Back to Index

International relations
Media Monitoring Project Zimbabwe (MMPZ)
Extracted from Weekly Media Update 2007-45
Monday November 12th - Sunday November 18th 2007
November 23, 2007

This week the official media gave a narrow perspective of government's strained relations with the international community over allegations of undemocratic governance and human rights abuses. This was reflected in the way they simplistically projected the authorities' exchanges of diplomatic etiquette with Angolan, Egyptian and Chinese diplomats as evidence of the international community's support of government while dismissing mainly Western concerns on the country's mismanagement as hypocritical and driven by an 'illegal' regime change agenda.

As a result, there was no honest debate on the root causes of government's sharp differences with the West, especially Britain, or on the nature and extent of the alleged support Zimbabwe was getting from selected countries such as China. For example, while the government media approvingly reported on the backing that Angola, Egypt and China have always given Zimbabwe, it did not say whether the support was for the country or government's under-fire policies. Neither did they quote any diplomats from the three countries making the distinction. In fact, though ZTV (12/11, 8pm) and The Herald (13/11) gave prominence to President Mugabe charitably paying tribute to a visiting Chinese business team for the "continuous support" Zimbabwe has received from their country, including "solidarity with Zimbabwe as the country battles British and Western threats to its independence and sovereignty", they did not quote the Chinese making any corresponding acknowledgment.

The Herald, for instance, only cited the delegation - reportedly in the country following an invitation from Mugabe's wife, Grace - as "basically" in the country "to look at the investment environment in the country" and to hold talks with the Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation in the hope of opening a copper mine in Concession. Neither did they coherently explain why, if government policies had the backing of Africa, especially SADC, South Africa remained reluctant to scrap the visa requirement for Zimbabweans wanting to visit that country contrary to the SADC universal visa system, which seeks to enhance free movement of nationals of the regional grouping's member states (The Herald 13&14/11, Spot FM 13/11, 1pm and Chronicle 14/11). Rather, the government media expended more energy on criminalising the West's expressed concern on the political and economic crises in the country through the use of conspiracy theories.

In this light, The Herald (14/11) report: Zim Prepared to Fight, reported an alleged "plot" by Britain and Nordic countries to get Zimbabwe on the agenda of next month's EU-Africa summit in Portugal as "a face saver" after London failed "to have President Mugabe barred from the meeting". Reportedly, Swedish ambassador to Zimbabwe Sten Rylander was spearheading the "plot" with other Nordic diplomats "alongside the opposition MDC and civic society" to "build up" allegations that government perpetrates violence against its opponents.Why government would be unsettled by the empty allegations remained unexplained. The paper merely reported the authorities as saying government was "not afraid to fight in defence of its sovereignty and reputation".

It quoted an unnamed government official: "If they dare play Britain's cat paw, they are likely to get one outcome, namely a repeat of the 2002 Johannesburg World Earth Summit (where President Mugabe boldly told then British Prime Minister Tony Blair to stay out of Zimbabwe's issues)". The paper and Chronicle of the same day also distorted the basis on which 13 former Dutch commercial farmers had taken government to the International Centre for Settlement of Investments Disputes, demanding 15 million euros each as compensation after government compulsorily acquired their farms in alleged breach of a bilateral investments treaty Zimbabwe had signed with the Netherlands.

Instead, the papers claimed the farmers were using "scare-tactics lawsuits on the international stage" as attempts to reverse the land reform programme, noting that Lands minister Didymus Mutasa had appeared before the International Tribunal to "defend the nation's vital interests". And at the weekend, the Chronicle (16/11), The Herald (17/11) and Sunday Mail (18/11) handily latched on revelations by former British armed forces general Lord Guthrie (carried in the London Independent newspaper) that he and Blair had discussed the possibility of a military invasion in Zimbabwe as further evidence of Britain's unwarranted intrusion in the country's internal affairs.

However, the context in which the alleged discussions were made was not addressed nor did the papers seek comment from the British authorities on the matter. The Sunday Mail comment simply asserted that Blair "wanted to invade Zimbabwe, not on any humanitarian grounds, but because he wanted to effect regime change in order to control the resources of this country through a puppet government". These reports formed part of the 44 stories that the government media carried on the subject, 17 of which were aired by ZBC and 27 by the government Press. Notably, the national broadcaster steered clear of the conspiracies.

The government media's sourcing patterns are shown in Figs 1 and 2.

Fig 1: Voice distribution on ZBC

Fig 2: Voice distribution pattern in the government-controlled Press

Although the government Press' sourcing pattern appeared fairly balanced, most of the foreign voices were cited in the context of either expressing solidarity with Zimbabwe or conspiring against government.Only the private media attempted to give a sober analysis of Zimbabwe's pariah status in the 39 reports they carried on the matter. Of these, 23 appeared in the private electronic media and 16 in the private Press. Contrary to government media reports, they exposed widespread concern over Zimbabwe's political and economic crises, even within Africa. For example, online publication New Zimbabwe (18/11) reported African Union chairman Alpha Oumar Konare saying Africa's insistence that Robert Mugabe be invited to the EU-Africa summit was a matter of "principle" and not a sign of support for the Zimbabwean leader or his government.

Earlier, Studio 7 (13&15/11) reported top officials of the African Commission on Human and People's Rights describing the human rights situation in Zimbabwe as "alarming" and urged the African Union to "exercise its authority and take steps to address the crisis" during the commission's meeting in Congo-Brazzaville. In addition, The Zimbabwe Independent (16/11) reported that Britain would engage SADC leaders on the Zimbabwe crisis on the sidelines of the Commonwealth Heads of Government (Chogm) meeting in Kampala.

The Financial Gazette (15/11) queried government's "vitriolic tirades" against Rylander, his alleged "co-conspirators and other detractors", saying instead it should seize the opportunity afforded by the EU-Africa summit to prove "convincingly one and for all that the allegations of human rights abuses and repressive governance persistently levelled against it are baseless". And contrary to the perception in the government media, Studio 7 (12/11) and the Independent revealed that Mutasa had admitted before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes in Paris that government had "wronged white commercial farmers when it violently evicted them from their farms at the height of land invasions in 2000" . The Independent cited him as saying "the move by the Dutch farmers to seek compensation was in order as the government did not honour its obligations under a government-to-government agreement between Zimbabwe and the Netherlands".

The sourcing pattern of the private media, as exemplified by that of the private electronic media, is shown in Fig 3.

Fig: 3 Voice Distribution in the private electronic media

Visit the MMPZ fact sheet

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