Dime con quién andas...
Joaquín Marta Sosa
El Nacional
30 Junio 2005
Al régimen le gusta, porque los necesita, buscarse amigos, cuantos más mejor, para presumir de influencia y hasta de poder. Para lograrlo pone en juego casi todos los medios, sin discriminación, y cualquiera le parece bueno, no interesan sus credenciales sino su disposición de posar en la foto.
Uno de ellos fue Robert Mugabe, el señor de Zimbabue. Poco importó que su crédito democrático y su respeto por la legalidad estuviesen muy por debajo de lo normalmente deseable. Era la antítesis del “poder blanco, europeo y colonialista” y estaba listo para el retrato en familia porque también tiene urgencia de reconocimientos, cuestionado como está por sus afanes de perpetuación después de 25 años en el poder, así como por su aversión a cualquier derecho distinto al de su mando incuestionable.
Desde luego, Mugabe también convoca a elecciones. Las más recientes se realizaron en marzo con una abstención superior a 50% . Y pesar de que fue tachado de fraudulento por los observadores internacionales y por la acosada oposición, declaró que había conseguido “un triunfo rotundo”.
Dejó pasar dos meses, y a comienzos de junio emprendió su Campaña para Limpiar la Mugre cuyo objetivo, afirmó, era el de liquidar los asentamientos ilegales (ranchos), la economía ilegal (buhoneros) y “los focos de criminalidad y desorden” (barrios marginales). Utilizando a la policía armada hasta las orejas, bulldozers y apisonadoras, gasóleo y fuego, arrasó y quemó viviendas y personas. Al final, se contabilizaron centenas de muertos, barrios enteros asolados y unos 200 mil desplazados sin tener donde guarecerse con la región en pleno invierno y donde las temperaturas bajan de cero por la noche.
Un estudio acerca de las zonas sometidas a esa devastación en Harare, la capital del país, permitió conocer que se trataba precisamente de aquellas donde Mugabe había perdido en las mencionadas elecciones de marzo.
(...)
(...)
Pero lo dicho no lo es todo sobre el prócer. Antes de venir a Venezuela (febrero de 2004), confiscó a sangre y fuego, como es su costumbre, todas las fincas en manos de europeos “para entregárselas al pueblo”. Una minuciosa relación posterior ha confirmado que los nuevos propietarios, todos sin excepción, habitan a sus anchas en los círculos íntimos del poder. Y en la visita que nos dispensó, tuvo el honor de recibir una réplica de la espada del Libertador. Ignoro si es con ella en alto como perpetra fraudes y la emprende contra “la mugre”, es decir, contra todo el que se atreve a adversarlo.
Lo sabemos, el poder corrompe.
Y si no que lo diga el otro amigo, José Dirceu, hasta hace dos semanas “súper ministro” de Lula. Poco antes del escándalo, concedió una larga entrevista donde reafirmaba sus propósitos de regenerar la política brasilera, confiscada durante años por caciques y militares igualmente corruptos. En algún momento afirmó, enigmáticamente a tenor de los sucesos que lo llevaron a renunciar, que “Chávez está haciendo lo que no se había hecho en cien años en Venezuela”.
Pero ese epígono y valedor del chavismo estaba dedicado a tiempo completo a comprar diputados para garantizarle mayorías al gobierno, como años antes Vladimiro Montesinos (¿lo recuerdan?). Por eso cabe preguntarse, según Dirceu ¿qué será lo que hace Chávez que nadie ha hecho en un siglo?
¿Comprarse apoyos, los que sea y a como dé lugar, por ejemplo, bajo la sugerencia del mismo Dirceu?
Antes del “affaire Dirceu” y con él como estratega, se han firmado múltiples acuerdos económicos con Brasil en cada uno de los cuales se ha seguido la pauta maestra del tercer amigo en esta historia, el Gobierno chino, prometer mucho pero asegurase todo, que estos días ha decidido privatizar medio centenar de empresas estatales, “para reducir la influencia del Gobierno en la Bolsa de Valores y mejorar la eficiencia de las empresas”. Entre ellas se cuentan la mayor acería china, el complejo hidroeléctrico más grande del mundo, una potente empresa de minería de carbón y otra de transporte marítimo, además de tres bancos. Con esta privatización casi masiva, el gobierno de China espera obtener unos 212 mil millones de dólares que sus arcas necesitan y además, es el rostro humano del asunto, ampliar el grupo de accionistas minoritarios a los que ofrece condiciones especiales de compra.
¿Qué dirá ahora nuestro jefazo?
que se proclamó maoísta al no más pisar esas tierras, ignorando que en ese momento, y ahora, era el único ser viviente que deambulaba por el país de la Gran Muralla llevando a cuestas esa profesión de fe.
Dime con quién andas... ¿y te diré quién eres?
(Joaquín Marta Sosa, El Nacional, 30 Junio 2005)
So GP, aside from just making mixted up posts do you care to comment on anything, like say why the opposition isn't helping to decriminilize abortion, even in limited cases?
wow did anyone catch this exchange on the D.E.
Did the organizers at the meeting have to put one extra chair around the table, or was there the correct number of chairs? I mean, just how friggen bizarre is it that a country doesn't even know the president of another country is coming to town. Chavez is full of it!!! Worst of all, Chavistas are more full of it. So pathetic, blind, stupid and poor. No sympathy from me. If you're poor, you probably didn't have the brains to make it in life anyway. This sort of thing just confirms the Chavista stupidity. I say grow up, open your brain and eyes, and protest against this government to make it work better for you. Sorry, a disjointed email, but c'mon. There is so much nonsense going on that knowing where to start and stop is next to impossible! Pura vida
Majiks • 6/29/05; 8:39:24 PM #
Majiks: I know you and I agree in our opposition to Chavismo. But your statement above ("If you're poor, you probably didn't have the brains to make it in life anyway.") reeks of classism and ignorance. Are you gonna try to claim that poverty is something some people deserve? You obviously have never suffered the effects of poverty. If you can't understand the basic historical causes (colonialism, slavery and genocide) of poverty in South America then you need to read more history. I refuse to align myself with anyone in the opposition who would claim that some people deserve to live in poverty. NO ONE DESERVES TO LIVE IN POVERTY.
GP • 6/30/05; 12:11:55 AM #
Not bad GP, not bad.
(In order to inform the reader and give alternate perspectives on posts made - I offer portions of this non political paper on Zimbabwe)
--------------------------------------
Although there are many similarities in relation to the history of land in
South Africa and Zimbabwe, the underlying conditions are different.
Unlike South Africa, Zimbabwean colonisation only started in the
1890's, when the 'pioneer column' of John Cecil Rhodes crossed north
over the Limpopo. This movement north of European settlers was spurred-on by massive gold discoveries on the Rand (now Johannesburg) in South Africa in the 1870's. 'Gold hunger' led mining capital to explore for further rich gold fields. These explorations penetrated as far inland as the Zimbabwe highlands, where gold was indeed discovered.
The British South Africa Company (BSA) - a commercial company - had
obtained concessions from the British Crown to further the exploitation of minerals in the region. The Company sponsored the settlement of Europeans at what was then Fort Salisbury (now Harare), where land was -separated and laid out as farms. It needs to be noted that the BSA did not set out to govern or rule the territory. It's
sole objective was to seek and generate profit from the natural
resources discovered there. Unfortunately, profits were not to be,
since the gold discovered in Zimbabwe was not concentrated in reefs
(as in South Africa), but rather was scattered and almost impossible
to extract profitably. In fact, even after three decades the company
never generated any profit.
As aresult of the company being unable to profit from gold exploitation, the BSA encouraged white settlement for farming purposes. This was seen as an alternative means of generating income for the company. As a result of this policy however, there was a greater need to dispossess indigenous peoples of even more land, and coercively force them into labour on settler farms.
Within the first decade of European settlement in Zimbabwe, African people
rebelled against the forced alienation of their lands. The first
'Chimurenga' erupted in 1896 as locals attempted through armed
struggle to drive the settlers out, and to reclaim their territory.
This rebellion lasted until 1897, but ultimately failed as Africans were defeated by European weaponry.
It is therefore not surprising that the iniquities and inequalities of land allocation, and the associated state support to white agriculture were continuous areas of conflict and contention. As noted earlier, the first rebellion by indigenous peoples was fuelled
by these grievances. In the mid-1960's, the second Chimurengabegan, led by ZANU and ZAPU. Both of these liberation movements were committed to radical land reform on coming to power. The dispossession of Africans was still very much a living memory for
many of the elders in Zimbabwe who had lived through . the first Chimurenga. As a result, ZANU and ZAPU elicited much peasant support, and the war was thus fought largely in rural areas. Trade unions and civil organisations were not involved.Rather, it was guerrilla fighters and peasants who battled against a modern army of the white
regime. It was a struggle for land on the land.
The civil war lasted for nearly two decades before negotiations for a settlement were initiated in the late-1970's. The inequalities in Zimbabwe at that time were still very stark. Population densities in the communal areas were three times those in commercial farming areas. There was still a highly visible racial division of land, with 6000 white farmers owning approximately 42 per cent of the country
2.3.
Independence: The Lancaster House Agreement
In terms of seeking a resolution to the crisis in Zimbabwe at the time, the land reform experience of Kenya was influential. As with Zimbabwe, Kenya had had a comparable land problem and a guerrilla war fuelled by land grievances. In the case of Kenya, the British sought to defuse the situation by buying out white farmers. The British made
available UK£ 500 million for land acquisition and settlement support in Kenya. It was hoped that a similar solution could be found for Zimbabwe. Thus, during the secret negotiations in the mid-1970's, the notion of an Anglo-American Development Fund for
Zimbabwe was promoted. The endowment" received broad support (including backing from the then ZANU/ZAPU Patriotic Front). This fund, to which the British agreed to contribute UK£ 75 million, would be used to buy out farms owned by whites. At the time, the US hinted it would contribute an extra $200 million to the fund. However, as we will see in the following pages, this Fund failed to materialise.
In 1979, the Lancaster House negotiations started. By the time these negotiations took place there had been a change in government in the UK. During Lancaster, the Development Fund, which had been moot in previous discussions, was used as 'bait' to get the liberation movements to reach an agreement with the Rhodesian authorities. In
the end however, the offer of the Fund was withdrawn, and instead the UK government offered a compromise solution. In exchange for guaranteeing existing property rights in the new Zimbabwe, the UK would underwrite half of the costs of resettlement. The Zimbabwe government ha
The Zimbabwe government had to match that funding to make up the full costs of the
programme. In 1980, the UK pledged an initial amount of UK£ 20 million.
Land would thus change hands through a willing seller/willing buyer mechanism, with white farmers who wanted to continue farming being free to do so. There would be no mass expropriation of land by the new post-colonial state. The state did retain the right to
expropriate for public and resettlement purposes, but in such cases compensation had to be paid out in foreign currency. In the end, following pressure from the frontline states, ZANU/ZAPU conceded and accepted the settlement. The restrictions imposed by Lancaster were to remain in place for 10 years.
As a result of this "crucial capitulation" (Palmer, 1990:166), the hands of the new Zimbabwean government were effectively tied in relation to agrarian transformation, and
effectively ruled out any significant redistribution of land. Compounding these restrictions was the fact that following the war there was an urgent need for reconstruction, and measures to address mass displacement and the collapse of peasant production. Moreover, as a result of the collapse of peasant agriculture, 90 per cent of
the countries marketed food requirements were being produced by white farmers. This ironically placed white farmers in a strong position (economically and politically) at the end of the war. The restrictions imposed through the Lancaster House agreement remained a constant theme in Zimbabwean land reform in the decades following
independence.
3.
Land and Agrarian Reform in Zimbabwe2
The aim of land reform in post-independence Zimbabwe was to redress past land alienation through promoting equal access to land for the majority of the population. The aims of the programme were:
(i) To create political stability and an acceptable property rights regime;
(ii) To promote economic growth through wider equity and efficiency gains from land redistribution; and
(iii) To promote national food security, self-sufficiency and agricultural development through labour intensive small farmer production, optimal land productivity,
and returns to capital invested.
The land reform programme was targeted at the landless; war veterans; the
poor; and commercial farm workers.
The target for resettlement on land acquired by the state changed a number of times in the first two years of independence. In 1980 the stated target was 18 000 households over five years. This changed in 1981 to 54 000 households before finally, in 1982, the target was fixed at 162 000 households (to be resettled by 1984 if possible). This final target has stuck, and proved to be a millstone around the government's neck.
Land acquisition was aimed at reducing the 16 million hectares of agricultural land held by white farmers at independence by approximately 50 per cent. The target set for land acquisition and transf
transfer to black small landholders was thus approximately 8 million
hectares. The remaining white commercial farming areas would also be desegregated through promoting black entry into the sector.
The Land Reform and Resettlement Programme of the Zimbabwean government can be seen as comprising two phases: the first phase from 1980 to 1996, and the second commencing with the gazetting of 1471 farms for compulsory acquisition in 1997.
More At: http://www.landaction.org/displa....php?
article=61
I strongly urge certain bloggers to get acquainted with history before posting biased garbage.
A tear wells in my eye. Guillo has made me proud (although the he too needs a history lesson) today. I knew the bloke had something about him.
Clearly the Majiks thinking is very prevelent in the opposition (notice no one else complained about it) but at least SOME opposition types have some decent things to say.
Now the big mystery is where did he copy and paste that from? He couldn't possibly have written it himself.
OW if you will allow me, for the benefit of the audience and in deference to our opposition counterpart, one Honorable DBC whose views should be noted as those opposing our own, I would like to post a link that is off topic but significant, of a thread that is contributed to almost daily, perhaps unbeknownst to some readers as it has been superceded by more current news, so that they may glimpse and/or partake of ongoing discussions.
http://oilwars.blogspot.com/2005...rate-
times.html
everyone ofcourse is welcomed.
Commenting by HaloScan
