Awhile ago Mugabe adopted a Look East policy in response to the Hostile West. As he’s just celebrated his birthday I thought I’d check what sign he is in the Chinese Zodiac. Born in 1924 makes him a Rat. There are some interesting predictions for him in 2010:

- The Year of the Tiger is going to be fast-paced for the Rat, which in itself does tend to make them slightly uncomfortable. But it is essential that they go with the flow and seize opportunities and take adventures – this year is going to be important for them. {Perhaps he’ll take advice from Zimbabwean Kubatana bloggers and retire to some fun in the sun}

- A lot of Rats may have dreamt of travel in 2009 but were unable to take trips either due to financial or work commitments. This year will be so different! Travel will feature strongly for many and if there is dream destination in mind, it may become a reality during 2010. {Maybe sanctions will be lifted after all}

- It is essential for all persons born under this sign to be extra thoughtful and caring throughout the year – an inadvertent remark or gesture could lead to discord with loved ones. {Who knew}

Major personality traits:
Rats are elegant, clever and prone to being distracted. The Rat is charming beyond words and throughout his undoubtedly long life he will always be popular and will have many friends. {As they say, don’t believe everything you read online}

Interesting Rat Facts:
Zodiac Stone: Garnet {Gosh, we thought it was diamonds}
Special Flower: Narcissus {No gray hair yet}
Best Hours: 11 pm -1 am {Guess that’s why the motorcade only fires up round about 10am}

A friend and I were in Harare city centre on Sunday lunchtime and decided to have a toasted sandwich at Meikles Hotel which, I think, has  5*s. But after sampling both their toasted ham and cheese sandwich and their service, I reckon they’ve slipped a notch or 2. You’d expect something a bit delicate and classy (even if its a toastie) in a 5 * hotel but what got served up was anything but. I’m wondering if the lack of tourists to Zimbabwe have contributed to letting the standards in our hospitality industry slip. Perhaps they’ll get kicked into shape with the thought of potential revenues coming in from the World Cup 2010. If standards across the board, and that includes the rehabilitation of Zimbabwe’s infrastructure like roads, traffic lights, street lighting, water provision and refuse removal, don’t get revved up then Zimbabwe isn’t a very attractive base for tourists and teams to use. Perhaps this is a good time for Zimbabwean citizens to lobby or even, (gasp) protest, for an improvement in our living conditions because usually the men in power don’t give a twaddle about stuff like this. Going back to Meikles, they could learn a thing or two from a small unpretentious 3 * hotel in the Avenues that serves up cheaper and more tasty sandwiches. There’s also no worry about indigestion brought on at the Meikles by a prominently displayed presidential portrait.

From The Economist:

A the relative optimism of last year, the situation in Zimbabwe is deteriorating badly. South African-mediated talks between ZANU-PF, the party of President Robert Mugabe, and the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), led by the prime minister, Morgan Tsvangirai, which are aimed at shoring up their shaky power-sharing pact, have broken down, maybe irretrievably. This leaves the one-year-old “government of national unity” as good as dead. Schools, hospitals, courts and other state services have been brought to a halt by striking civil servants. Meanwhile, all new investment projects have been put on hold following the promulgation of “indigenisation” rules obliging companies worth more than $500,000 to cede a 51% stake to black Zimbabweans—or face up to five years in jail.

Harare, the capital, is abuzz with talk of a snap general election, possibly as early as April. Jacob Zuma, South Africa’s president, is understood to have convinced Mr Tsvangirai to abandon all his demands in his negotiations with Mr Mugabe save those essential for ensuring a fair democratic poll. With ZANU-PF blocking every MDC attempt at reform, Mr Zuma appears to agree that the unity government has become a sham. He is determined that no trouble on South Africa’s northern border should upset his country’s hosting of the football World Cup in June and July.

Some argue that the unity government has made a bit of progress over the past year. They point to the huge improvement in the economic situation, with a 4.7% expansion of GDP last year, the first growth in a decade, as well as the reopening of schools and hospitals. Although all this is true, it has more to do with the replacement of Zimbabwe’s worthless currency by the dollar, which happened before the unity government was set up, than anything the government itself has done.

Apart from the economy, the situation on the ground has barely changed at all, with Mr Mugabe holding on to the reins of real power. White-owned farms continue to be invaded. Human-rights and MDC activists are still being beaten up and arrested. MDC provincial governors have still not been allowed to take up their posts. Mr Mugabe continues to control the security forces. The affable Mr Tsvangirai has borne all the sleights and humiliations with astonishing calm. But even he appears to have run out of patience. The only way forward, he now says, is to agree on a “road map” to a fresh election.

If genuinely free, the MDC would be sure to win this hands down. Polls suggest that support for ZANU-PF, in power for the past 30 years, has shrunk to less than 20%. But there are fears that, without the planned new democratic constitution or independent electoral commission in place, there would be a return to the violence that marked the latest elections—unless the Southern African Development Community, a fairly spineless 15-member regional group, is prepared to take tough measures. Those should include, some argue, sending in troops if necessary.

Last night I watched an interview with Sir Ian McKellen, the celebrated British actor, on Hard Talk, one of the BBC’s most popular programmes. Ian said that he only “came out” when he was 49 because there was so much violence and bigotry surrounding the issue of homosexuality. His advice to young gay people is to come out as soon as possible because being open and honest about who you are will, more often than not, enhance your life.

I was curious about the amount of time the interviewer spent on Ian’s sexuality rather than other aspects of life, like his career, his beliefs and his general experience of the world. Gay people are so much more than their sexual orientation. Why is it that gay people are peppered with questions about their sexual orientation when heterosexuals are not? When did you ever see Meryl Streep being questioned about what made her straight or how being straight impacts on her life?

Just today I got an unsolicited email from an organisation in Zimbabwe selling a product. Their product is a “a publication containing behaviour statistics of a teenage behaviour survey conducted in 2009 in all major towns of Zimbabwe”. The survey was compiled based on ten questions. One of the questions reads as follows:

10.   Are there any promiscuous sexual activities, homosexuals, drug addicts amongst the Zimbabwean youths?

I just wrote to the authors of the report saying that I’m a lesbian and that I find it unacceptable that they lump homosexuality with promiscuous sexual activities and drug addiction. Of course I should clarify that I see nothing wrong with safe promiscuous activity and safe drug use. But the agenda behind their inclusion of homosexuality along with addiction and promiscuity, is sinister in my view. Perhaps I’m wrong but I sense a witch hunt of young gay people with a view to fixing them or punishing them.

Yes, some Zimbabwean youth are gay – I was young once! It’s about time that people realised that the expression of sexuality is not confined to heterosexuality. We have an organisation called Gays and Lesbians of Zimbabwe (GALZ) in Zimbabwe that has a broad and diverse membership of gays and lesbians.

Our communities should be embracing diversity and making it safe for young people to express their true selves.

If you have the time and energy to question the motivation behind surveying homosexual activity please write to them at info@thebehaviourreport.com

Downtown Harare on Valentine’s Day was livened up the vibrant sistaz and bruthaz of Women and Men of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA). Saturday shoppers and the odd tourist (we saw TWO, imagine, I felt like rounding them up and putting them on exhibit because they’ve become so rare) milling around Unity Square were treated to the sight of three converging groups of WOZA demonstrators. WOZA gave out plastic red roses and fliers to passing motorists, flower sellers, ice cream vendors, street cleaners (we’ve got a couple of those as well) and pedestrians. Without exception the WOZA literature was gobbled up by members of the general public who seldom get to see anything besides the state-controlled crap that’s put out by the GNU. In fact, on Saturday morning WOZA chose the front steps of the Herald House as their site of struggle. No doubt their choice was guided by the need to condemn the daily diet of propaganda that the Herald produces. The WOZA demonstration lasted about 15 minutes. I kept on expecting the riot police armed with their “tiger” and batons to storm the gathering but they didn’t. A big pom pom to WOZA for continuing to demand meaningful democratic change in Zimbabwe and for testing freedoms like the right to protest peacefully.

An organisation called Voice for Democracy occasionally publishes articles regarding the ongoing crisis in Zimbabwe. Usually they’re pretty much on the money when it comes to providing an astute analysis of what’s really going on. Of course their analysis and perspective often differs from that of the MDC and its many groupies. On the one hand the MDC continues to desperately try and fool themselves that they have a hope in hell of changing things in Zimbabwe whilst cuddling up to Mugabe, while the Voice of Democracy rightly points out that the MDC is installed in a marriage of abuse. And by extension, so too are the people of Zimbabwe. Here’s their latest article:

The MDC did not enter into a marriage of convenience, but one of abuse. For all its goodwill, compromises and appeasement, the MDC has been repaid with contempt, provocations and lawlessness. Robert Mugabe has not just been reluctant to implement the provisions of the GPA, he has deliberately set out to sabotage and destroy it. Yet, even as he flexed his muscles and hurled abuse, a battered and deeply compromised MDC smiled for the cameras, vowing never to leave its faithless partner. The Prime Minister soothed the worries of the Friends of Zimbabwe, reassuring them that its rocky marriage was still working, that Robert Mugabe was part of the solution, and that their marriage – the Inclusive Government – should be blessed by the removal of sanctions and rewarded with development aid for its achievements.

The diplomatic dilemma

Having won the March 2008 elections, the MDC surrendered wide presidential powers to the very man, Robert Mugabe, who had brought nothing but violence, ruin and misery to the people of Zimbabwe – and left Western diplomats groping for an adequate response. How are the Friends of Zimbabwe to reward the MDC for its efforts to bring peace and recovery while pressuring Mugabe to restore human rights and the rule of law under the GPA? How can they provide development aid to the MDC while maintaining sanctions on Mugabe and ZANU(PF)? In truth, they cannot. The MDC and ZANU(PF) forged an Inclusive Government in which they became two sides of the same coin.

The International Crisis Group’s sanguine belief that increased development aid would reward the moderates while isolating the hardliners was always illusionary. As long as Mugabe maintains his grip on power, any attempts to increase development aid or foster trade and investment will inevitably be captured by ZANU(PF). Similarly, any development aid or the lifting of sanctions to reward the Inclusive Government for achieving a modicum of economic stability will send an unmistakable message to Mugabe: that he and his supporters will not be held accountable for continued human rights violations and their disregard for the rule of law. Their very impunity will be rewarded.

This conundrum for Western powers is now being played out within the EU. Divisions have emerged between Germany and the Denmark that want sanctions eased and Britain and the Netherlands that want them maintained. The expectation is that they will reach a tepid compromise and again urge the Zimbabwean parties to implement the GPA in full. Whatever their decision, the EU and the MDC should disabuse themselves of any hope that easing sanctions will coax Mugabe into meeting his GPA commitments.  There is none.

Western donor countries face similar contradictions in their diplomatic relations with SADC and the African Union, which have repeatedly supported the Inclusive Government’s call for the lifting of limited sanctions and the resumption of development aid. How then do Western governments align themselves to the policies of African countries when SADC, as the guarantor of the GPA, has proved unable to enforce its provisions? Indeed, how can the donors align themselves to SADC decisions when the underlying reasons for imposing targeted sanctions in the first place remain unresolved? The question is: how can the Friends of Zimbabwe extricate themselves from these diplomatic dilemmas and realign their policies with SADC and the African Union?

International realignment behind a democratic transition

The first is to face the facts. The international donor community should resist repeating the tired mantra that the parties must implement the GPA in full. The self-evident fact is that the GPA is dead in letter and spirit. Second, they should listen carefully to the voices for democracy.  When the MDC disengaged from their ‘dishonest and unreliable partner’ in October 2009, Morgan Tsvangirai said that the obvious solution would be the holding of a free and fair election to be conducted by SADC and the AU and under UN supervision. As Mugabe still refuses to comply with the GPA, Tsvangirai now says that the only solution is to agree on a road map to an election.

This presents the international donor community with an ideal opportunity to realign itself with the MDC’s democratic principles and with key advocates of a democratic transition within SADC, notably President Khama of Botswana. Given South Africa’s frustration over the painfully slow implementation of the GPA, diplomatic efforts should be redirected towards convincing an increasingly impatient President Zuma that elections provide a compelling alternative to the GPA. It would not only bring finality to a festering regional problem, but it would enable Zimbabwe’s full reengagement with the international community. Almost immediately, targeted sanctions could be lifted, debts rescheduled, and international development aid resumed. Crucially, it would bring the international community’s policy towards Zimbabwe into alignment with those of the SADC countries.

The Responsibility to Protect

Yet, for all the possibilities of democratic elections bringing peace, recovery and growth to Zimbabwe, there stands Robert Mugabe, ready to unleash his dreaded state security and militia on any who dare challenge his self-proclaimed right to rule. And here the Friends of Zimbabwe should heed the words of Finance Minister and the MDC General Secretary, Tendai Biti, when he called for the “holding of free and fair elections under the protection and supervision of SADC to ensure that the dreams of the people are never again dashed nor denied.” Unless the citizens of Zimbabwe are protected to cast their ballots in peace and security there can be no guarantee of free and fair elections: not now, not when we have a new constitution, nor in 3 or 5 years hence.

Gareth Evans, President of the International Crisis Group, has been the boldest advocate of the international community’s responsibility to protect citizens who are threatened with crimes against humanity by their own state. Having realigned themselves behind a democratic transition, western donors and SADC countries should immediately start building a ‘Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect’ that allow Zimbabwean voters to cast their ballots in peace and security during the next election.

The Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA) has already called for the immediate deployment of a SADC delegation to secure an end to political violence. Theirs is an urgent appeal for a comprehensive, standing presence of SADC to be stationed in Zimbabwe until the draft Constitution has been submitted to a referendum and that free and fair presidential and legislative elections have been held. The Voice for Democracy has gone further. We have called for this security presence to be in place until there has been an incontrovertible and peaceful handover of power to the winners of the next election.

We the Jury

The MDC has bravely endured endless public humiliations by its arrogant and abusive partner. It must now drop any pretence that its marriage is working and file for divorce by taking its case to SADC and the international community for adjudication, who must let the jury – the people of Zimbabwe – decide on its own leaders through free and fair elections. Therein lies our hope, dignity and freedom.