Diplomatic niceties and the marginalised
Zim Standard
sundayview by Brilliant Mhlanga
AS a person from Matabeleland, I wish to respond to the statement
posted by the Spanish Ambassador to Zimbabwe, Santiago Martinez-Caro.
His statements are part of the dismissive discourse which seems not to
be addressing the core issues of the people of that region. The Ambassador
wishes to encourage us to forget about the horrors committed on us and the
loss of our loved ones; an act which was done in the fa****on of Hitler's
Holocaust.
A critical mind gleans a summative amount of unsaid issues from the
Ambassador's statement alone. One is puzzled therefore to note that the
Ambassador tacitly embraces the notions of the one who commented
carelessly,
as if seeking to dismiss what Gorden Moyo said, about the talks, the
history
of negotiations and Unity Accord, Matabeleland and the unfortunate dark
patches in our history as a nation.
It would appear, the Ambassador does not have deeper knowledge of what
happened to the people of Matabeleland, during the Gukurahundi period.
This
probably explains his wish for us to follow the Spanish model. I respect
his
wish, but it might not work in an environment where the political nuances
and contexts are different. I believe this is why certain models have not
worked in Africa.
If Moyo, said it and the Ambassador has issues with it, I then wish to
request that we do not blame Moyo, but the people of Matabeleland for
having
been killed and continuously labouring in their toil to try and talk about
their ill-treatment and calling for a just cause. We should then agree to
blame them on history, because their actions are a total summation of an
unjust historical act on them. One would have expected them to talk about
it.
However, I wish to emphatically stress to the Ambassador that the
Gukurahundi genocide did take place. Maybe he was simply not aware of it.
A
lot has been written and said about it lately. I will not delve into the
details of it now. I will be happy if he could approach the crisis of the
down-trodden m***** - our crisis, with an open mind seeking to
strategically
engage us in mapping out a constructive way forward, than showing us a
dismissive attitude.
I say so because from his statement the words, "retribution for past
activities, on a regional and ethnic basis" seem not to be a positive
gesture of ****ging positive solutions for Zimbabwe as a whole. If
anything,
those words criminalize and trivialize an otherwise open, honest and
candid
expression, seeking to show the deeper meaning of the politics of
Zimbabwe.
These statements tend to soil various civil society initiatives to forge
for
a forum to openly discuss the crisis of the people of Matabeleland,
particularly the genocide. And so it tends to impede any positive move
aimed
at addressing the political crisis in Zimbabwe. I therefore submit that it
is a sign that we cannot easily ignore and relegate it to a historical
non-event. It happened and we must find a common solution to it as
Zimbabweans.
I would surely be among those who are happy to acknowledge that what
Moyo did was the best given the cir***stances. The effort alone must be
commended, given, that very rare occasion where an entourage of
ambassadors
visited that part of the country; a seemingly God-forsaken region in all
respects. The problems of Matabeleland are quite dissimilar to those of
Harare where he is stationed. Venturing into most marginalised regions
with
that in mind tends to help in the avoidance of what might end up being
perceived by the indigenous people as some kind of "deliberate vagueness".
Such actions and statements can even be more divisive if
inappropriately put across. In this case I humbly submit that the
statements
by the ambassador of Spain are surely divisive and uncalled for. They seek
to trivialize the crises the people of Matabeleland have gone through
since
1980. Indeed, the people of Matabeleland have an unresolved problem: they
have seen very little of development.
I can confirm this by reminding the ambassador what the Minister of
Health, Dr David Parirenyatwa, said when he visited hospitals in Bulawayo.
He openly lamented Matabeleland's marginalisation and regretted that this
had been going on for a long time. This was widely covered in the media in
Zimbabwe, even by the state media.
I wish to submit to the Ambassador that some of these unresolved
issues seem not to be part of the broader arrangement of the SADC
initiated
talks. As a result, the approach to the talks is a blanket mindset, hinged
on a general assumption that the crisis is truncated within the locus of
the
so-called "national agenda", and that what happened to other sections must
be swiftly swept under the carpet.
I am not sure whether the ambassador is aware that this is likely to
cause more problems in future. In my view Zimbabwe's problems are bigger
than that approach by a group of the selected "wise ones".
There is need therefore for an all-embracive approach which
encomp***** a wide section of Zimbabwe's troubled groups. I wish to
further
pose the following questions: Is it not a paradox that the nexus of the
talks discusses Mugabe's exit package, yet it ignores one of the major
causes for his unrelenting grip on power, the Gukurahundi genocide? If it
is
so trivial, then why is it not being openly discussed in Zimbabwe to this
day? Do we therefore have to blame the people of Matabeleland and
concerned
Zimbabweans for raising this historical fact?
I promise to talk about it until it is embraced, particularly by
members of the diplomatic community, including Ambassador Martinez-Caro.
Maybe the ambassador might also want to know from his advisors what
happened to Thabo Mbeki (current President of South Africa) in the early
1980s when he was in Zimbabwe as an ANC emissary. I hope the brief, will
include that he, Mbeki, was arrested together with the political prisoners
from Matabeleland and thrown into Maximum prison in Zimbabwe. Some of the
political prisoners never came out alive; Mbeki knows that.
Is it not an elaborate surprise then that this issue is now expected
to be swept under the carpet and not even raised during the talks? I will
not delve deeper into the nuances of the SADC initiated talks as they
remain
shrouded in mystery, but I wish to comment and urge everyone to remain
alert. Otherwise these wild leaps into darkness might turn into serious
own
goals for the opposition.
Lastly, I agree with the ambassador's first two major points on the
talks and differ with the rest. The points are:
1. The current negotiations taking place between Zanu PF and the
Opposition have to be held with a certain discretion if they are to have
any
chance of succeeding. I therefore cannot agree with those who continuously
demand publicity and enlargement of the talks.
2. The outcome of those negotiations cannot be, because of time
constraints and level of representation, a final and definitive solution
to
Zimbabwe's problems. On the contrary, I believe and hope they will be the
beginning of a political transition which may last for quite some time and
which will end in a national framework which all Zimbabweans will be able
to
accept.
|
