|
Back to Index
Transcript
of "Hot Seat" Interview with Brian Kagoro, Tapera Kapuya
and Ralph Black
Violet
Gonda, SW Radio Africa
May 23, 2007
http://www.swradioafrica.com/pages/hotseat250507.htm
Violet Gonda:
My guests on the programme Hot Seat this week are Brian Kagoro (right)
a political commentator, Tapera Kapuya (centre) coordinator of the
National Constitutional
Assembly and Ralph Black (left) the deputy representative of
the MDC in North America.
The discussion
centres on the controversial targeted sanctions issue, the restrictions
imposed on members of the Mugabe regime by western countries. The
Zimbabwe government blames the crisis in the country on the sanctions
while the West says they are targeted sanctions against individuals
and will only be removed if the rule of law is restored in Zimbabwe
. But the regime is now saying the sanctions must be removed as
a pre-condition before talks can begin.
We received
quite a few responses from last week's debate with Moeletsi
Mbeki during which Brian Kagoro said the issue of sanctions should
be reconsidered as a way of getting the stakeholders to the negotiating
table. So I will start with Brian. What is your understanding of
the restrictions imposed by the West.
Brian Kagoro:
There are two separate types. The ones that were imposed under the
Cotonou Arrangement by the EU. Those are purely travel bans and
they affect individuals that are named in the EU list - that
list has grown as large as 96. They were indiscriminately applied
to all senior ranking ZANU PF members. Then under ZIDERA, in fact
Lovemore Madhuku, myself and Tawanda Hondora did an analysis of
ZIDERA . . .
Violet: The
Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act
Brian Kagoro:
That's correct and at the time we issued what became the official
- the regional official Crisis
Coalition position dissociating ourselves from ZIDERA. Partly
because on the face of it ZIDERA really is a non issue accept that
I think it was the then clause 3A or 3C that said all representatives
of the United States government, the IMF and the World Bank would
veto - would have the right to veto any support to Zimbabwe
should the matter be tabled before them. So that meant that representatives
to all international and financial institutions carried a veto vote,
which is anti, until such a time as democracy would be restored
to Zimbabwe and that support would only be towards specific pro-democracy
entities. There were no objections at the time to support to civil
society, to radios and to issues like that.
In the broad
context there are no economic sanctions in the nature you have in
South Africa , against Zimbabwe . There are no military sanctions
or diplomatic sanctions in the nature that you have seen the Americans
impose on others like Libya and elsewhere. So there are two issues
there; the ZANU PF broad reference to sanctions is misleading because
it suggests sanctions in the broad sense that its sanctions against
the country, but even in common opposition speak the understanding
of what subsist seems to be limited because ZIDERA itself was not
subjected to any broad discussion save within the space of the so
called then 'think tanks' that were constituted. There
was no broad civic engagement with ZIDERA.
But let me then,
from there also say there is a third regime of sanctions which are
popular people to people sanctions. Which is when people, consumers
boycott popular products made by particular companies because they
are controlled by interests that don't uphold certain values.
Those don't currently exist against Zimbabwe because those
are not pushed by an ideology of particular countries. They fall
into a separate category and I will explain with time later on why
my position on people to people sanctions is different from a position
that grants veto powers in the IMF and World Bank as well as the
governmental sanctions.
And my position
last week let me restate it; it's simply that the opposition
gained in my view nothing significant from travel bans and that
if the choice were between ordinary Zimbabweans and the opposition
being allowed to campaign freely in rural areas against scrapping
of travel bans, because that's really the only substantive
operative form of targeted sanctions that exist, I don't see,
if the choice as I understand it is between the ability and the
freedom to do that particular level of organising ahead of the 2008
election - and that is where the catch is at - then
I am not sure why any particular person would insist that there
is a real choice between travel bans and that anybody should really
be in serious contention with ZANU over the travel bans.
Violet:
Ok let me move to Ralph Black, as he is an opposition official.
Now Ralph the MDC says there are targeted sanctions and that there
are no trade sanctions against Zimbabwe but it is a fact that the
IMF and the World Bank are treating Zimbabwe as a pariah state and
that could be interpreted as sanctions. Don't you agree with
this?
Ralph Black:
I understand that ZANU PF would use it as mileage and say that there
are sanctions because the IMF and World Bank don't want to
deal with them and the IMF and World Bank I believe have a structured
process of reasoning as to why they would not deal with ZANU PF.
However the travel ban, I will disagree with Brian slightly, in
that the travel ban has a nuisance factor that is causing a great
amount of annoyance among ZANU PF officials because they are unable
to travel to certain countries and deal in diamonds or purchase
equipment and visit their children. Basically restrictive measures
that have a higher annoyance value, a nuisance value than any substantive
value and it is this annoyance that is causing a lot of pain within
ZANU PF. They are unable to strike deals in America, if Gideon Gono
or anyone on the travel ban comes to America - they have to come
on an official business - their visas are only given with the condition
that they cannot travel 20miles outside the radius of the World
Bank or IMF. Which leaves a very small place for these men to operate
based on their business dealings and interests in many of the foreign
countries, mainly Britain and to some extent America . And so the
fact that ZANU PF has raised the issue that sanctions must be repealed
is nothing more than a negotiation ploy. They understand they have
their backs against the wall. The demands being made by the opposition
if they were to be met even in part would weaken their grip substantially
within the country and so . . .
Violet:
But what about the issue of the IMF and the World Bank?
Ralph Black:
Well the IMF and World Bank basically don't, any bank would
not give money to any individual that first of all doesn't
have collateral and secondly has no capacity to repay a loan and
I think this is why the IMF and World Bank don't want to deal
with Zimbabwe. When Robert Mugabe compulsory acquired land he destroyed
the
collateral-bility of that land and he hampered that means by which
Zimbabwe could raise foreign currency to make the balance of payment
dues and interest payments on loans. So the World Bank has said
simply "the fact that you have reduced your own capacity to
repay these loans we are not prepared to forward you any money."
So I think that's
the thinking, the general thinking behind the IMF and World Bank
funds. And also in the past five or six years the IMF and World
Bank are beginning to change their model simply from giving money
to African countries and not demanding some sort of accountability.
I know that the Fund has products that help the Central Bank -
the Reserve Bank trade and follow donor funds and hold people accountable.
The World Bank under Paul Wolfowitz and now probably somebody new
from the United States within the Bush Administration were also
looking at curbing corruption and the siphoning off of funds by
governments that was meant for development aid not for their pockets.
So there are a number of factors that led them to that decision
but what precipitated their actions was the inability of Zimbabwe
to adopt economic reforms and secondly the destruction of the collateral-bility
of land - the violation of private property law or private
property rights, led them to believe that "listen we can't
just keep giving Zimbabwe money and there is no chance of it being
repaid based on their policy."
Violet:
Now Tapera, Brian said as the leadership of the Crisis in Zimbabwe
Coalition they actually opposed ZIDERA, what is the position of
the National Constitutional Assembly as far as ZIDERA is concerned
and the sanctions in general?
Tapera Kapuya:
I think like what Brian has said, I think he has spoken much in
effective representation of the position of the broader civic movement
within Zimbabwe that there is a general consensus that no one supports
ZIDERA. But it's a separate issue when one begins to think
around issues about personal sanctions effected on individuals members
of the ruling clique of Zimbabwe and personal sanctions in the category
of person to person. But I also think, probably in a personal capacity,
that we must not de-historify Zimbabwe . There are a number of other
issues we have to put into context here. That Zimbabwe is not necessarily
suffering economically as a result of the sanctions. The Zimbabwean
crisis did not emanate from 1989. The economic crisis was already
obtaining post the '80s, when we entered into the '90s
our adoption of the economic structural adjustment and failed policies,
corruption and so forth, this is where much of the economic crisis
began to be felt so I think its part of the historic context as
well which should be put into place and the 1996 food riots or the
retrenchments which we saw in '94 and so forth were not a
result of the sanctions which we are beginning to see now.
So I think the
discussion around the economic meltdown, the economic crisis which
we are experiencing must be taken within the historic context which
acknowledges that economic failure, failures around national economic
development was already obtaining prior to these sanctions being
put in place and I just felt that was one picture of the general
context of the economic meltdown which we have to put in place.
And as well following up on the previous debate in which Brian made
his contributions where he suggested that we must within the broader
pro-democracy movement consider the lifting of sanctions if that
would make Mugabe to go. I think I would be speaking for the majority
of Zimbabweans in saying that should not be an issue. We must not
and we must never be made to feel that our liberation of freedom
is dependant on the charity or goodwill of Mugabe. I think if there
is any pressure, which has to be applied, it must be continued to
be applied.
Ralph Black:
And I agree with Tapera. I think the notion that we must lift the
travel ban as a goodwill measure in the negotiations is overly simplistic.
Robert Mugabe does not require a visa to Britain to reconsider his
dictatorial position and our advocacy, and it's my personal
position, that ZIDERA - which has lapsed in a way that has
been ineffective in a way, needs to be revisited by the Americans
and in the run up to the next year's elections have another
stick and carrot arrangement if Mugabe does not adopt democratic
reforms. The country will be further isolated, his party and regime
will face stringent measures that must be broader to include some
legislators who support undemocratic legislation that will inevitably
perpetuate Mugabe's rule.
Brian Kagoro:
Violet, let me state the full contradictions that I hear from my
two colleagues. Ideologically I think Tapera and I agree. Tapera
for example appropriately places the historical context of the economic
crisis as being linked to the structural adjustment programmes of
the World Bank and the IMF. Which relate to this whole thing of
collateralisation of land, treating historically and inequitably
acquired private title to land as sacrosanct and making that a condition
precedent for judging whether or not a country is democratic. So
there are ideological contradictions. The first one is that many
of us opposed not the land reform programme but the violence that
attended it and this was consistently the position of people in
the broader civic movement. So let me make that one point. But number
two, I raised the issue of sanctions because they are as we understand
negotiations behind closed doors going on between ZANU PF and MDC
that are going to be facilitated by SADC. Now to be realistic, if
your leaders are already negotiating they can even negotiate on
a minimalist platform of holding elections, which they did previously
and it resulted in ZANU PF strengthening or they can negotiate in
a context that broadens the table that allows the Taperas of this
world and others to participate and allows the nature and formal
political access and participation beyond electioneering. For Tapera
and I, for example, the issue of going back to a people driven constitution
is appropriate but we can't do that as long as our meetings
in the townships, our meetings in the rural areas are barred by
either the militias or by state police. It is not the charity of
Robert Mugabe that we are looking for.
Violet:
But Brian that is exactly what I wanted to ask you that
even on the issue of the talks that are underway right now, we have
seen that over the last few years Mugabe has made false promises
and has shown that he cannot be trusted, so shouldn't people
be making demands for him to stop what he is doing first and then
remove the restrictions?
Brian Kagoro:
I mean if you are going to go into negotiations firstly negotiations
are on the face of it a sign of capitulation. If you believe that
pressure and force alone will get you what you want what the hell
are you doing at the negotiating table? But the history of our country
teaches us that even after a bloody war, in 1979, unwilling parties
went to Lancaster to negotiate independence. 1987, after a seven-year
standoff between ZAPU and ZANU they went to the Unity Accord. Even
in South Africa the apartheid state and the nationalist movement
had to negotiate. If you listened to me last week I said the reality
is that there is no substitute pressure. Negotiations are no substitute
for pressure. Pressure is not a substitute for negotiations all
fronts must be explored. But when you are exploring negotiations
you must be clear on what it is you are demanding and the point
I want to put on the table is simply this; if the opposition cannot
sink its life on targeted sanctions - if we are all agreed
that these have a nuisance value as my colleague from North America
has said, and not a substantive value for the common man on the
street why would nuisance value be of such importance to negotiate.
We are not the ones that imposed the targeted sanctions it was the
Europeans . . .
Ralph Black:
But perhaps . . . .
Brian Kagoro:
so you know . . .
Ralph Black:
But perhaps Brian there is the issue of leverage, there is the issue
of what has caused Robert Mugabe - Robert Mugabe's regime
has backed up. His economy is collapsing. His governor is saying
we need to negotiate with international financial institutions in
order to get money to pay upgrade our power plansto get fuel. Now
you are going to say at this particular point because there is that
admission and we are at the table let's just remove the restrictive
sanctions or the restrictive measures, especially the travel bans,
and hopefully Robert Mugabe will have a change of heart and step
forward and say OK, let . . .
Brian Kagoro:
No No No
Ralph Black:
. . . let Tapera and Brian . . .
Brian Kagoro:
No No No
Ralph Black:
. . . hold on, hold on let Tapera and Brian go to the rural areas
and campaign.
Brian Kagoro:
No No No . . .
Ralph Black:
I think there is . . .
Tapera: I think . . .
Brian Kagoro:
No No No
Violet:
Let's hear from Tapera and then will come to Brian
Tapera: Ya,
I think here, I think here one of the missing elements within the
national narrative, which we are beginning to develop at the moment,
is an insistent focus around what the pro-democracy movement should
yield. Which is the pro-democracy movement should yield on the pressure,
which it is applying on the regime. I think we should equally focus
on the sanctions which the regime itself is meting on the majority
of our people! Which is continued abductions on a systematic level
on activists, the oppression, the torture, which is continuing to
happen. The de-industrialization on the country, which is happening,
the rampant resource stripping of the nation, which is happening
at a coordinated level by the regime. These are issues, which I
think are much more fundamental than what the pro-democracy movement
should be yielding. With or without sanctions our economy will still
go down for as long as we have the current crop of leadership, which
we have. For as long as we don't have and don't focus
on building the necessary institutions which can sustain a developing
nation, which can sustain a people who are geared towards development
and to me I think we mustn't be apologetic in our demands
for unfettered freedom, for total democracy. Democracy on the economic
field, democracy on the social field, democracy on a political field
and I think these are issues which must occupy our demands. What
we should perhaps put much more energy around is what exactly is
bringing ZANU PF around to even consider negotiations with the pro-democracy
movement, which it never wanted to negotiate with in the first place?
And beyond that
there is an issue, which Brian raised around the circumstances the
environment, which is necessary for dialogue or for talks to happen,
and he gave an example of South Africa. The example of South Africa
is quite telling; you needed good will on both parties, you need
to establish at least a framework of mutual respect and a framework
of mutual understanding. We cannot have a situation of negotiations
when we still have political prisoners. I mean people like Paul
Madzore who are senior members of the Movement for Democratic Change
are still locked up in dungeons in Harare and we talk about negotiations!
Brian Kagoro:
I think
Tapera: You
need to first create a situation where people can negotiate, you
need to create a situation where the nation can dialogue around
what it sees as it's own priorities together and I think that
process and that framework needs to be established first before
we can even talk about what pressures one is facing and what pressure
the other one is not facing.
Ralph Black:
ya
Violet:
Brian?
Brian Kagoro:
Violet I think it's because; Tapera is right. I agree totally
with him. I am not sure exactly where him and I disagree. What I
have said from the beginning is you need a conducive environment
to go to dialogue. However as we understand it the leaders of the
opposition are already in some form of dialogue, right. For me,
the question that I was asked was simple; what is at stake when
you go to dialogue? Tapera is also right; the economy is not on
its knees, the regime is not at the negotiating table because of
targeted sanctions, if anybody believes that then they may as well
believe that there are angels in the world.
Violet:
Brian if Zimbabwe is not suffering as a result of the sanctions
why should they be removed?
Brian Kagoro:
No no no. I said because Mugabe has raised sanctions as a red herring.
You see it's a pyrrhic victory because as Tapera rightly says
the economy has been on its knees since the late 80s. It worsened
when we went into the Congo. It worsened even further when we gave
war veterans gratuities that were unbudgeted for. So to ever delude
ourselves and try and link the targeted sanctions to the economic
meltdown and the pressures to negotiate actually it's being
ahistorical. So if historically you follow the trajectory of thought
that Tapera has adopted; that this is a structural crisis that was
linked to the IMF and World Bank conditionalities in the first place;
poor policy prescriptions in the first place. That we are at the
negotiating table not necessarily because Mugabe took land but because
the country has been ill-governed and because the country has been
ill-governed because it has bad leaders and bad policies and that
what we need is not just democracy in the political realm but democracy
in the economic and other sectors to ensure that ordinary Zimbabweans
have access to quality public services, have access to opportunities
to develop themselves. If that . . .
Ralph Black:
Sorry Brian I . . .
Brian Kagoro:
Sorry,if it is that is the trajectory of thought you take, you must
then go to the second question that says, "how did targeted
sanctions end up being imposed on Zimbabwe?" Was it because
the opposition asked for them? Not necessarily. Those of us who
were very active in pro-democracy politics at the time will tell
you that it was the Europeans that started this debate. It was the
Europeans that imposed them, from the Europeans perspective in the
notion this would force Mugabe to see sense. We are seven years
into this crisis, ok, and if my understanding of what Tapera is
saying is correct; targeted sanctions are not necessarily what is
pushing these guys to the table, we must focus ourselves to what
is it that we are trying to achieve. As pro-democracy forces I am
not particularly sure.
If we are trying
to achieve the conditions that say "our pre-conditions are
free all political prisoners, dismantle institutions of violence,
seize forthwith the abductions and murder of pro-democracy activists."
If these are our pre-conditions and if all Mugabe is asking for
is the scrapping of targeted sanctions the question I asked last
week and the question I ask again, is seeing as the most fundamental
thrust of all pro-democracy politics in Zimbabwe is to ensure that
there is space, political and democratic space to organize, to mobilize,
to campaign and to resist - within the confines of course
of constitutionalism - and that the only restraint to that
is this infrastructure of violence, this repressive legislation,
this resort to stone-age tactics, and if we agree as Tapera has
rightly said that the economic crisis history is more in the macro
economic prescriptions of the IMF and World Bank and the conditionalities
that were inappropriate and that what is pushing the regime to a
corner is this collapse of the economy which is not linked to personal
targeted sanctions; the targeted sanctions are affecting, as Ralph
said, people's pockets, I am not sure why - and this
is why I am trying to get my colleagues to explain to me - we would
stake any reputation on the targeted sanctions necessarily.
I see them as
nuisance value and I agree with Ralph. Why is it not, because it's
a red herring as far as we are concerned we know that Mugabe is
not serious, we know it's a dialectic tactic and we know that
he wants to detain the opposition because for the opposition there
might be a moral question because if we say scrap targeted sanctions
we are conceding defeat. But in real terms targeted sanctions or
no targeted sanctions makes no difference to the economic trajectory
or the economic developments that we are seeing in Zimbabwe's
decline.
Violet:
Ralph can you give us your reaction to what Brian Kagoro
has just said and also on the issue of sanctions some have said
Mugabe can easily limp along from crisis to crisis if pressure is
reduced. Do you agree with this?
Ralph Black:
Ya I agree with it. I think Brian's position makes sense in
the absence of other factors. I believe that for the last seven
years critical functions of government were being financed from,
I would like to say personal finances - organizational finances
from ZANU PF. They were dealing with diamonds, they were dealing
in property, they were dealing in timber, they had a tobacco crop,
they had export flowers and food crops. There was foreign currency
that was coming into the pockets of ZANU PF leaders that they were
able to forward the government. The former finance minister used
his 'personal finances' to help in an election. But
one of the aspects of the targeted sanctions regime is the assets
freeze. I believe that there is more to Mugabe's wanting to
talk than just him simply being backed up into a corner because
things are collapsing. He is likely to limp from crisis to crisis
if the asset freeze is lifted and we are seeing a greater difficulty
for the oligarchy, the bourgeoisie, the leadership to make money
to keep certain functions in government going. The recent information
I received was that there are foreign functionaries - the
Bredenkamps and the Rautenbachs are unable to offload diamonds on
the black market as easily as they could three years ago simply
because the asset freeze now is beginning to have teeth. We are
beginning to see that huge mounts of properties and money is being
seized in America that belongs to leading members of the regime.
That they have been able to launder their money through and keep
the country going.
So I think Mugabe,
the ZANU PF leadership has come to the crossroads and in this process
of negotiations has come to the crossroads and is asking that the
sanctions be lifted just to give them sufficient time to catch their
breath and limp from this crisis to another. And I believe that
at one particular point in the process of negotiations those that
are responsible for the targeted sanctions have to review their
effectiveness and at what point they begin to alleviate the pressure.
But this is not the point. No concessions have been made by the
Mugabe regime. They are countering a proposal that is on the table
and placing a condition to accepting that proposal; that if you
lift the targeted sanctions and scrap the asset freeze. I think
all that has been said in this discussion is somewhat relevant on
a continuum or as we progress in these discussions but alleviating
the pressure at this particular stage will be foolhardy.
Tapera Kapuya:
One thing which I wanted to add on Violet before we moved on is
that I think we must be very clear on a number of other issues and
I think the primary issue here is that the MDC never called for
any sanctions be it ZIDERA, targeted sanctions or these travel bans.
Ralph Black:
Correct.
Tapera Kapuya:
It was not the Crisis Coalition, it was not the NCA which ever called
for sanctions on the country and we must be equally clear that it
was the Unites States government - its Congress, the European
Union which imposed sanctions on Mugabe and if Mugabe and his cronies
have any problems about the sanctions they should use the multi-lateral
channels which they have; the UN, the African Union or diplomatic
channels to talk to their counterparts in the EU, their counterparts
in the United States to lift the sanctions. It is not the business
of Zimbabweans to be talking about sanctions, which they never called
for in the first place.
Violet:
So are you saying that the pro-democracy movement does
not want the targeted sanctions and you are blaming it on the West
and that the West should then reconsider the issue of sanctions?
Tapera Kapuya:
I am not apportioning any blame about sanctions nor am I saying
those sanctions should be removed. What I am saying is Mugabe should
not turn back to us and say we called for those sanctions. We did
not call for those sanctions; if he has any problem with them then
he must talk to those who have imposed sanctions on him. It's
not our business to act as his middlemen to talk about how much
pressure should be applied or not applied on him. These are moral
positions, which I think the broader pro-democracy movement should
adopt. We should not even concern ourselves about how other people
decide or governments or societies decide to respond in solidarity
of an oppressed people.
Violet: But
then what happens when Mugabe is making that as a pre-condition
to talks?
Brian Kagoro:
But Violet I think Tapera has a very fundamental point and this
is why in my entry last week; my point was it is not the MDC that
has the power to suspend sanctions or the pro-democracy movement.
If Mugabe is making that as a pre-condition towards talks the only
business that the pro-democracy movement has is to set its own pre-conditions,
which pre-conditions must also be set by African countries. These
are the pre-conditions I have kept on harping on; dismantle the
infrastructure of violence, seize forthwith the organized torture
and violence, scrap the oppressive and repressive legislation, open
up democratic space, open up free access to the rural areas for
the purposes of mobilization and campaigning. It is the business
of the EU and the Americans to decide whether the conditions that
would satisfy them to lift those sanctions exist. So on that point
I would agree totally with Tapera but I think Ralph made another
very important point. At what time, at what point in the negotiations
do you even start thinking, if you were the Europeans or the Americans,
of easing pressure. I think that is a question that we shouldn't
be answering because we are not the EU we are not the Americans.
That's a point that the Americans and the EU should be answering.
Violet
Gonda: But it seems to me you are all refusing to answer
to that point, to the point that the West would not have imposed
these measures without the consent of the pro-democracy movement.
Is this not the case?
Tapera Kapuya:
No, no, no it's not the case Violet. The reverse is actually
the case.
Ralph Black:
Violet from the part of the opposition we did not ask for sanctions.
We did not ask for the targeted sanctions, the assets freeze or
the IMF isolation. However we understand why the Americans and the
Europeans imposed them however it's not our business to say
to them at this particular point repeal them and normalize relationship.
I believe that Robert Mugabe knows his way to 10 Downing Street;
he knows his way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. If he has issues with
these particular restrictive measures he must approach them. At
that particular point if it suits the Americans and the Europeans
they might ask - have the conditions on the ground improved? Perhaps
then, and I am not saying we will, but perhaps we will then give
them input. But I agree that the concept that he is raising the
issue knowing full well that we don't have the all in all
to ask for these measures to be lifted or repealed. I believe that
we must stick to the moral aspect of our demands, our pre-conditions
as Brian has so eloquently placed them; stop the torture, stop the
beatings, stop the abductions, repeal repressive legislations, grant
access to the media so that we can campaign and mobilize and have
an internationally observed and monitored election which is relatively
free and fair. It's difficult for us who have not caused something
to work to bring about a change. Sanctions I believe were an act
of solidarity and they can only be reversed by an act of congress
and an act of parliament in Europe and there is nothing that the
MDC can do to change that.
Violet
Gonda: And we have run out of time but we'll bring
you the final discussion with our three speakers next Tuesday.
Audio interview
can be heard on SW Radio Africa 's Hot Seat programme (23
May 07). Comments and feedback can be emailed to violet@swradioafrica.com
NB: SW Radio
Africa is back on MULTIPLE frequencies. Broadcasts are between 7:00
and 9:00 pm Zimbabwe time on shortwave; in the 25m band 11775kHz,
11810kHz, 12035kHz and in the 60m band 4880kHz. Also via the internet
at www.swradioafrica.com
Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.
TOP
|
