As a Zimbabwe articles like this one both me because they do not provide evidence. For this article to be valid, you must have evaluated trauma before independence and after independence. Before independence, there was very limited measurements of anything about black people. There was a great deal of anglo white minority propaganda. I question the validit of this article.

This is not to say, I support Robert Mugabe, but rather that facts and truth do matter, even as Zimbabweans suffer under Robert Mugabe!

You are asking the truth from a white man. That would be a disillusionment, the politics of the white people are base on falsehood littered with statistics and holier-than-thou attitude.

uoxleonard,,,,,you're a proud racist I see.

You must have an inferiority complex.

I love people of all colour who bring something positive to the quality of other peoples' lives. You do not possess these qualities.

And by the way, that car you drive,,,invented by a white man, those drugs you take to keep you healthy,,,,invented by a white man...the English you speak....white man.

So, I am not holier than any colour or race, but definitely holier than you.

Agreed! The reason drop kicks do not understand is because they are drop kicks!

When there is no real law and order and mugabe and regimes mobs can do as they please, everyone has more trauma, women, men and children. There is no real law in Zimbabwe and there has been no real law in Zimbabwe for 20 years. To the Women,men and children that have been abused by mugabe and regime, i say remember you attackers face and name because one day you will be able to take legal vengeance on them along with 100's of thousands of others. Till the day comes stay strong and remember there are many around the world that feel for you and support you, at the moment the African and other countries are stopping the world stepping in and being on your side, but know many billions of us are on your side and believe in you. Women have an equal right in this world, only cowards think otherwise because they are scared a women is smarter than they are!!!!!!!

The West, you have many good points. However, I feel you did not address my point or concern. To say there has not been laws in Zimbabwe for 20 years is also inaccurate. Zimbabwe used to have a good judicial system, far better than that of Ian Smith and his regime. However, Mugabe began to destroy it.

West, even when dealing with dictators like Mugabe it is still important to tell the truth. There was so much propaganda during Smith regime and colonial rule, that it is impossible to make any real comparisons with the current regime.

Thabo Mbeki’s letter to Morgan Tsvangirai

Dear Sir Morgan

Today I received the letter dated 19 November 2008, which was correctly communicated through the South African Embassy in Harare, written to me by your secretary general, the Hon Tendai Biti, MP, concerning Constitutional Amendment No 19. I must confess that the contents of this letter came to me as a complete surprise, causing me grave concern. As you know, Mr Biti's letter describes the decisions on Zimbabwe, taken by the November 9 SADC Extraordinary Summit Meeting held in South Africa, as "a nullity". The letter goes further to say that “it is then difficult for any of the parties to move in any direction for fear of legitimising the SADC Summit “ruling’.” The first point I would like to make with regard to the foregoing is that, as you know, we were appointed as facilitator of the Zimbabwe Dialogue by the SADC. This position was later endorsed by both the African Union (AU) and the United Nations (UN), both of which expressly rely on SADC to facilitate the Zimbabwe Dialogue, and thus contribute to the resolution of the Zimbabwe problem. You will, therefore, understand that it is absolutely impossible for us as the SADC-appointed facilitator contemptuously to dismiss solemn decisions of an SADC Summit Meeting as "a nullity". Indeed, and necessarily, all such decisions serve as a binding mandate on the facilitator. The second point I would like to make is that contrary to what the Hon Tendai Biti says in his letter, the three Zimbabwe negotiating parties, including yours, and with the support of the facilitation, have agreed that they should meet with the facilitation to consider the Draft Constitutional Amendment No 19. The facilitation had proposed that this meeting should take place in South Africa on November 19 and 20, with the intention to finalise this draft during this interaction. Both Zanu-PF and the MDC (M) agreed to this proposal. However the meeting did not take place, essentially because of the reportedly unavoidable unavailability of your secretary general, the Hon Tendai Biti, who is one of your negotiators. Subsequently, your negotiators suggested that the meeting should be rescheduled to take place in South Africa on 25 November. The facilitation canvassed this proposal with the other Zimbabwe negotiating parties and secured their agreement. Accordingly, as of now, we expect that the meeting to consider the Draft Constitutional Amendment No 19 will be held on 25 November, as your negotiators proposed. As you know, on 17 November, the facilitation received from the Hon Patrick Chinamasa the First Draft of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment No 19 Bill, 2008. We immediately distributed this draft to all three Zimbabwe negotiating parties, preparatory to the meeting then scheduled to be held on November 19-20. Subsequently, the facilitation was informed that the MDC (T) had prepared its own Draft Constitutional Amendment No 19. The facilitation welcomed this initiative by the MDC-T, which was consistent with the manner in which the SADC-mandated Zimbabwe Dialogue has been conducted during a period of over 18 months. By agreement, this has allowed that each and any of the Zimbabwe Negotiating Parties should be absolutely free to present their views during the dialogue process, without let or hindrance, which has happened. I would therefore like to assure you that consistent with previous practice, the facilitation is ready to facilitate consideration of all Drafts of Constitutional Amendment No 19 in an even-handed manner, guided by what is contained in the signed Global Political Agreement. (As has been agreed, we will take all necessary steps to ensure that Amendment No 19 includes the provisions contained in the agreement signed privately on September 11, which, for whatever reason, are absent from the agreement signed in public on September 15.) Correctly, the Zimbabwe negotiating parties had agreed, without any SADC intervention, that some of their decisions, as reflected in the Global Political Agreement, would have to be legalised through constitutional amendments. We are completely at a loss as to what the Hon Tendai Biti means when he writes that with regard to Constitutional Amendment No 19, "it is then difficult for any of the parties to move in any direction for fear of legitimising the SADC Summit ‘ruling’.” When the SADC Summit Meeting called for the approval of Constitutional Amendment No 19, it did nothing more than to endorse a logical decision which the Zimbabwe negotiating parties had already concluded. Neither the MDC-T, nor the other two Zimbabwe negotiating parties had expressed this (Biti) view to the facilitator, as we prepared for the November 19-20 and November 25 meetings, that the SADC approval of an existing decision of the Zimbabwe negotiating parties created a new problem. And indeed, neither Zanu-PF nor the MDC (M) has, to date, expressed any such view. To the best of our knowledge, they remain ready to participate in the 25 November meeting. In addition, you will also remember that, in your presence, at the 9 November SADC Summit Meeting, both President Mugabe and Professor Mutambara informed the meeting that they accepted the SADC decisions, and committed their organisations to their full implementation. The deputy treasurer general of the MDC-T, and one of your negotiators, the Hon Elton Mangoma, kindly conveyed to the facilitation the resolutions adopted by the 7th MDC National Council of 2008, which met in Harare on 14 November, 2008. In this regard, the facilitation took particular note of the resolution which stated that:

"3. Given the lack of sincerity and lack of paradigm shift on the part of Zanu PF, the MDC shall participate in a new government once Constitutional Amendment No 19 has been passed and effected into law." In this regard, the facilitation also took note of the November 14 report carried on the Kubatana Internet website, which said: (MDC-T Vice-President Thokozani) Khupe said: “Given the lack of sincerity and lack of paradigm shift on the part of Zanu-PF, the MDC shall participate in a new government once Constitutional Amendment No 19 has been passed and effected into law.” All this suggested to the Facilitation that the Zimbabwe Negotiating Parties should indeed proceed as speedily as possible to agree on Constitutional Amendment No 19. The immediate foregoing is part of the reason why we find it immensely puzzling that even after the announced decisions of the 7th MDC National Council of 2008, your secretary general has now informed us that it is in fact impossible and impermissible to draft and enact Constitutional Amendment No 19 into law. This is not the appropriate platform to discuss the intricacies of the Zimbabwe negotiations, in which you and ourselves have been involved for many years. However, you know the circumstances which led the SADC Troika of the Organ on Politics and the SADC chairperson, and subsequently the 9 November SADC Extraordinary Summit Meeting, to focus on the matter of the Ministry of Home Affairs. As the SADC executive secretary reported to the 9 November SADC Summit Meeting, when the SADC Troika of the Organ on Politics and the SADC chairperson met in Harare on 27-28 October, they engaged the Zimbabwe negotiating parties, including yourself, in intense negotiations, deliberately without the participation of the facilitator. The clear message communicated to the SADC Troika of the Organ on Politics and the SADC chairperson during these interactions was that the only obstacle to the formation of the Zimbabwe Inclusive Government, as agreed in the Global Political Agreement (GPA), was the finalisation of the dispute about the political leadership of the Ministry of Home Affairs, and the subsequent legalisation of the GPA through the enactment of Constitutional Amendment No 19. You will remember your own insistence that in the context of the agreement that there should be two ministers of home affairs, these should serve in rotation, with the MDC-T appointee taking the first slot. You affirmed that if this were to be agreed, it would mark the conclusion of the negotiations about the distribution of the ministerial portfolios, and therefore enable the establishment of the Zimbabwe Inclusive Government, with your endorsement and support. Because of this, basing themselves on what they learnt from the negotiations they conducted directly with the Zimbabwe negotiating parties, without the involvement of the Facilitation, the Troika of the SADC Organ on Politics and the SADC chairperson concluded that the most urgent and outstanding task relating to the formation of the Zimbabwe Inclusive Government was the resolution of matters relating to the Ministry of Home Affairs. During the SADC meetings, the Troika of the Organ on Politics and the SADC chairperson emphasised that they recognise the fact that there are some outstanding matters that still need to be negotiated, and therefore asked that the facilitator should help ensure that this happens. As we said earlier, for us as the facilitator, this constitutes a binding mandate which we must honour. It is therefore factually incorrect that SADC has ignored various outstanding matters which you might have raised or which have served and serve on the agreed dialogue agenda. In this regard, I would like to make one or two observations about the matter of "equity" with regard to the distribution of ministerial portfolios, which is mentioned in the resolutions of the 7th MDC National Council of 2008. At your request, which was supported by the other two Zimbabwe negotiating parties, we prepared and submitted a document to you as the Zimbabwe principals, naturally including you, entitled "Reflections and Proposals of the Facilitation: Towards the Achievement of the Objectives of Equity and Power-sharing in the Constitution of the Inclusive Government: Harare, 17 October 2008." All three Zimbabwe negotiating parties responded to this document in writing. Of the three, only the MDC-T fundamentally disagreed with the observations of the facilitator. As you know, the facilitator's document did not constitute a "ruling", as it could not. It was a response to a suggestion you yourself had made, and should have been subjected to a discussion among the Zimbabwe principals and the facilitator. However, as was your right, you responded to the facilitator in two documents. This happened shortly before the Troika of the SADC Organ on Politics and the SADC chairperson were to meet in Swaziland. In the light of this decision, the facilitation thought it proper that it should submit to the Swaziland meeting copies of these five documents - the facilitator's "Reflections . . ." and the four responses, two from the MDC-T, — both to the SADC Troika of the Organ on Politics and the SADC chairperson, as well as the SADC Extraordinary Summit Meeting, which was done. The facilitation has no reason to assume that these documents were not considered by the SADC structures. We are, therefore, not aware of the basis of the statement made by the 7th MDC National Council of 2008 that SADC ignored the issue that MDC-T had raised, relating to "equity" in the distribution of ministerial posts. With regard to other outstanding matters, in your presence the SADC executive secretary reported that the SADC Troika of the Organ on Politics and the SADC chairperson agreed that these should not be forgotten or ignored, but should not hold up the formation of the Inclusive Government. SADC directed that the facilitator should continue to focus on these matters, within the context that it set, which coincided with the approach of the facilitation. It is perfectly clear to us as the facilitation that SADC is firmly of the view that the sooner the agreed Zimbabwe Inclusive Government is established, the better. Our region considers this to be the most critical and urgent strategic task to implement, to move decisively towards the resolution of the challenges facing Zimbabwe. As you know, the facilitation agrees with this view. In this regard, you as the Zimbabwe principals agreed with the facilitator that senior officials of the Zimbabwe and South African governments should engage one another to address the issue of the provision of agricultural inputs that would help to ensure that during the current summer agricultural season, the people of Zimbabwe do everything possible to produce the food they need. As you will recall, this decision was taken on the basis of an urgent request presented to the facilitator by the Zimbabwe Commercial Farmers' Union (CFU). Together we agreed with the CFU that the intervention to produce food should not be held back because of delays in the conclusion of an agreement among the politicians about the composition of the Zimbabwe Inclusive Government. On the basis of this mandate, the relevant Zimbabwe and South African senior officials have indeed interacted with one another. I have the assurance of the president of South Africa, HE Mr Kgalema Motlanthe, that the Government of South Africa is ready to honour its obligations in this regard, precisely because of its abiding concern about the welfare of the sister people of Zimbabwe. I mention this particular issue, concerning the agricultural season that is upon us, to emphasise the point that all of you, the principal Zimbabwe Leaders, have consistently communicated to me your unqualified understanding of the reality that it was of strategic and urgent importance that the Zimbabwe Inclusive Government should be established without further delay, as the SADC Extraordinary Summit concurred. In his 19 November, 2008 letter, the Hon Tendai Biti, secretary general of MDC-T, raised various matters of grave concern to the MDC-T. In particular he mentioned: l a complete collapse of the Zimbabwe state; l the absolute inability of the state to "provide the basic amenities to the people"; l the threat of an "explosion" or "implosion" in Zimbabwe, which would "have a contagious multiplier effect in the region"; l "a renewed wave of violence, abductions and assaults against the MDC and the people of Zimbabwe"; l the "crafting (by Zanu PF) of 'an assassination plot, code-named Operation Ngatipedzenavo (Let us Finish Them) intended to eliminate the MDC leadership and decimate the party through frivolous allegations; l "flimsy attempts to frame the MDC as a terrorist organisation that is training people for the purposes of banditry and insurgence"; and, l "people being used to frame confessions, and militias being trained by Zanu PF to act as MDC bandits in an attempt to delegitimise the MDC". Again, as you know, the letter from the Hon Tendai Biti ends with the appeal to the facilitator - "We look forward to hearing from you on the way forward." The above observations and allegations made by the Hon Tendai Biti are indeed extremely grave and demand immediate action. The very firm and unequivocal view of the facilitation in this regard, which the Hon Biti requests, is that we must move with the greatest speed to establish the Inclusive Government, as provided for in the Global Political Agreement. We must, as a matter of extreme urgency, establish the new Zimbabwe government, which will include the three parties represented in the democratically elected Zimbabwe parliament. This government must operate according to the principles and procedures detailed in the Global Political Agreement, which both determines that RG Mugabe will be president, and that Morgan Tsvangirai will be prime minister, and specifies the roles of these leaders in the Inclusive Government. The MDC-T, like the other Zimbabwe parties, must, within an Inclusive Government, take responsibility for the future of Zimbabwe, rather than see its mission as being a militant critic of President Mugabe and Zanu-PF. The signing of the Global Political Agreement has provided the possibility for the leaders of the people of Zimbabwe to govern Zimbabwe together, and together to solve the national problems, including the ones raised by the Hon Tendai Biti in his letter to me. All that is now required is that these leaders must remain true to their word. They must implement the agreement they have signed. In this regard, they have absolutely no need to refer to their external supporters for approval, however powerful they might seem, including any and all South African formations. All that is required is that you, the leaders of the people of Zimbabwe, should do what you have committed yourselves to do, and that is all! In the context of the observations made by the Hon Tendai Biti in his 19 November letter to the facilitator, Zimbabwe urgently needs precisely the agreed Inclusive Government, to: n rebuild the state machinery of Zimbabwe; n enable it to meet the needs of the people; n overcome the current socio- economic crisis; n end the threat of the explosion or implosion of Zimbabwe; n end all manifestations of repression, intimidation and violence; and n guarantee the democratic and human rights of all Zimbabweans, including their political and other formations. The Hon Tendai Biti should not transfer the achievement of these tasks to the facilitator, SADC and the AU. This responsibility belongs squarely to the people of Zimbabwe and their leaders. The official signing of the Global Political Agreement in Harare on September 15 opened the way for you as Zimbabwe's leaders, and the formations you represent, to act together not as political opponents, but as partners in pursuit of a shared and defined objective of the reconstruction and development of Zimbabwe, the reconciliation and unification of its people, and the entrenchment of democracy. As you have agreed, in the first instance this must be expressed in the formation of the Zimbabwe Inclusive Government, which must work together as a cohesive formation, together as one, to address the priorities identified in the Global Political Agreement, in the manner prescribed in this agreement. You and I know that objectively, Zimbabwe desperately needs the establishment of this Inclusive Government, and that this is the most urgent demand of the masses, the people who elected the three parties, including yours, which are represented in the Parliament of Zimbabwe. Without in any way reflecting on their merits, which would require protracted investigations, the only and most rational way to address the challenges raised by the Hon Tendai Biti is to form the Zimbabwe Inclusive Government and table the matters at issue even at the very first meeting of the cabinet of the Inclusive Government. We suggest, humbly, that given the fact of the Global Political Agreement, the MDC-T, and indeed the MDC (M), should no longer treat themselves as opposition parties or protest movements, and neither should Zanu PF consider and relate to them as such. The agreement that has been reached and signed provides that Zimbabwe will and must have a ruling coalition of three co-operating parties. Acting together, within the agreed framework, these will and must constitute the new "ruling party" of Zimbabwe, which must govern Zimbabwe as this "one" entity. Contrary to all this, the Hon Tendai Biti asks that we should support the delay in the formation of the Zimbabwe Inclusive Government and help to sustain an untenable situation according to which, despite the agreed and signed Global Political Agreement, the signatories should continue to treat one another as opposed political formations engaged in a deadly fight, one against the other. Where conflicts and problems continue to persist among the Zimbabwe political parties and the supporters of these, surely the framework has now been established for these to engage one another to address these conflicts and problems! I am certain that the longer we postpone using this framework, relying on the luxury of a facilitator and other informal advisers, the longer we will perpetuate the terrible misery that afflicts the people of Zimbabwe. As facilitator, a neighbour and an African, I am immensely proud of the extraordinary work you have done to develop the comprehensive consensus that now exists among yourselves as the leaders of the people of Zimbabwe, which provides the roadmap which defines what must be done to pull Zimbabwe out of the abyss. What the people of Zimbabwe, our region and Africa now need is the sense of patriotism among yourselves as leaders of the people of Zimbabwe and as African patriots, which will inspire you, despite and beyond personal and partisan interests, to implement the agreements you have concluded. In this regard, it may be that together, openly, and sooner rather than later, we must give an account to the masses of the people of Zimbabwe of what has been agreed during 18 months of negotiations, and what it is that holds up the united, national advance towards the alleviation of the problems of Zimbabwe, and therefore the speedy improvement of the quality of the lives of the people. You know this, too, that the rest of Southern Africa, your neighbouring countries, has also had the unavoidable obligation to carry much of the weight of the burden of the Zimbabwe crisis, in many ways. You know that, among other things, various countries of our region host large numbers of economic migrants from Zimbabwe, who impose particular burdens on our countries. Loyal to the concept and practice of African solidarity, none of our countries and governments has spoken publicly of this burden, fearful that we might incite the xenophobia to which all of us are opposed. Nevertheless, the leaders of the people of Zimbabwe, including you, dear brother, need to bear in mind that the pain your country bears is a pain that is transferred to the masses of our people, who face their own challenges of poverty, unemployment and underdevelopment. This particular burden is not carried by the countries of Western Europe and North America, which have benefited especially from the migration of skilled and professional Zimbabweans to the north. In the end, when all is said and done, Zimbabwe will have to exist in peace and productive collaboration with its neighbours in Southern Africa and the rest of Africa. Realistically, Zimbabwe will never share the same neighbourhood with the countries of Western Europe and North America, and therefore secure its success on the basis of friendship with these, and contempt for the decisions of its immediate African neighbours. I say this humbly to advise that it does not help Zimbabwe, nor will it help you as prime minister of Zimbabwe, that the MDC-T contemptuously repudiates very serious decisions of our region, and therefore our continent, describing them as “a nullity”. It may be that, for whatever reason, you consider our region and continent as being of little consequence to the future of Zimbabwe, believing that others further away, in Western Europe and North America, are of greater importance. In this context I have been told that because leaders in our region did not agree with you on some matters that served on the agenda of the SADC Extraordinary Summit Meeting, you have denounced them publicly as "cowards". Such manner of proceeding might earn you prominent media headlines. However, I assure you that it will do nothing to solve the problems of Zimbabwe. As you secure applause because of the insult against us that we are "cowards", you will have to consider the reality that our peoples have accepted into their countries very large numbers of Zimbabwean brothers and sisters in a spirit of human solidarity, prepared to sustain the resultant obligations. None of our countries displayed characteristics of cowardice when they did this. All of us will find it strange and insulting that because we do not agree with you on a small matter, you choose to describe us in a manner that is most offensive in terms of African culture, and therefore offend our sense of dignity as Africans, across our borders. As facilitator I am more than convinced that we should hold the November 25 meeting as proposed by your negotiators, to agree on the text of Constitutional Amendment No 19, and the procedures for its approval. The facilitation therefore confirms the arrangements that have been made for this critically important meeting. Consistent with the principle agreed from the very beginning of the SADC-mandated negotiations, that no party to the negotiations has veto powers, the facilitation will engage any party that arrives to attend the November 25 meeting which your negotiators proposed, and which we convinced the other parties to accept. As a matter of courtesy, as well as for their information and action, I would like to inform you that I will make available the November 19 letter of the Hon Tendai Biti to me, and this response to you, to: l the other Zimbabwe negotiating parties; l the chairperson and acting chairperson of the SADC Organ on Politics etc; l the chairperson of SADC; l the chairperson of the AU; l the chairperson of the AU Commission; l the secretary general of the United Nations; and, l the executive secretary of SADC.

Yours sincerely, Thabo Mbeki.

Nov. 21—We have repeatedly warned that the Anglo-Dutch Liberal empire is using the death of the global financial system to eliminate the nation-state system and impose a global, fascist, corporatist dictatorship upon the world. One does not need inside information to see this; one merely need examine the policies being pushed by the international banking crowd and take them to their natural conclusion. The push for fascism is, to use H.G. Wells' term, an "open conspiracy."

However, it is always useful to receive confirmation of their intent from inside the enemy camp: According to reliable sources, there is an active discussion within the halls of HSBC's London headquarters of the need for a new Hjalmar Schacht.

This should not be a surprising development. HSBC is the lead bank of the Brutish Empire, and was the political force behind the rise of Adolf Hitler in Germany. And Schacht was the empire's man on the scene, as head of the Reichsbank and then, Minister of Economics under Hitler.

Schacht's role was to impose an even more brutal austerity on a German population whose standard of living had already been destroyed by the hyperinflation which resulted from the savage reparations imposed on the nation after World War I. Schacht helped create the conditions which made Hitler possible, and then helped finance the rise of Hitler, working closely with the Bank of England. Just as the bankers created Hitler in the 1930s, they are now pushing fascism again, this time, on a global scale.

Corporatism Hitler was just one of the projects of the Brutish Empire. Another was Benito Mussolini, the Italian dictator who took office a decade before Hitler, then allied with him in World War II. Mussolini took the title "Duce of Fascism," a term which can be translated as either Duke or Doge of Fascism, Doge being the highest office in the Venetian system. Behind both the Hitler and Mussolini governments lay a complex of imperial financiers and corporate cartels, which used the governments to keep the people in line. The German cartels, many of which came together to form the infamous IG Farben, were actually creatures of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system; they, like Schacht, helped finance Hitler and build his war machine for the purpose of having Germany attack Russia—having rivals fight debilitating wars against each other is a specialty of the Brits. It was only when Hitler turned his guns west toward the heart of the empire, that the oligarchs were forced to defend themselves against the monster they created.

The purpose of this corporatist movement was to eliminate the role of the nation-state as a force in world affairs, and replace it with a system run by financial houses and corporate cartels. There were fascist parties in all the major Western nations in the 1920s and 1930s, including the U.S.A., where the Morgan and du Pont interests tried to organize a coup against Franklin Roosevelt, in a plot exposed by Gen. Smedley Butler, in 1934.

The coup against Roosevelt was thwarted, and FDR led the United States and its Allies to victory over Germany and Italy in World War II. The tools of fascism had been defeated, but not its imperial core. This corporatist movement resurfaced in a big way with the 1968 Bilderberg meeting in Mont Tremblant, Canada.

At that meeting, George Ball, a senior banker at Lehman Brothers and a major figure in the Anglo-American Establishment, gave a speech outlining the need for a new structure to replace the "outmoded" nation-state. Ball called this new structure the "world company," an explicitly corporatist formulation. This "world company" would, in the view of its sponsors, take control over raw materials and other resources worldwide, allowing the empire to use them as it saw fit. Nations, it was said, were too selfish, tending to view the resources within their borders as theirs, to be used for the benefit of their own people.

Fast-forward to today, and look at the world from that perspective. This world company approach has largely been implemented, under the name globalization; nations everywhere are dependent upon the empire's financial markets for their funds, and dependent upon the empire's cartels for many of the necessities of life. Though we do not—yet—have the jackboots of Hitler and Mussolini, we do have the corporatist fascism they represented, and that system is coming to the fore under the guise of bailing out the financial system.

Debt Overload It should be obvious to all thinking persons by now, that we cannot solve a debt crisis by taking on even more debt. All the bailout really does is transfer losses from the books of the banks to the books of the government—and thus to the taxpayer—without doing anything to increase our economy's ability to pay that debt. It does, in fact, do just the opposite, as the physical economy is further cannibalized by the demands of the bailout. We incurred this debt as a result of the decision to deindustrialize the U.S. economy, and switch to a service/finance economy; with every passing year we produce less while we spend more, making up the difference by borrowing from the rest of the world.

Wall Street financed this expansion of debt by creating an ever-wilder series of financial instruments. This process, in which debt was treated as an asset, and then that asset used as the basis to create even more assets, ad absurdum, resulting in a mountain of highly over-leveraged securities and derivatives bets which far exceeds the debt-carrying capacity of the economy. The same is true, to varying degrees, in most other countries of the world.

We are, to put it simply, flat broke, with no prospect of recovering unless we break with the failed Anglo-Dutch Liberal system and return to the time-tested policies of the American System.

Fascism, or Renaissance? The clear intent of the Brutish Empire is to use this crisis to return the world to the way it existed before the American Revolution, a rentier-financier feudalist model coupled with the modern technology of "Big Brother." This is explicit in the call for a new Schacht, but it is also implicit, at least, in the efforts by the Bush Administration, the Congress, and the Federal Reserve to bail out the system. From the insane perspective of the financiers, the only chance they have of saving their system is to ram through a savage consolidation of the financial system into a dramatically smaller number of global institutions—giant banks, insurance companies, and a few others, which owe their allegiance to the empire rather than any nation. This would give the Anglo-Dutch Liberal empire even greater control over the issuance of credit than it now has, giving it a greater stranglehold over the peoples of the world. Credit would be largely limited to the financial institutions and the cartels of the empire, eliminating all competition, and accelerating the collapse into a new Dark Age.

The alternative, as laid out clearly by Lyndon LaRouche, is a return to the credit system established by the U.S. Constitution, in which Congress appropriates credit for infrastructure and related projects for the public welfare, and the Executive branch administers the issuance of that credit through a national bank. This method provides the optimum combination of government control over the money supply and the distribution of that credit in a manner that insures the money is used for the most productive purposes. The national bank would issue the credit to private companies via private banks, tapping the entrepreneurial spirit and creativity of the American people. Naturally, this would also require educating Congress and the citizenry in the American System, so that we can make sure Congress follows the Constitution. Were we to do this, we could lead the world into a new Renaissance.

Thabo Mbeki’s letter to Morgan Tsvangirai

Dear Sir Morgan

Today I received the letter dated 19 November 2008, which was correctly communicated through the South African Embassy in Harare, written to me by your secretary general, the Hon Tendai Biti, MP, concerning Constitutional Amendment No 19. I must confess that the contents of this letter came to me as a complete surprise, causing me grave concern. As you know, Mr Biti's letter describes the decisions on Zimbabwe, taken by the November 9 SADC Extraordinary Summit Meeting held in South Africa, as "a nullity". The letter goes further to say that “it is then difficult for any of the parties to move in any direction for fear of legitimising the SADC Summit “ruling’.” The first point I would like to make with regard to the foregoing is that, as you know, we were appointed as facilitator of the Zimbabwe Dialogue by the SADC. This position was later endorsed by both the African Union (AU) and the United Nations (UN), both of which expressly rely on SADC to facilitate the Zimbabwe Dialogue, and thus contribute to the resolution of the Zimbabwe problem. You will, therefore, understand that it is absolutely impossible for us as the SADC-appointed facilitator contemptuously to dismiss solemn decisions of an SADC Summit Meeting as "a nullity". Indeed, and necessarily, all such decisions serve as a binding mandate on the facilitator. The second point I would like to make is that contrary to what the Hon Tendai Biti says in his letter, the three Zimbabwe negotiating parties, including yours, and with the support of the facilitation, have agreed that they should meet with the facilitation to consider the Draft Constitutional Amendment No 19. The facilitation had proposed that this meeting should take place in South Africa on November 19 and 20, with the intention to finalise this draft during this interaction. Both Zanu-PF and the MDC (M) agreed to this proposal. However the meeting did not take place, essentially because of the reportedly unavoidable unavailability of your secretary general, the Hon Tendai Biti, who is one of your negotiators. Subsequently, your negotiators suggested that the meeting should be rescheduled to take place in South Africa on 25 November. The facilitation canvassed this proposal with the other Zimbabwe negotiating parties and secured their agreement. Accordingly, as of now, we expect that the meeting to consider the Draft Constitutional Amendment No 19 will be held on 25 November, as your negotiators proposed. As you know, on 17 November, the facilitation received from the Hon Patrick Chinamasa the First Draft of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment No 19 Bill, 2008. We immediately distributed this draft to all three Zimbabwe negotiating parties, preparatory to the meeting then scheduled to be held on November 19-20. Subsequently, the facilitation was informed that the MDC (T) had prepared its own Draft Constitutional Amendment No 19. The facilitation welcomed this initiative by the MDC-T, which was consistent with the manner in which the SADC-mandated Zimbabwe Dialogue has been conducted during a period of over 18 months. By agreement, this has allowed that each and any of the Zimbabwe Negotiating Parties should be absolutely free to present their views during the dialogue process, without let or hindrance, which has happened. I would therefore like to assure you that consistent with previous practice, the facilitation is ready to facilitate consideration of all Drafts of Constitutional Amendment No 19 in an even-handed manner, guided by what is contained in the signed Global Political Agreement. (As has been agreed, we will take all necessary steps to ensure that Amendment No 19 includes the provisions contained in the agreement signed privately on September 11, which, for whatever reason, are absent from the agreement signed in public on September 15.) Correctly, the Zimbabwe negotiating parties had agreed, without any SADC intervention, that some of their decisions, as reflected in the Global Political Agreement, would have to be legalised through constitutional amendments. We are completely at a loss as to what the Hon Tendai Biti means when he writes that with regard to Constitutional Amendment No 19, "it is then difficult for any of the parties to move in any direction for fear of legitimising the SADC Summit ‘ruling’.” When the SADC Summit Meeting called for the approval of Constitutional Amendment No 19, it did nothing more than to endorse a logical decision which the Zimbabwe negotiating parties had already concluded. Neither the MDC-T, nor the other two Zimbabwe negotiating parties had expressed this (Biti) view to the facilitator, as we prepared for the November 19-20 and November 25 meetings, that the SADC approval of an existing decision of the Zimbabwe negotiating parties created a new problem. And indeed, neither Zanu-PF nor the MDC (M) has, to date, expressed any such view. To the best of our knowledge, they remain ready to participate in the 25 November meeting. In addition, you will also remember that, in your presence, at the 9 November SADC Summit Meeting, both President Mugabe and Professor Mutambara informed the meeting that they accepted the SADC decisions, and committed their organisations to their full implementation. The deputy treasurer general of the MDC-T, and one of your negotiators, the Hon Elton Mangoma, kindly conveyed to the facilitation the resolutions adopted by the 7th MDC National Council of 2008, which met in Harare on 14 November, 2008. In this regard, the facilitation took particular note of the resolution which stated that:

"3. Given the lack of sincerity and lack of paradigm shift on the part of Zanu PF, the MDC shall participate in a new government once Constitutional Amendment No 19 has been passed and effected into law." In this regard, the facilitation also took note of the November 14 report carried on the Kubatana Internet website, which said: (MDC-T Vice-President Thokozani) Khupe said: “Given the lack of sincerity and lack of paradigm shift on the part of Zanu-PF, the MDC shall participate in a new government once Constitutional Amendment No 19 has been passed and effected into law.” All this suggested to the Facilitation that the Zimbabwe Negotiating Parties should indeed proceed as speedily as possible to agree on Constitutional Amendment No 19. The immediate foregoing is part of the reason why we find it immensely puzzling that even after the announced decisions of the 7th MDC National Council of 2008, your secretary general has now informed us that it is in fact impossible and impermissible to draft and enact Constitutional Amendment No 19 into law. This is not the appropriate platform to discuss the intricacies of the Zimbabwe negotiations, in which you and ourselves have been involved for many years. However, you know the circumstances which led the SADC Troika of the Organ on Politics and the SADC chairperson, and subsequently the 9 November SADC Extraordinary Summit Meeting, to focus on the matter of the Ministry of Home Affairs. As the SADC executive secretary reported to the 9 November SADC Summit Meeting, when the SADC Troika of the Organ on Politics and the SADC chairperson met in Harare on 27-28 October, they engaged the Zimbabwe negotiating parties, including yourself, in intense negotiations, deliberately without the participation of the facilitator. The clear message communicated to the SADC Troika of the Organ on Politics and the SADC chairperson during these interactions was that the only obstacle to the formation of the Zimbabwe Inclusive Government, as agreed in the Global Political Agreement (GPA), was the finalisation of the dispute about the political leadership of the Ministry of Home Affairs, and the subsequent legalisation of the GPA through the enactment of Constitutional Amendment No 19. You will remember your own insistence that in the context of the agreement that there should be two ministers of home affairs, these should serve in rotation, with the MDC-T appointee taking the first slot. You affirmed that if this were to be agreed, it would mark the conclusion of the negotiations about the distribution of the ministerial portfolios, and therefore enable the establishment of the Zimbabwe Inclusive Government, with your endorsement and support. Because of this, basing themselves on what they learnt from the negotiations they conducted directly with the Zimbabwe negotiating parties, without the involvement of the Facilitation, the Troika of the SADC Organ on Politics and the SADC chairperson concluded that the most urgent and outstanding task relating to the formation of the Zimbabwe Inclusive Government was the resolution of matters relating to the Ministry of Home Affairs. During the SADC meetings, the Troika of the Organ on Politics and the SADC chairperson emphasised that they recognise the fact that there are some outstanding matters that still need to be negotiated, and therefore asked that the facilitator should help ensure that this happens. As we said earlier, for us as the facilitator, this constitutes a binding mandate which we must honour. It is therefore factually incorrect that SADC has ignored various outstanding matters which you might have raised or which have served and serve on the agreed dialogue agenda. In this regard, I would like to make one or two observations about the matter of "equity" with regard to the distribution of ministerial portfolios, which is mentioned in the resolutions of the 7th MDC National Council of 2008. At your request, which was supported by the other two Zimbabwe negotiating parties, we prepared and submitted a document to you as the Zimbabwe principals, naturally including you, entitled "Reflections and Proposals of the Facilitation: Towards the Achievement of the Objectives of Equity and Power-sharing in the Constitution of the Inclusive Government: Harare, 17 October 2008." All three Zimbabwe negotiating parties responded to this document in writing. Of the three, only the MDC-T fundamentally disagreed with the observations of the facilitator. As you know, the facilitator's document did not constitute a "ruling", as it could not. It was a response to a suggestion you yourself had made, and should have been subjected to a discussion among the Zimbabwe principals and the facilitator. However, as was your right, you responded to the facilitator in two documents. This happened shortly before the Troika of the SADC Organ on Politics and the SADC chairperson were to meet in Swaziland. In the light of this decision, the facilitation thought it proper that it should submit to the Swaziland meeting copies of these five documents - the facilitator's "Reflections . . ." and the four responses, two from the MDC-T, — both to the SADC Troika of the Organ on Politics and the SADC chairperson, as well as the SADC Extraordinary Summit Meeting, which was done. The facilitation has no reason to assume that these documents were not considered by the SADC structures. We are, therefore, not aware of the basis of the statement made by the 7th MDC National Council of 2008 that SADC ignored the issue that MDC-T had raised, relating to "equity" in the distribution of ministerial posts. With regard to other outstanding matters, in your presence the SADC executive secretary reported that the SADC Troika of the Organ on Politics and the SADC chairperson agreed that these should not be forgotten or ignored, but should not hold up the formation of the Inclusive Government. SADC directed that the facilitator should continue to focus on these matters, within the context that it set, which coincided with the approach of the facilitation. It is perfectly clear to us as the facilitation that SADC is firmly of the view that the sooner the agreed Zimbabwe Inclusive Government is established, the better. Our region considers this to be the most critical and urgent strategic task to implement, to move decisively towards the resolution of the challenges facing Zimbabwe. As you know, the facilitation agrees with this view. In this regard, you as the Zimbabwe principals agreed with the facilitator that senior officials of the Zimbabwe and South African governments should engage one another to address the issue of the provision of agricultural inputs that would help to ensure that during the current summer agricultural season, the people of Zimbabwe do everything possible to produce the food they need. As you will recall, this decision was taken on the basis of an urgent request presented to the facilitator by the Zimbabwe Commercial Farmers' Union (CFU). Together we agreed with the CFU that the intervention to produce food should not be held back because of delays in the conclusion of an agreement among the politicians about the composition of the Zimbabwe Inclusive Government. On the basis of this mandate, the relevant Zimbabwe and South African senior officials have indeed interacted with one another. I have the assurance of the president of South Africa, HE Mr Kgalema Motlanthe, that the Government of South Africa is ready to honour its obligations in this regard, precisely because of its abiding concern about the welfare of the sister people of Zimbabwe. I mention this particular issue, concerning the agricultural season that is upon us, to emphasise the point that all of you, the principal Zimbabwe Leaders, have consistently communicated to me your unqualified understanding of the reality that it was of strategic and urgent importance that the Zimbabwe Inclusive Government should be established without further delay, as the SADC Extraordinary Summit concurred. In his 19 November, 2008 letter, the Hon Tendai Biti, secretary general of MDC-T, raised various matters of grave concern to the MDC-T. In particular he mentioned: l a complete collapse of the Zimbabwe state; l the absolute inability of the state to "provide the basic amenities to the people"; l the threat of an "explosion" or "implosion" in Zimbabwe, which would "have a contagious multiplier effect in the region"; l "a renewed wave of violence, abductions and assaults against the MDC and the people of Zimbabwe"; l the "crafting (by Zanu PF) of 'an assassination plot, code-named Operation Ngatipedzenavo (Let us Finish Them) intended to eliminate the MDC leadership and decimate the party through frivolous allegations; l "flimsy attempts to frame the MDC as a terrorist organisation that is training people for the purposes of banditry and insurgence"; and, l "people being used to frame confessions, and militias being trained by Zanu PF to act as MDC bandits in an attempt to delegitimise the MDC". Again, as you know, the letter from the Hon Tendai Biti ends with the appeal to the facilitator - "We look forward to hearing from you on the way forward." The above observations and allegations made by the Hon Tendai Biti are indeed extremely grave and demand immediate action. The very firm and unequivocal view of the facilitation in this regard, which the Hon Biti requests, is that we must move with the greatest speed to establish the Inclusive Government, as provided for in the Global Political Agreement. We must, as a matter of extreme urgency, establish the new Zimbabwe government, which will include the three parties represented in the democratically elected Zimbabwe parliament. This government must operate according to the principles and procedures detailed in the Global Political Agreement, which both determines that RG Mugabe will be president, and that Morgan Tsvangirai will be prime minister, and specifies the roles of these leaders in the Inclusive Government. The MDC-T, like the other Zimbabwe parties, must, within an Inclusive Government, take responsibility for the future of Zimbabwe, rather than see its mission as being a militant critic of President Mugabe and Zanu-PF. The signing of the Global Political Agreement has provided the possibility for the leaders of the people of Zimbabwe to govern Zimbabwe together, and together to solve the national problems, including the ones raised by the Hon Tendai Biti in his letter to me. All that is now required is that these leaders must remain true to their word. They must implement the agreement they have signed. In this regard, they have absolutely no need to refer to their external supporters for approval, however powerful they might seem, including any and all South African formations. All that is required is that you, the leaders of the people of Zimbabwe, should do what you have committed yourselves to do, and that is all! In the context of the observations made by the Hon Tendai Biti in his 19 November letter to the facilitator, Zimbabwe urgently needs precisely the agreed Inclusive Government, to: n rebuild the state machinery of Zimbabwe; n enable it to meet the needs of the people; n overcome the current socio- economic crisis; n end the threat of the explosion or implosion of Zimbabwe; n end all manifestations of repression, intimidation and violence; and n guarantee the democratic and human rights of all Zimbabweans, including their political and other formations. The Hon Tendai Biti should not transfer the achievement of these tasks to the facilitator, SADC and the AU. This responsibility belongs squarely to the people of Zimbabwe and their leaders. The official signing of the Global Political Agreement in Harare on September 15 opened the way for you as Zimbabwe's leaders, and the formations you represent, to act together not as political opponents, but as partners in pursuit of a shared and defined objective of the reconstruction and development of Zimbabwe, the reconciliation and unification of its people, and the entrenchment of democracy. As you have agreed, in the first instance this must be expressed in the formation of the Zimbabwe Inclusive Government, which must work together as a cohesive formation, together as one, to address the priorities identified in the Global Political Agreement, in the manner prescribed in this agreement. You and I know that objectively, Zimbabwe desperately needs the establishment of this Inclusive Government, and that this is the most urgent demand of the masses, the people who elected the three parties, including yours, which are represented in the Parliament of Zimbabwe. Without in any way reflecting on their merits, which would require protracted investigations, the only and most rational way to address the challenges raised by the Hon Tendai Biti is to form the Zimbabwe Inclusive Government and table the matters at issue even at the very first meeting of the cabinet of the Inclusive Government. We suggest, humbly, that given the fact of the Global Political Agreement, the MDC-T, and indeed the MDC (M), should no longer treat themselves as opposition parties or protest movements, and neither should Zanu PF consider and relate to them as such. The agreement that has been reached and signed provides that Zimbabwe will and must have a ruling coalition of three co-operating parties. Acting together, within the agreed framework, these will and must constitute the new "ruling party" of Zimbabwe, which must govern Zimbabwe as this "one" entity. Contrary to all this, the Hon Tendai Biti asks that we should support the delay in the formation of the Zimbabwe Inclusive Government and help to sustain an untenable situation according to which, despite the agreed and signed Global Political Agreement, the signatories should continue to treat one another as opposed political formations engaged in a deadly fight, one against the other. Where conflicts and problems continue to persist among the Zimbabwe political parties and the supporters of these, surely the framework has now been established for these to engage one another to address these conflicts and problems! I am certain that the longer we postpone using this framework, relying on the luxury of a facilitator and other informal advisers, the longer we will perpetuate the terrible misery that afflicts the people of Zimbabwe. As facilitator, a neighbour and an African, I am immensely proud of the extraordinary work you have done to develop the comprehensive consensus that now exists among yourselves as the leaders of the people of Zimbabwe, which provides the roadmap which defines what must be done to pull Zimbabwe out of the abyss. What the people of Zimbabwe, our region and Africa now need is the sense of patriotism among yourselves as leaders of the people of Zimbabwe and as African patriots, which will inspire you, despite and beyond personal and partisan interests, to implement the agreements you have concluded. In this regard, it may be that together, openly, and sooner rather than later, we must give an account to the masses of the people of Zimbabwe of what has been agreed during 18 months of negotiations, and what it is that holds up the united, national advance towards the alleviation of the problems of Zimbabwe, and therefore the speedy improvement of the quality of the lives of the people. You know this, too, that the rest of Southern Africa, your neighbouring countries, has also had the unavoidable obligation to carry much of the weight of the burden of the Zimbabwe crisis, in many ways. You know that, among other things, various countries of our region host large numbers of economic migrants from Zimbabwe, who impose particular burdens on our countries. Loyal to the concept and practice of African solidarity, none of our countries and governments has spoken publicly of this burden, fearful that we might incite the xenophobia to which all of us are opposed. Nevertheless, the leaders of the people of Zimbabwe, including you, dear brother, need to bear in mind that the pain your country bears is a pain that is transferred to the masses of our people, who face their own challenges of poverty, unemployment and underdevelopment. This particular burden is not carried by the countries of Western Europe and North America, which have benefited especially from the migration of skilled and professional Zimbabweans to the north. In the end, when all is said and done, Zimbabwe will have to exist in peace and productive collaboration with its neighbours in Southern Africa and the rest of Africa. Realistically, Zimbabwe will never share the same neighbourhood with the countries of Western Europe and North America, and therefore secure its success on the basis of friendship with these, and contempt for the decisions of its immediate African neighbours. I say this humbly to advise that it does not help Zimbabwe, nor will it help you as prime minister of Zimbabwe, that the MDC-T contemptuously repudiates very serious decisions of our region, and therefore our continent, describing them as “a nullity”. It may be that, for whatever reason, you consider our region and continent as being of little consequence to the future of Zimbabwe, believing that others further away, in Western Europe and North America, are of greater importance. In this context I have been told that because leaders in our region did not agree with you on some matters that served on the agenda of the SADC Extraordinary Summit Meeting, you have denounced them publicly as "cowards". Such manner of proceeding might earn you prominent media headlines. However, I assure you that it will do nothing to solve the problems of Zimbabwe. As you secure applause because of the insult against us that we are "cowards", you will have to consider the reality that our peoples have accepted into their countries very large numbers of Zimbabwean brothers and sisters in a spirit of human solidarity, prepared to sustain the resultant obligations. None of our countries displayed characteristics of cowardice when they did this. All of us will find it strange and insulting that because we do not agree with you on a small matter, you choose to describe us in a manner that is most offensive in terms of African culture, and therefore offend our sense of dignity as Africans, across our borders. As facilitator I am more than convinced that we should hold the November 25 meeting as proposed by your negotiators, to agree on the text of Constitutional Amendment No 19, and the procedures for its approval. The facilitation therefore confirms the arrangements that have been made for this critically important meeting. Consistent with the principle agreed from the very beginning of the SADC-mandated negotiations, that no party to the negotiations has veto powers, the facilitation will engage any party that arrives to attend the November 25 meeting which your negotiators proposed, and which we convinced the other parties to accept. As a matter of courtesy, as well as for their information and action, I would like to inform you that I will make available the November 19 letter of the Hon Tendai Biti to me, and this response to you, to: l the other Zimbabwe negotiating parties; l the chairperson and acting chairperson of the SADC Organ on Politics etc; l the chairperson of SADC; l the chairperson of the AU; l the chairperson of the AU Commission; l the secretary general of the United Nations; and, l the executive secretary of SADC.

Yours sincerely, Thabo Mbeki.