Media Monitoring Project Zimbabwe
November 4th- November 10th
Weekly Update 2002-41

CONTENTS
1. GENERAL COMMENT
2. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: BELLAMY'S REMARKS
3. LAND REFORM AND FOOD SECURITY

1. General Comment

As this weekly update was going to press, Zimbabweans were awaiting the
announcement of the 2003 budget proposal by Finance Minister Herbert
Murerwa. The announcement comes at a time when the economy is facing the
most severe crisis in the country's history.
All media agreed that the budget was unlikely to address the fundamental
causes of the country's economic crisis. Nonetheless, the public media
remained optimistic and called on the minister to allocate more funds to
government's land reform programme, which they believe is the key to solving
the country's economic woes.
Conversely, the private media observed that whatever financial chart Murerwa
would come up with was likely to be sacrificed on the altar of political
expediency. They particularly highlighted the country's run-away inflation
as a militating factor against any solutions to the tottering economy.
While the private media concurred that high inflation was the root cause of
escalating prices of goods, the public media found themselves latching onto
familiar conspiracy theories that manufacturers were either breaching price
controls or withholding their products to push for a price hike.
In fact, price increases have become a major concern for the general
populace, who only learn of new prices when they get to the till operators.
The media, it seems, have been out-sprinted by the dramatic and continuing
increase in prices to an extent that they have totally failed to keep their
audiences up-to-date with the soaring cost of living.
Notwithstanding the difficulties the media have in keeping track of a high
inflationary rate, they still have a duty to inform their audiences.
Even more disturbing is the failure by the media to highlight clearly how
the inflationary environment has eroded the disposable income of general
workers. Instead, media reports merely bordered on generalizations as
compared to specifics and statistical evidence. It would also be instructive
for the media to examine what has happened to the prices of so-called
controlled commodities and whether government is doing anything about
enforcing these, especially as this was a platform upon which ZANU-PF fought
the presidential election.

Meanwhile, this week MMPZ looks at the coverage of the US/Zimbabwe relations
with regards the warning by the US against alleged politicization of food by
ZANU PF. Also, this update examines the manner in which the media covered
the land issue in relation to the country's food security.

2. International relations: Bellamy's remarks

The gulf between the public and private media was again exposed in their
coverage of a warning by US Deputy Secretary of State for African Affairs,
Mark Bellamy, against government's alleged politicization of food aid. The
public media was alarmist, interpreting the American's "interventionist"
comment about food distribution as a call to attack Zimbabwe militarily.
On the other hand the private media restricted themselves to coverage of
Bellamy's reported remarks and those of other US officials, leaving their
audiences to interpret the meaning of what was said.
These differences in reporting the issue were best captured by the way The
Herald and The Daily News of the same day (6/11) titled their stories. The
Herald's headline: Anti-Zim drive: US plans to invade Harare was
exaggerated, while The Daily News one, US threatens Zimbabwe: Warns of
intervention to ensure food reaches needy regardless of political
affiliation, was more to the point.
In fact, both papers' stories emanated from the same report published in the
US-based Washington Times, which did not mention any military attack on
Zimbabwe.
But strangely The Herald appeared keen on pursuing a war agenda by narrowly
and subjectively interpreting Bellamy's statements that his country was
considering "intrusive and interventionist" measures that could challenge
Zimbabwe's sovereignty as constituting "a thinly-veiled military threat".
This was despite the fact that the American embassy, which could have
clarified the issue, was just a telephone call away.
Interestingly, The Herald and Daily News both quoted US State Department
spokesman Richard Boucher, explaining this new US stance and never referred
to any military intervention.
Both papers merely cited him saying "the review of food distribution methods
arose after the Zimbabwean authorities seized grain the World Food Programme
was distributing and gave it to supporters of the government".
Said Boucher: "We need to look very carefully at this situation to make sure
that we can monitor the use of the food and make sure it goes to the
neediest of people without any political consideration. So we are looking at
it now."
Notwithstanding such explanations, The Herald continued to editorialize
these comments, accusing the US of "planning to invade Zimbabwe.on the
pretext of bringing relief aid to people who were allegedly being denied
food on political grounds".
The paper even tried to dismiss the seizure of the World Food Programme
(WFP) food aid by ZANU PF supporters during the run-up to the Insiza
by-election as "an isolated and unverified incident in Matebeleland South"
and therefore not worthy of American attention.
This contrasted sharply with reports in the private Press of ruling ZANU PF
supporters using food as a political tool against its opponents such as, No
ZANU PF card, no maize meal in Mufakose, The Daily News (5/11), UN urged to
intervene to stop partisan food distribution, The Daily News (8/11) or Grace
lures voters with food, The Standard (10/11).
In fact, to lend credibility to its US invasion theory, the public Press
solicited comments from mainly government commentators, The Herald (6/11)
and Chronicle (7/11).
For example, The Herald quoted an unnamed government spokesman, who while
accusing Bellamy and the US of being "either blank, mad or both", tried to
drag Africa into the US/Zimbabwe dispute.
Said the government spokesman: ".SADC and the African Union should take note
of the mad talk about intrusive and interventionist challenges to Zimbabwe's
sovereignty. Today it's about Zimbabwe, heaven knows who is next in SADC."
The government spokesman then tried to link the opposition MDC to the US
action by implying that the American threats stemmed from the MDC's loss in
the Insiza by-election, sentiments that were surprisingly echoed by the
Zimbabwe Defence Forces Chief, General Vitalis Zvinavashe, whose position
demands that he be apolitical.
ZBC (3FM, 6/11, 1pm) picked up the story that afternoon. And just like the
public Press, stated that the US wanted to invade Zimbabwe.
That same evening, ZTV followed suit. It reported that this was not the
first time the US government had threatened Zimbabwe's sovereignty alleging
that, "Americans are well-known for imposing their will on weaker nations by
threatening military action and Zimbabwe and other African countries have
been on the receiving end". As evidence, its reporter then chronicled
allegations of US interference in Zimbabwe's sovereignty since 1983.
In the same bulletin, ZTV (8pm) quoted a US embassy official, Bruce Wharton,
who denied claims of US military intervention saying: "The United State has
absolutely no intention of invading Zimbabwe." SW Radio Africa (6/11) also
carried the US denial.
However, ZTV swamped the US response with a hotchpotch of claims, which
included allegations that the US has military bases in Botswana from where
"the threatened intervention" could be launched and that US and British
troop formations were reported on the border between South Africa and
Zimbabwe.
ZANU PF advocate William Nhara added, in the same bulletin, that the alleged
US threats "should be taken seriously" and urged government to take measures
that "should ensure that our armed forces.intelligence forces.policing
forces are put on alert .".
However, Foreign Affairs Minister Stan Mudenge's (ZTV & 3FM, 6/11, 8pm)
stated that government would not take Bellamy's remarks seriously as they
were made following a "misrepresentation of facts by three Zimbabwean
citizens" who are alleged to have said they had evidence that "Shonas want
Mugabe to eliminate all the Ndebeles, . and that a genocide is planned".
The following morning, The Herald (7/11), developed Mudenge's claims in its
article, UK behind invasion plot, which tried to link Britain to America's
purported military attack on Zimbabwe.
The article implied that since Bellamy made his remarks at a meeting on
Famine and Political Violence in Matebeleland, organized by the London-based
Zimbabwe Democracy Trust (ZDT) and sponsored by the Centre for International
and Strategic Studies (CISS), the British had therefore influenced the
proceedings.
The fact that a former secretary at the British High Commission in Harare,
David Troup, allegedly chaired the meeting while three MDC activists were on
the ZDT panel, was used as further evidence.
Again, no attempts were made to verify these claims with either the British
or the Americans. It was left to The Daily News (8/11) to do so in its
story, UK denies masterminding plot to invade Zimbabwe.
In fact, The Herald (7/11) simply dismissed the outcome of the ZDT-organized
meeting by alleging that the three MDC activists (former magistrate Johnson
Mkandla, Bulawayo Residents Association president Paul Siwela, and Ernest
Mtunzi, now resident in Britain) had spread "just a pack of falsehoods".
Similarly, ZBC (ZTV, 7/11, 8pm) managed to link the American threat to its
now traditional targets; the MDC, Amani Trust and the British government. It
reported that many people in Matabeleland had said "the British and the MDC
are trying to get political mileage through spreading falsehoods about
Zimbabwe and its people" adding that "the true principal shareholders of the
MDC" ZDT and Amani Trust "are among the organizations behind a major
misinformation campaign against Zimbabwe".
In an effort to discredit allegations that food aid was only distributed to
ZANU PF supporters, ZTV reported, in the same bulletin, that statistics on
food distribution patterns by the state controlled Grain Marketing Board
(GMB) showed that MDC strongholds get most of the grain while ZANU PF
strongholds get less. However, there was no independent assessment to
confirm the report, or even to say who, within these strongholds, received
the relief.
The report (and Radio Zimbabwe, 8/11, 6am) also quoted selected chiefs from
Matabeleland South as having dismissed allegations of the politicization of
food "as mischievous and baseless attempts by the London-based Democracy
Trust that there is ethnic cleansing and that their subjects are being
denied food aid on tribal grounds".
So did Chronicle (8/11) in its MDC claims rejected.
Yet even as the public media dismissed such allegations, The Financial
Gazette (7/11), for example, was reporting on ZANU PF's continued
post-election retribution against supporters of the MDC in Insiza despite
the fact that the ruling party had won in that constituency.
The paper reported that at least 50 villagers had since been displaced in
the past two weeks while others suspected of having voted for the MDC were
being denied permission to buy maize from the GMB.
The alleged US threat to Zimbabwe triggered a barrage of criticism from the
public media that climaxed with the announcement by the Zimbabwe government
of retaliatory sanctions against 119 people, who included senior officials
of the British government, ZTV (7/11, 8pm), The Herald, Chronicle and Daily
News of the same day (8/11).
Notably, Zimbabwean media personalities working for SW Radio Africa and
Voice of the People, private radio stations broadcasting from Britain and
the Netherlands respectively, were included on the list.
But while the public media was content to accept the government's
explanation that the "decision to impose the sanctions was taken to
safeguard the country's sovereignty, secure its national interests, peace
and stability", The Herald (8/11), the private media was more questioning.
For example, SW Radio Africa (8/11) queried the logic behind government's
decision to blacklist its own people, observing that Simon Parkinson, who
was listed as an SW Radio Africa employee, was in fact working for a
different radio station in South Africa.
The station quoted a lawyer, Anthony Brooks, as saying it was unclear under
what Zimbabwean law the minister could declare a Zimbabwean a prohibited
person adding: "If the minister fails to explain the legal basis of his
action he can be taken to court".
Likewise, The Daily News (9/11), quoted National Constitutional Assembly
(NCA) chairman Lovemore Madhuku dismissing the move as "an act of madness".
Said Madhuku: "It amounts to the unprecedented and unthinkable act of
deporting Zimbabwean citizens. It is, beyond any shadow of doubt,
unconstitutional and illegal even under our current defective constitution.
It offends every notion of freedom of justice."
Madhuku, added that the ban could be the "starting point to a grand strategy
to drive all democracy activists out of Zimbabwe".
However, The Sunday Mail's attempt to provide Information Minister Jonathan
Moyo with a platform to respond to the NCA was compromised by allowing him
to twist the interview into a personal attack on Madhuku, whom he repeatedly
branded as "an ex-convict". 3FM & Radio Zimbabwe (10/11, 1pm) carried
excerpts of the same interview.
Meanwhile, the announcement of retaliatory sanctions coincided with a
statement from the British government that it was introducing visas for
Zimbabweans wishing to travel to that country because of "very significant
abuse of our immigration controls by Zimbabwean nationals".
The public Press both downplayed and welcomed the move as exemplified by The
Herald (9/11) comment, Visa requirement a blessing in disguise.
Conversely, The Standard (10/11), called for the scrapping of visas, saying
President Mugabe was to blame for the increasing number of Zimbabweans
emigrating to the UK.

3. Land reform and food security

The public and private media were also divided over their perspectives on
the impact of the ongoing land reforms on the country's food security. For
example, while the Chronicle (5/11), Farmers ready for planting season
painted an optimistic picture about the prospects of a successful 2002/3
agricultural season, the private Press was doubtful. The Daily News (6/11)
and The Zimbabwe Independent (8/11) carried an IRIN report stating that
government's land reform had missed its aim of achieving "optimal
utilization of land and natural resources and to promote equitable access to
land to all Zimbabweans".
Moreover, The Zimbabwe Independent exposed how ill-prepared both government
and the newly-resettled farmers were in their task of feeding the nation
when it reported that the winter wheat crop had been affected by late
harvesting resulting in some of it rotting in the fields. Unnamed
agricultural experts were also cited contesting Indigenous Commercial
Farmers Union boss Thomas Nherera's predictions that the country would
produce 250 000 tonnes of wheat considering the hectarage under the crop.
The paper also reported that the much publicized winter maize project in
Masvingo, which was spearheaded by provincial governor Josaya Hungwe was a
"monumental failure", as it only yielded 7 500 tonnes of maize, enough to
feed the nation for a day.
However, ZTV (7/11, 8pm) unquestioningly quoted Hungwe alleging that the
winter crop "can feed people for ten months . we are talking about 10 months
of feeding people."
But The Business Tribune (7/11) concurred with other private papers. It
carried a report by the Southern African Development Community (SADC)
predicting Zimbabwe's "food security position for the 2002/2003 marketing
year" assuming "famine proportions".
The report noted that cereal harvests in the country had actually plummeted
by over 60 percent for the 2001/2002 season and that "current projections
indicate a maize deficit of 1.98 million tonnes for the 2002/2003 marketing
year".
Despite these revelations, the public media remained optimistic. They blamed
producers of agricultural inputs for causing shortages and viewed this as
the main obstacle of the reforms.
For example, The Chronicle (7/11), Success of agrarian reforms threatened,
saw the shortage of maize seed "as part of efforts to derail land reforms".
Without according the producers the right to reply, the paper (8/11)
followed this up with a comment, Stop playing political games with seed.
This blame game gathered momentum in The Sunday Mail (10/11), which quoted
Agriculture Minister Joseph Made accusing manufacturing companies of
creating artificial shortages of fertilizer in the hope of pushing for a
price increase.
Just like the public Press, ZBC (7/11 & 9/11, 8pm) merely catalogued reports
highlighting problems affecting the new farmers without analyzing the
underlying implications to food security.
Ends.

The MEDIA UPDATE was produced and circulated by the Media Monitoring Project
Zimbabwe,15 Duthie Avenue, Alexandra Park, Harare, Tel/fax: 263 4 703702,
E-mail: [email protected]

Feel free to write to MMPZ. We may not able to respond to everything but we
will look at each message.
For previous MMPZ reports, and more information about the Project, please
visit our website at http://www.mmpz.org.zw