level is very different from the working conditions, despite the many calls for equality in business circles.  How can I, the single woman compete with my male colleague who can attend meetings after work with the company seniors, over drinks to discuss business, while I have to rush home and help my mother prepare the evening meal?   Most women in the work places can be admired, humoured and tolerated at most but usually never taken any more seriously, unless they fight for what they believe is rightfully theirs.  It also goes without saying that in most work places, women are victims of their own sexuality.  We can suffer sexual violence from our bosses and justice can be very hard to come by. There is no chance that the business sector is equally competitive for both men and women.  Men have an upper hand without doubt.  It is seen as their domain, while women are expected to perform miracles, mergers and decrease interest rates in the kitchen.

Bachelors are common place in our societies and yet bachelorettes are not very welcome.  Any young woman looking to living by herself, becoming independent, while waiting for Mr Right to come along is not taken seriously.  The common view is that she wants to exercise her freedom and start being naughty, hence the vehement discourage.  What then is the difference between a young man and a young woman who is growing up in the same society and probably got the same education?   Why does he seem to get ahead and while she struggles and lag behind?   The main reason why anyone would want to leave home is so they can grow up and be more responsible. Many a time we are very comfortable staying at home, that we come very dependent.  Harsh reality usually hits us when the parent dies, leaving us to fend for ourselves, the very reason why prostitution seems to be on the increase.  Economic freedom is something that everyone wants, but at times our people make it very difficult for a girl to attain it, while handing the keys on a silver platter to any young man.

I can spend the whole day, talking about how independent women are seen as controlling freaks who probably got some concoction from a witchdoctor to make their husbands submissive, how trousers are generally seen as disrespectful when worn by a woman.  If one then chooses to wear a skirt that shows her figure, it is seen as an invitation to be raped or harassed by men.  We can even talk about the idea that women seen in night spots and pubs are all prostitutes that should not be taken seriously, unlike the fact that most of them are just a bunch of people out having a bit of harmless fun.  So there we have it. Society is just but a two edged sword, encouraging men to do as they please while condemning women to silence and misery!







I am an administrator by profession.  I have a first Degree in Political Science, and I started the first year of my Masters  in International Relations but i am yet to finish it. I am a sports woman, and have participated in Rugby and Basketball at National level. I did my primary school in Mutare, Chancellor Junior and high School in Domboshava, at a Catholic mission.  I am passionate about women issues.



I would like to know your views and please do not hesitate to comment below your thoughts, suggestions and views.


CategoryLatest , living , Tafadzwa Bvindi , Top News

Zimbabwe Stock Exchange Goes Electronic

A company has been engaged to supervise the transition of the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange to electronic trading. A document on the change has been presented to Cabinet and issues around setting up a Central Securities Depository including the shareholding structure. According to a report in the Government’s Herald newspaper, Finance Minister Tendai Biti told a breakfast meeting organized by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Zimbabwe and the ZSE that the CSD could be in place by year-end.
The aim is to improve stakeholder relations and explore possibility for other capital or financial markets to be set up. Minister Biti said the CSD was a critical part of a modern capital market system as it reduced the payment cycle, enhanced transparency and helped monitor the shareholding thresholds of foreign investors participating on ZSE.
He said that the CSD would help prevent irregularities. Apparently the minister said that currently only about 20 investors accounted for most of the trading in the 79 listed counters. He claimed that the CSD will improve liquidity, promote market integrity and transparency while minimising market manipulation, fraud and financial crime.
According to a report in a South African newspaper called “Sunday Times Zimbabwe”, the Minister would also like to modernize the ZSE Act and the Securities Act and possibly introduce a “super regulator”, similar to the UK’s Financial Services Authority (in June 2010 the UK Government announced plans to abolish the FSA and split its functions). This report claims that 20 of the “shadowy players” were virtually controlled by the same individuals, and Renaissance Financial Holdings Limited was accused of wrongdoing because of insufficient measures to detect insider dealings.
According to the Herald, the Minister said: “The main issue being dealt with is the shareholding structure of this systematically important institution (CSD), which should reflect national ownership by both the public and private sector players.” He said that the National Social Security Authority, the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe or the ZSE would own at least 51% of the CSD company. Another significant shareholder will be Chengetedzai, a local private firm which is overseeing the establishment of the electronic trading system (the website http://chengetedzai.com/) appears to be just a title page.
The government seeks to demutualise the bourse, which it believes will enhance accountability and speed modernisation. Currently the bourse is still an association of stakeholders while demutualization would mean turning the exchange into a company driven by the profit motive or other goal. Minister Biti said demutualisation was critical to prevent cartels of members from dictating the affairs of the bourse, which created credibility crises and could put off investors. There has long been tension between the ZSE and the SEC over jurisdiction and self-regulation.
ZSE trading is done in daily “call-over” sessions when brokers gather around a table and bid against each other. However, trading is more active than on many more automated neighbouring exchanges.
According to the report, the Minister said: “When you go to the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange and see the way they trade it gives the impression that we are still stuck in 1950. It is as if someone pressed a pause button on the TV and everything stopped. We have to modernise and part of it is coming up with a CSD,” he said.
SECZ chairperson Mrs Willia Bonyongwe said the country wanted to set up more securities and capital markets and challenged innovative Zimbabweans to come forward with proposals. She suggested markets could assist in trading equities, bonds, quasi or hybrid financial instruments, asset securitisation and unitisation, hedging or risk commodity markets and private equity instruments, or even trade in agriculture and mining products. The ZSE is the only active capital market.
In early August the ZSE website (www.zse.co.zw) was hacked twice in early August and used phishing and has currently disappeared.

Details of Joyce Mujuru Secret Meeting with US Ambassador Charles Ray









             In an informal and introductory meeting, which circumvented Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) protocol, the Ambassador and Vice President Joice Mujuru discussed sanctions, the Global Political Agreement (GPA), and ZANU-PF.
Mujuru hewed to the party line on sanctions, claiming that sanctions on institutions were hurting ordinary Zimbabweans. The Ambassador responded that the U.S. was looking for progress on the GPA as a predicate to lifting these sanctions. On the GPA, Mujuru maintained that ZANU-PF had made significant concessions; the most critical outstanding issue was sanctions. Without separating herself from President Robert Mugabe, Mujuru said that new and younger leadership was entering ZANU-PF and the party would gradually evolve. The meeting was friendly and, at a minimum, opened up a channel of communication. END SUMMARY.
2. ZANU-PF government officials normally will not meet with us unless a request is sent out to the MFA. The MFA then schedules the meeting and sends a note taker. Through a Mujuru advisor, David Butau, we requested an informal meeting to better establish a relationship and facilitate an exchange of views. Three days after the conclusion of the ZANU-PF Congress, Mujuru agreed to a meeting, but it was only at the last minute that logistics were arranged. Mujuru, who is acting president while Mugabe is in Copenhagen for the United Nations Climate Change Conference, wanted to ensure that the meeting with the U.S. ambassador was private and undisclosed.
3. The meeting took place in an unoccupied house owned by Mujuru on the outskirts of Harare. The affluent and powerful are not immune from frequent Harare power cuts, and the neighborhood was dark. While the house had electricity, irregular power had shorted most of the lights. A Mujuru employee who led us through darkened grounds to an unfurnished living room (except for chairs and a plasma television) where Mujuru and Butau were waiting already. The Vice President had managed to shed all of her (presumably CIO-infiltrated) security. She herself poured tea. The meeting was friendly and respectful; at the end, Mujuru said she would like to meet again and continue the conversation.
4. Not surprisingly, Mujuru began the discussion with sanctions. She argued that while she and others were targets, they were not hurt. Rather, ordinary Zimbabweans were suffering because of sanctions on institutions such as ZB Bank and Agribank, which had historically provided loans to small businesspersons and farmers. Now, because of sanctions, they were illiquid and could not lend. The Ambassador acknowledged that sanctions were an emotional and pervasive issue. There might be willingness in Washington to look at non-personal sanctions, but this was not a one-sided process. With progress on GPA issues, the U.S. would consider responding. How did she see progress, the Ambassador asked?
5. Mujuru stated that the most critical GPA issue was Q5. Mujuru stated that the most critical GPA issue was sanctions. ZANU-PF thought that by signing the GPA and agreeing to a government with the MDC it had given more than the MDC. The MDC had made a number of unhelpful “pronouncements.” At various times, according to Mujuru, it had urged Zimbabwe’s neighbors to withhold electricity and fuel. It had asked western countries to maintain personal sanctions. ZANU-PF officials, according to Mujuru, were becoming “unsettled” and wanted to see MDC movement on sanctions. (COMMENT: The Ambassador noted that the MDC could not remove sanctions — this was up to western governments — and Mujuru did not dispute this. But she wanted the MDC to cease its “pronouncements.” We expect an announcement on December 21 by the GPA principals on GPA issues that have been resolved, probably commissions and the appointment of governors, and it would not be surprising for Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai at that time to suggest that at least some non-personal sanctions be removed.
6. Mujuru continued that there was a distinction between politics and government. While efforts were on going to resolve political differences, the government was making progress. A bill to limit the powers of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe’s governor was close to passage, and Zimbabwe had just signed a bilateral investment treaty with South Africa. She pleaded for U.S. help to restore Zimbabwe’s economy.
7. After commenting that the U.S. was providing substantial assistance (food and medical) to the people of Zimbabwe, the Ambassador replied that, sanctions or no sanctions, Zimbabwe could begin to regrow its economy. This would require restoring external and internal confidence — investors needed to know there was security of contracts and no excessive government interference in the economy. In other words, businesses would accept economic risk, but it was necessary to remove political risk.
8. Turning to politics, Mujuru said the ZANU-PF old guard was giving way to “young blood.” She noted that she (55 years old) and new Party Chair Simon Khaya Moyo (64 years old) are on the younger side and form one-half of the ZANU-PF presidium (along with Mugabe and new vice president John Nkomo). The presidium would be together for five years. Mujuru concluded, “Let’s work together.”
9. While Mujuru is inculcated with ZANU-PF ideology, evidenced by her views on sanctions, she and her husband, General Solomon Mujuru, are business people who understand that a friendlier and more stable business environment requires political change. She also would like better relations with the U.S., which she views as essential for Zimbabwe’s economic growth. This no doubt motivated her desire for a non-official meeting with the Ambassador immediately after the ZANU-PF Congress. The fact that she was impelled to have a clandestine meeting is reflective of the power of Mugabe and hard-liners and the fear they engender. It also shows the weakness of the party, in that it will not tolerate its second highest-ranking official having a private meeting with the U.S. ambassador. (Tsvangirai had no qualms about informally and openly meeting the Ambassador. Ref A.)
10. Because of her gender, Mujuru is an unlikely successor to Mugabe (Ref B). But she occupies a prominent position in ZANU-PF and will likely be part of the power structure after Mugabe. We know from other sources that she and her husband would like to see Mugabe move on. She was cautious in her first meeting with the Ambassador, but we will pursue the relationship both to gain insights into ZANU-PF and to encourage reform efforts. ENDS

Gideon Gono Confirms that Robert Mugabe has Prostate Cancer and has 2 years to live (wikileaks)


Robert Mugabe has prostate cancer and has been told by doctors that he could be dead by 2013, WikiLeaks documents have revealed.

Zimbabwe's 87-year-old president was apparently diagnosed with the condition several years ago and warned in 2008 that it could kill him within five years.
Details of his sickness were confirmed in secret U.S. diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks.

It provides the first confirmation that the end of Mugabe's rule could be in sight.
He was told to stand down amid concerns about his failing health, according to the cables. When his death comes, it is expected to cause a serious internal power struggle.
The documents show that America's former ambassador to Zimbabwe James McGee was informed of Mugabe's condition on June 4, 2008 during a private meeting with Gideon Gono, a close friend and governor of Zimbabwe's reserve bank.

In a cabled summary of the meeting, Mr McGee reported: 'Gideon Gono, governor of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, told the Ambassador on June 4 that President Robert Mugabe has prostate cancer that has metastasised and, according to doctors, will cause his death in three to five years.


    'According to Gono, Mugabe's doctor had recommended he cut back on his activities.
    '(NOTE: Gono told us last year that Mugabe was ill and that his doctor had urged him to step down immediately. Mugabe had told his doctor, according to Gono, that he would leave office after the election).'
    Confidant: Gideon Gono, Mugabe's close friend, apparently told the U.S. diplomat about Mugabe's diagnosis
    Confidant: Gideon Gono, Mugabe's close friend, apparently told the U.S. diplomat about Mugabe's diagnosis
    Mr McGee's cable was entitled 'Ambassador's meeting with Gideon Gono' and sent to Washington from Harare on June 6, a few weeks before 2008's contested Zimbabwe elections.
    In his note, the ambassador speculated that given Mugabe's rapidly faltering health, it was likely that even if the aging Zanu-PF leader won the upcoming poll that he would stand down by the end of the following year.
    He wrote: 'Given Mugabe's health, and the desire of many within Zanu-PF that he step down because of the state of the economy, it is likely the latest date Mugabe will stay in office, assuming he wins on June 27, is December 2009.
    'This is when Zanu-PF will hold its scheduled Congress to re-elect officers.
    'It is also quite possible that after a June win, Zanu-PF will begin the succession game resulting in a departure for Mugabe earlier than December 2009.'
    The diplomatic cable was marked 'confidential' but published online last week as part of Wikileaks's huge dump of unredacted notes.
    The dictator has appeared increasingly frail during recent years and was widely believed to have been suffering from cancer.
    This year alone he has made at least five trips to Singapore, where he is believed to be receiving treatment at a top private clinic.
    However those around the leader have maintained a wall of silence over his health, and his spokesman has repeatedly claimed Mugabe's hospital visits were to receive treatment for a problem with his eyes.
    Today local media in Zimbabwe reported that Gono had denied telling Mr McGee about Mugabe's sickness.
    In a brief statement given to the New Zimbabwe website, he said: 'It's a lie. I wouldn't even dare talk about that.'
    Despite his illness, Mugabe makes significant effort to ensure he continues to be seen as a powerful figure.
    His Zanu-PF party has ruled Zimbabwe since the country gained independence from Britain in 1980.
    Since then the Mugabe has been condemned for a litany of human rights abuses and for allowing the economy to collapse.


    The two leaders later formed a unity government, with Tsvangirai serving as prime minister since February 2009.
    However Mugabe has repeatedly signaled his intention to call fresh elections, and said last week that the country would return to the polls early next year.



    MARANGE DIAMONDS SALES CLEAN - JACOB ZUMA


    THE PRESIDENCY:  REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
    Private Bag X1000, Pretoria, 0001
    NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
    QUESTION FOR WRITTEN REPLY
    QUESTION NO. 59
    DATE PUBLISHED: 10 February 2011
    DATE DUE: 24 February 2011
    59. The Leader of the Opposition (DA) to ask the President of the Republic:
    (1) Whether he has been informed of reports that diamonds mined at the (a) Marange and (b) Chiadzwa diamond fields in Zimbabwe are being sold outside of the Kimberley Process to fund the operations of Zimbabwe's ruling Zanu-PF party; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what is the Government's position in this regard;
    (2) whether the Government has taken an official position on human rights abuses that took place at these diamond fields; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW69E
    REPLY:
    (1) Our information is that the said sale of both Marange and Chiadzwa diamonds was effected, following an agreement within Kimberly Process Certification System, that the requisite level of compliance had been attained for specific mines in the Marange and Chiadzwa area, subject to such sales taking place under the supervision of an independent monitor appointed within the Kimberly Process.
    Our position therefore is that Zimbabwe has fulfilled the known and stated Kimberly Process requirements and that sales of diamonds takes place within that context.
    (2) The Government of South Africa is aware of the allegations of human rights abuses that were leveled against the Zimbabwean Government and that such abuses took place at these diamond fields.  The implication of these allegations being that Zimbabwe was non compliant with Kimberly Process as a result.
    Whilst human rights abuses do not form part of the Kimberly Process requirements as stated in the Kimberly Process founding documents, we are further aware that the Zimbabwean government, in response to these allegations, allowed unfettered access to the Kimberly Process monitoring team in Zimbabwe and specifically in the Marange and Chiadzwa mines.
    In our capacity as the Chairperson of the Association of African Diamond Producing Countries (ADPA), South Africa also led a delegation of members of the association and visited these mines and the surrounding communities to verify for itself the level of compliance. During these visits, we were impressed as ADPA at the level of compliance with the Kimberly Process Certification System process and soon after these monitoring visits, Kimberly Process approved exports of diamonds in Zimbabwe, took place under the supervision of a Kimberly Process monitor. Such sales took place via auction in August and November 2010, respectively.
    Issued by Parliament, August 29 2011




    Rampant Abuses in Marange Diamond Fields Police, Private Security Guards Attacking Miners

    Press Release: Zimbabwe police and private security guards employed by mining companies in the Marange diamond fields are shooting, beating and unleashing attack dogs on poor, local unlicensed miners.
    The evidence gathered by Human Rights Watch contradicts claims that areas controlled by private mining companies, instead of by the Zimbabwe government alone, are relatively free of abuses.
    Over the past six months, police and private security personnel have attempted to clear the fields of local miners whom they accuse of illegally mining diamonds. Human Rights Watch research found that in many cases, the police and private security guards used excessive force against the miners. The violence follows claims, in June, by the government and the head of an international industry monitoring body that conditions in the Marange fields are sufficient for it to be allowed to resume exports of diamonds from Marange.
    ''Shooting defenseless miners and unleashing dogs against them is inhuman, degrading and barbaric,'' said Tiseke Kasambala, senior Africa researcher at Human Rights Watch. ''The diamonds from the Marange fields are tainted with abuse.''
    Local civil society activists told Human Rights Watch that the government has granted six international mining companies concessions in the Marange fields. The companies’ private security guards carry out joint patrols of the mining areas with Zimbabwe police. Local miners said that most of the companies have built electric fences around their mining concessions, while security guards with dogs regularly patrol the concessions. However, local miners are still able to reach the fields and sometimes stray into areas under the companies’ control.
    Some members of the international diamond monitoring body, known as the Kimberley Process, have tried to argue that conditions in the areas controlled by joint ventures are not abusive, and that those diamonds should be certified and allowed onto international markets. But Human Rights Watch has found, on the contrary, evidence of serious abuse by private security guards patrolling the joint venture territory.
    Human Rights Watch researchers interviewed 10 miners in Mutare and towns close to the Marange diamond fields who had been beaten by guards and attacked by their dogs after being caught by mine security in the past six months. During patrols, police would also fire live ammunition at the miners as they fled, the miners said.
    ''I was attacked by all of them,'' one of the miners told Human Rights Watch. ''The dogs were biting me and I was screaming. It was terrible.''
    Medical personnel who treated the miners at neighboring clinics and the main provincial hospital confirmed that they had treated wounded miners.  An official at a local clinic told Human Rights Watch that he had treated between 15 and 20 victims of dog attacks a month since April, many with serious wounds. Clinic officers also reported seeing people with gunshot wounds, including people who had been shot in the head.

    Many of the miners were reluctant to report the incidents to the police, miners and local activists said, as they were afraid of being arrested for digging in the fields because they were unlicensed. The government has conducted no investigations into these abuses.
    The Ministry of Mines and Development, other relevant Zimbabwe authorities, and the mining industry in Marange need to take immediate measures to stop these abuses and ensure accountability for abuses by members of the police force and the private security guards, Human Rights Watch said. At a minimum, the companies should follow internationally recognized standards on security, such as the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, investigate any allegations of abuse, and urge investigations of those acts.
    Human Rights Watch urged the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, an international body that oversees the diamond trade, to suspend all exports of diamonds from the Marange fields and asked retailers to refuse explicitly to buy Marange diamonds. The Kimberley Process has not adequately addressed the abuses in Marange.
    ''The ongoing abuses at Marange underscore the need for the Kimberley Process to address human rights instead of capitulating to abusive governments and irresponsible companies,'' Kasambala said.
    On June 23, Mathieu Yamba, the Kimberley Process chairman, announced that he had made a unilateral decision to lift the ban on exports of diamonds from the Marange fields. He took the decision even though independent monitoring, including the organization’s own investigation, had confirmed serious human rights abuses and rampant smuggling at the Marange fields. This decision, if implemented, would mean that the export of Marange diamonds is now permitted, without any monitoring for human rights abuses or credible evidence that Zimbabwe is complying with the Kimberley Process standards.
    However, the Kimberley Process operates by consensus, and members such as the European Union, the United States, Israel and Canada criticized Yamba’s position. Others, such as South Africa, supported it. As a result, the organization remains deadlocked over whether to allow exports of diamonds from Marange.
    ''The Kimberley Process appears to have lost touch with its mission to ensure that blood diamonds don’t make their way to consumers,'' Kasambala said. ''By ignoring the serious abuses taking place in Marange, it is losing credibility as a global diamond regulating body and risks misleading consumers too.''
    Abuses by Police and Security Guards
    Human Rights Watch interviewed miners in July, 2011, who were mauled by dogs and beaten by private security guards. They reported that the majority of incidents involved security guards working for Mbada Mining, a South African and Zimbabwean owned joint venture. The guards were identifiable by their black uniform. One miner said: ''The Mbada guards are the worst. They don’t hesitate to set the dogs upon you and they also beat you up.'' Human Rights Watch was unable to interview Mbada Mining officials during the mission, because they were not reachable by phone.
    In one incident, private security guards working for Mbada set four dogs on a handcuffed artisanal miner caught digging for diamonds close to the fields mined by Mbada. ''I was attacked by all of them,'' said the man, who is in his 20s. ''The dogs were biting me and I was screaming.  It was terrible.''
    A clinical officer in the town close to the fields told Human Rights Watch: ''We have so many people coming to the clinic with dog attacks. It’s easy to tell they’ve been bitten by dogs. You see the marks. During the week we treat around five or more miners with dog bites. They tell us that private security guards are the ones who set the dogs upon them. They say that it’s guards working for Mbada.''
    Human Rights Watch’s research found that in many cases dogs were used not just to restrain the victims, but apparently deliberately to inflict as much injury as possible. One miner told Human Rights Watch that security guards would shout at the dogs to “attack” even if the miners had surrendered or stopped running.
    A provincial hospital clinical officer told Human Rights Watch that he had seen at least 15 victims of dog attacks since April. In one case, the victim died from his injuries. Local miners and civil society activists reported that the numbers of dog attack victims could be much higher, but that the majority of the victims chose not to go to the hospital to receive treatment as hospitals often required a police report. Most victims preferred to recover at home without medical treatment, increasing the risk that their wounds would become infected.
    Local civil society activists reported that police often carry out joint operations with private security guards in advance of visits to the fields by senior government officials or foreign delegations. For example, police and private security guards carried out operations to clear the fields of diggers in advance of visits to the fields by President Robert Mugabe in March and delegates from the African Diamond Producers Association in April. Some of the worst incidents occurred in the days before these visits.
    A clinical officer at the main provincial hospital told Human Rights Watch:

    ''From March to June we have had many people coming to the hospital with gunshot wounds. They get shot at. Some of them have head injuries, some shot in the legs, arms, shoulders. We have one man who is in a coma. He was shot in the head about three weeks ago. There were four of them who were shot but one of them was serious because of the head injury. He was brought in by the police from Chiadzwa. They didn’t explain who he was.''

    A local clinical officer described a joint operation between the police and private security guards to drive away miners in late May and early June. He told Human Rights Watch:

    On the day they started the operation a lot of guys were bitten by dogs and a few came to the clinic for treatment. Three came on one day. The guys came with wounds similar to tears – not just teeth punctures. The injuries showed that the dogs were tearing the flesh and not just biting to restrain the miners. Such wounds are difficult to treat. I also treated three guys who were shot by the police. They were shot from the back and behind their legs. We tried to operate on them but their injuries were serious and we transferred them to the provincial hospital.

    Testimonies
    Blessing G., 21There were six of us who went to mine in the fields. We were digging in the bush when we were caught by these private guards led by a white man. They had four dogs. One of the guards had a gun. When they saw us they released the dogs. I tried to run away and fell. My friends escaped. Three dogs attacked me. One caught me on the leg and the other one on my hand. The other dog bit me on the stomach.  I lay on the ground still begging them to call the dogs off. After two or so minutes, it felt like a long time they called off the dogs and told me, “We don’t want people like you mining illegally for the diamonds.”  I couldn’t walk for several days because of my injuries.

    James T., 27I was busy digging for the diamonds next to the Mbada area when I heard a shout, “Catch.” The guards were with a white man. There were four dogs and I was attacked by all of them. The dogs were biting me and I was screaming. One of the guards came, pulled off the dogs and then handcuffed me and then he shouted, “Attack” and the dogs came back and started biting me as I lay on the ground. It was terrible. After a few more minutes they grabbed the dogs off and marched me to their diamond base where they bandaged my wounds and then drove me out of the fields. I didn’t go for further treatment. I just went home.

    Peter N., 20During one operation we were caught by private security guards and police. There were many of us. The guards had dogs but they also had teargas, which they threw at us. We started running, and then they let the dogs loose. Many of us were bitten on that day. They had many dogs. The guards were wearing dark uniforms. The police were also there and they had guns. At some point they started shooting. I kept running but when the police started shooting I stopped and surrendered. That’s when the dogs came and started biting me. I know that some of the others were shot by the police because I saw them fall. I don’t know if anyone died.

    Richard L., 22I haven’t gone back since I was bitten by the dogs and hit by the guards. It was around May and there were around 10 or 15 of us. We were working in a syndicate with the soldiers and they had told us which area to dig for the diamonds. Suddenly we heard shouting and the security guards came running after us. They were not armed. They shouted at the dogs, “Attack” and then we all started running. I was caught by one dog. I don’t know how many dogs they were. The dogs bit me on the legs and stomach. Afterward some of the guards came and started kicking us saying we should learn not to dig for diamonds in that area. The Mbada guards are the worst. They don’t hesitate to set the dogs upon you and they also beat you up. I didn’t go to the hospital I just went home and healed by myself.

    Fambai  K., 30Going into the fields is dangerous for us these days. The soldiers are better because we now work with them. But the security guards all have dogs and they work with the police. I was attacked by dogs in June. As you can see my wounds are still fresh. I don’t know who the security guards belonged to but they wore a black uniform. Some say they are Mbada but I don’t know. The first dog caught my leg and I fell.  Then the guards came and started hitting me. They were kicking and punching me. Then another dog attacked me. I was trying to hold its mouth. It went on for a few minutes and when they saw I was bleeding they took me to a place called diamond base. They stitched me up there then handed me to the police.

     By Human Rights Watch
    Rapaport News is not responsible for, and does not endorse, the content of any press release. Press releases are not written by us and are provided only as additional information for our clients. 
     


    DEAR GARRY

    Many times we have a host of things that we want to tell that one guy who you really like spending time with and being with, yet we barely know what to do. More often than not we end up saying all the wrong things and scaring the poor guy away. I understand men like to know how you feel, but not in all entirety, until such a time when they are ready for it! Someone even went on to say that for most men, anything that spells commitment from your mouth can easily be a turn off. I am no guru when it comes to relationships but here is just a little something i think you can do. So, I am calling this my “Like Letter” as opposed to the popular Love Letter. Read on and tell me if I’m going crazy!

    Dear Garry
    I pride myself in being able to communicate my feelings and in expressing my thoughts. I realise now that i am not very successful, when it comes to you. I like the thought of being in a relationship, but it’s a prospect that scares me a lot. I have therefore decided to just let you know what i think about you. This is not a love letter, just a note to say i appreciate you are a part of my life.
    “I like you”. I like you for who you are. You are not pretentious, you are honest and hardworking. Sometimes your nearness takes my breath away; and all the things I want to say can find no voice. Then, in silence, I can only hope my eyes will speak my heart. For when words fail me, I start to rumble incoherently. I just lose sight of what I want to say. I like how you are spontaneous and how you make everything easy. You make me want to tell you everything about me, but I will not- not just yet anyway, lest I overwhelm you. I like strawberries and blackberries. I like your smile, I like that you laugh with me, that we laugh at my jokes that are not always funny. I like that you make me feel great about myself. I like the way you tell me I am beautiful, the way you appreciate me, and the appreciative glances you throw my way. If I could reach for a star for every time you made me smile, I would have the whole sky in the palm of my hand.


    “I trust you”. I trust that whatever decisions you make concerning me are the best. You respect me; you make me feel that you have a reverent regard of me. You care enough to say things that i want to hear, as long they are not lies. We connect in many ways than one. You listen to me, and make me hang on to every word you say. I trust that you care for me, that you teach me what i do not know about myself, I trust you" I am so lucky I met you" You are warm hearted, there is no one like you at all. You give me a better outlook on life, you challenge me and you make me rethink my priorities. I now better appreciate the word family and there is so much more i can do with myself. Sometimes, you do not even have to say anything. Thank you for being a part of my life.


    Trudy









    I am an administrator by profession.  I have a first Degree in Political Science, and I started the first year of my Masters  in International Relations but i am yet to finish it. I am a sports woman, and have participated in Rugby and Basketball at National level. I did my primary school in Mutare, Chancellor Junior and high School in Domboshava, at a Catholic mission.  I am passionate about women issues.



    I would like to know your views and please do not hesitate to comment below your thoughts, suggestions and views.



    The Truth About the Situation in Libya


    Cutting through the government propaganda and media lies


    By Brian Becker, National Coordinator, ANSWER Coalition
    Libya is a small country of just over 6 million people but it possesses the largest oil reserves in all of Africa. The oil produced there is especially coveted because of its particularly high quality.
    The Air Force of the United States along with Britain and France has carried out 7,459 bombing attacks since March 19. Britain, France and the United States sent special operation ground forces and commando units to direct the military operations of the so-called rebel fighters – it is a NATO- led army in the field.

    The troops may be disaffected Libyans but the operation is under the control and direction of NATO commanders and western commando units who serve as “advisors.” Their new weapons and billions in funds come from the U.S. and other NATO powers that froze and seized Libya’s assets in Western banks. Their only military successes outside of Benghazi, in the far east of the country, have been exclusively based on the coordinated air and ground operations of the imperialist NATO military forces.
    In military terms, Libya’s resistance to NATO is of David and Goliath proportions. U.S. military spending alone is more than ten times greater than Libya’s entire annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) which was $74.2 billion in 2010, according to the CIA’s World Fact Book.
    In recent weeks, the NATO military operations used surveillance-collecting drones, satellites, mounting aerial attacks and covert commando units to decapitate Libya’s military and political leadership and its command and control capabilities. Global economic sanctions meant that the country was suddenly deprived of income and secure access to goods and services needed to sustain a civilian economy over a long period.
    “The cumulative effect [of NATO’s coordinated air and ground operation] not only destroyed Libya’s military infrastructure but also greatly diminished Colonel Gaddafi’s commanders to control forces, leaving even committed fighting units unable to move, resupply or coordinate operations,“ reports the New York Times in a celebratory article on August 22.
    A False Pretext
    The United States, United Kingdom, France, and Italy targeted the Libyan government for overthrow or “regime change” not because these governments were worried about protecting civilians or to bring about a more democratic form of governance in Libya.
    If that were the real motivation of the NATO powers, they could start the bombing of Saudi Arabia right away. There are no elections in Saudi Arabia. The monarchy does not even allow women to drive cars. By law, women must be fully covered in public or they will go to prison. Protests are rare in Saudi Arabia because any dissent is met with imprisonment, torture and execution.
    The Saudi monarchy is protected by U.S. imperialism because it is part of an undeclared but real U.S. sphere of influence and it is the largest producer of oil in the world. The U.S. attitude toward the Saudi monarchy was put succinctly by Ronald Reagan in 1981, when he said that the U.S. government “will not permit” revolution in Saudi Arabia such as the 1979 Iranian revolution that removed the U.S. client regime of the Shah. Reagan’s message was clear: the Pentagon and CIA’s military forces would be used decisively to destroy any democratic movement against the rule of the Saudi royal family.
    Reagan’s explicit statement in 1981 has in fact been the policy of every successive U.S. administration, including the current one.
    Libya and Imperialism
    Libya, unlike Saudi Arabia, did have a revolution against its monarchy. As a result of the 1969 revolution led by Muammar Gaddafi, Libya was no longer in the sphere of influence of any imperialist country.
    Libya had once been an impoverished colony of Italy living under the boot heel of the fascist Mussolini. After the Allied victory in World War II, control of the country was formally transferred to the United Nations and Libya became independent in 1951 with authority vested in the monarch King Idris.
    But in actuality, Libya was controlled by the United States and Britain until the 1969 revolution.
    One of the first acts of the 1969 revolution was to eliminate the vestiges of colonialism and foreign control. Not only were oil fields nationalized but Gaddafi eliminated foreign military bases inside the country.
    In March of 1970, the Gaddafi government shut down two important British military bases in Tobruk and El Adem. He then became the Pentagon’s enemy when he evicted the U.S. Wheelus Air Force Base near Tripoli that had been operated by the United States since 1945. Before the British military took control in 1943, the facility was a base operated by the Italians under Mussolini.

    Wheelus had been an important Strategic Air Command (SAC) base during the Cold War, housing B-52 bombers and other front-line Pentagon aircrafts that targeted the Soviet Union.
    Once under Libyan control, the Gaddafi government allowed Soviet military planes to access the airfield.
    In 1986, the Pentagon heavily bombed the base at the same time it bombed downtown Tripoli in an effort to assassinate Gaddafi. That effort failed but his 2-year-old daughter died along with scores of other civilians.
    The Character of the Gaddafi Regime


    The political, social and class orientation of the Libyan regime has gone through several stages in the last four decades. The government and ruling establishment reflected contradictory class, social, religious and regional antagonisms. The fact that the leadership of the NATO-led National Transition Council is comprised of top officials of the Gaddafi government, who broke with the regime and allied themselves with NATO, is emblematic of the decades-long instability within the Libyan establishment.
    These inherent contradictions were exacerbated by pressures applied to Libya from the outside. The U.S. imposed far-reaching economic sanctions on Libya in the 1980s. The largest western corporations were barred from doing business with Libya and the country was denied access to credit from western banks.
    In its foreign policy, Libya gave significant financial and military support to national liberation struggles, including in Palestine, Southern Africa, Ireland and elsewhere.
    Because of Libya's economic policies, living standards for the population had jumped dramatically after 1969. Having a small population and substantial income from its oil production, augmented with the Gaddafi regime’s far-reaching policy of social benefits, created a huge advance in the social and economic status for the population. Libya was still a class society with rich and poor, and gaps between urban and rural living standards, but illiteracy was basically wiped out, while education and health care were free and extensively accessible. By 2010, the per capita income in Libya was near the highest in Africa at $14,000 and life expectancy rose to over 77 years, according to the CIA’s World Fact Book.
    Gaddafi’s political orientation explicitly rejected communism and capitalism. He created an ideology called the “Third International Theory,” which was an eclectic mix of Islamic, Arab nationalist and socialist ideas and programs. In 1977, Libya was renamed the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. A great deal of industry, including oil, was nationalized and the government provided an expansive social insurance program or what is called a welfare state policy akin to some features prevalent in the Soviet Union and some West European capitalist countries.
    But Libya was not a workers’ state or a “socialist government” to use the popular if not scientific use of the term “socialist.” The revolution was not a workers and peasant rebellion against the capitalist class per se. Libya remained a class society although class differentiation may have been somewhat obscured beneath the existence of revolutionary committees and the radical, populist rhetoric that emanated from the regime.
    As in many developing, formerly colonized countries, state ownership of property was not “socialist” but rather a necessary fortification of an under-developed capitalist class. State property in Iraq, Libya and other such post-colonial regimes was designed to facilitate the social and economic growth of a new capitalist ruling class that was initially too weak, too deprived of capital and too cut off from international credit to compete on its own terms with the dominant sectors of world monopoly capitalism. The nascent capitalist classes in such developing economies promoted state-owned property, under their control, in order to intersect with Western banks and transnational corporations and create more favorable terms for global trade and investment.
    The collapse of the Soviet Union and the “socialist bloc” governments of central and Eastern Europe in 1989-91 deprived Libya of an economic and military counter-weight to the United States, and the Libyan government’s domestic economic and foreign policy shifted towards accommodation with the West.
    In the 1990s some sectors of the Libyan economic establishment and the Gaddafi-led government favored privatization, cutting back on social programs and subsidies and integration into western European markets.
    The earlier populism of the regime incrementally gave way to the adoption of neo-liberal policies. This was, however, a long process.
    In 2004, the George W. Bush administration ended sanctions on Libya. Western oil companies and banks and other corporations initiated huge direct investments in Libya and trade with Libyan enterprises.
    There was also a growth of unemployment in Libya and in cutbacks in social spending, leading to further inequality between rich and poor and class polarization.
    But Gaddafi himself was still considered a thorn in the side of the imperialist powers. They want absolute puppets, not simply partners, in their plans for exploitation. The Wikileaks release of State Department cables between 2007 and 2010 show that the United states and western oil companies were condemning Gaddafi for what they called “resource nationalism.” Gaddafi even threatened to re-nationalize western oil companies’ property unless Libya was granted a larger share of the revenue for their projects.
    As an article in today’s New York Times Business section said honestly: “"Colonel Qaddafi proved to be a problematic partner for the international oil companies, frequently raising fees and taxes and making other demands. A new government with close ties to NATO may be an easier partner for Western nations to deal with."
    Even the most recent CIA Fact Book publication on Libya, written before the armed revolt championed by NATO, complained of the measured tempo of pro-market reforms in Libya: “Libya faces a long road ahead in liberalizing the socialist-oriented economy, but initial steps— including applying for WTO membership, reducing some subsidies, and announcing plans for privatization—are laying the groundwork for a transition to a more market-based economy.” (CIA World Fact Book)
    The beginning of the armed revolt on February 23 by disaffected members of the Libyan military and political establishment provided the opportunity for the U.S. imperialists, in league with their French and British counterparts, to militarily overthrow the Libyan government and replace it with a client or stooge regime.
    Of course, in the revolt were workers and young people who had many legitimate grievances against the Libyan government. But what is critical in an armed struggle for state power is not the composition of the rank-and-file soldiers, but the class character and political orientation of the leadership.
    Character of the National Transition Council
    The National Transitional Council (NTC) constituted itself as the leadership of the uprising in Benghazi, Libya’s second largest city. The central leader is Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, who was Libya’s Minister of Justice until his defection at the start of the uprising. He was one of a significant number of Western-oriented and neoliberal officials from Libya’s government, diplomatic corps and military ranks who joined the opposition in the days immediately after the start of the revolt.
    As soon as it was established, the NTC began issuing calls for imperialist intervention. These appeals became increasing panicky as it became clear that, contrary to early predictions that the Gaddafi-led government would collapse in a matter of days, it was the “rebels” who faced imminent defeat in the civil war. In fact, it was only due to the U.S./NATO bombing campaign, initiated with great hurry on March 19 that the rebellion did not collapse.
    The last five months of war have erased any doubt about the pro-imperialist character of the NTC. One striking episode took place on April 22, when Senator John McCain made a “surprise” trip to Benghazi. A huge banner was unveiled to greet him with an American flag printed on it and the words: “United States of America – You have a new ally in North Africa.”
    Similar to the military relationship between the NATO and Libyan “rebel” armed forces, the NTC is entirely dependent on and subordinated to the U.S., French, British and Italian imperialist governments.
    If the Pentagon, CIA, and Wall Street succeed in installing a client regime in Tripoli it will accelerate and embolden the imperialist threats and intervention against other independent governments such as Syria and Venezuela. In each case we will see a similar process unfold, including the demonization of the leadership of the targeted countries so as to silence or mute a militant anti-war response to the aggression of the war-makers.
    We in the ANSWER Coalition invite all those who share this perspective to join with us, to mobilize, and to unmask the colonial agenda that hides under the slogan of “humanitarian intervention.”