Media Monitoring Project Zimbabwe
Media Update # 2001/43
Monday 22nd October to Monday 29th October 2001

THE ABUJA AGREEMENT AND THE CMAG VISIT

INTRODUCTION
This week the Media Monitoring Project focuses its attention on
the media coverage of the visit by the Commonwealth Ministerial
Action Group to Zimbabwe to assess the progress being made
towards the implementation of the conditions set out in the Abuja
agreement signed in the Nigerian capital on September 6th between
Britain and Zimbabwe.
The government-controlled media launched a propaganda blitz
promoting government’s insistence that it is complying with the
terms of the Abuja Agreement. Wild and unsubstantiated
conspiracy theories, and accusations of racism and division
abounded in the government-owned Press and, perhaps to a lesser
extent, on ZBC’s bulletins. These were clearly designed to distract
their audiences from the real issue of examining government’s
performance in restoring the rule of law and conducting agrarian
reforms lawfully, all of which formed part of the conditions of Abuja
but which the government and its media struggled to sideline.
Simple logic must ask government and the state-controlled media
the obvious question: Why else was the delegation visiting
Zimbabwe?
The privately owned press also devoted considerable space to the
topic, providing a more credible and realistic impression of the visit
and the situation on the ground.
These diametrically opposed viewpoints once again set the two
media sectors (public and private) poles apart, a condition that is
often employed in a generic way to describe the media in
Zimbabwe. But this is a slack and misleading description of the
state of the media that demands deeper analysis.
First of all, it implies that both sectors are somehow extremist and
equally to blame for the polarization of the sources of information
available to Zimbabweans. This is not the case.
Government officials have repeatedly stated that state-owned
media organizations are obliged to reflect government policy and
opinion. It is also fair to say that being nominally accountable to
the electorate, the government is anxious to ensure that the media
it controls portray its activities and opinions favourably.
This agenda therefore, binds government-controlled media
institutions to a single narrow perspective that destroys any claims
they may make of reflecting a genuinely diverse range of national
activity and opinion and places their news output at one political
extreme.
The intensity with which the government-controlled media
manipulate the news to communicate this one-dimensionally
flattering image to its audiences depends on a number of factors.
But it is certain that impending national plebiscites create a virulent
response from government to promote its opinions and manipulate
news of its activities to such a degree that the distortion results in
the most severe lack of balance or fairness and bears little
resemblance to reality. MMPZ’s research during last year’s
referendum and parliamentary election campaigns clearly
demonstrates this fact. And there is no denying that history is
repeating itself as the week under review confirms.
The privately owned Press, on the other hand, have no other
agenda than to make profit, which depends on readership and
which, in turn, depends on the credibility of its news output. While
political opinion varies (although not very widely) in the private
Press, their success or failure depends on their ability to report
events and opinions accurately and fairly.
Often these basic standards are not met for various reasons. But
when a government resorts to subverting all the instruments of
democracy in order to manipulate the outcome of an election,
including the electoral process, the extremism has not been
introduced by the private Press, but by the government itself and
the media it controls, which is obliged to defend the indefensible.
This is what causes the polarization of the media in Zimbabwe
today.

ANALYSIS OF COVERAGE
There can hardly be a more classic example of this polarity
between the government-controlled and privately owned press than
the editions of The Sunday Mail and The Standard of October 28th.
Both newspapers led with reports on the outcome of the
Commonwealth team’s visit to Zimbabwe, which was intended to
assess progress in the implementation of the Abuja agreement
under which Britain agreed to help fund a land reform programme
on condition that Zimbabwe conducted it in a lawful and orderly
manner, restored the rule of law and guaranteed a democratic
electoral process.
Under an entirely inaccurate headline, Thumbs-up for Zim, Club
ministers say State implementing its Abuja obligations, The
Sunday Mail’s story charged that attempts by the opposition MDC
and other anti-government civic organizations to have Abuja
derailed had failed after the Commonwealth team “confirmed that
the…Government was implementing its obligations”.
But nowhere in the story was there a clear explanation, or even a
relevant quote from the Commonwealth team’s communiqué to
support this claim. Instead, the paper distracted its readers from
this crucial issue by swamping them with allegations of racial
divisions within the Commonwealth team itself and how an MDC
MP had been “taken to task” by one of its delegates. It dismissed
the “pathetic” presentations from civic groups and the CFU,
describing them as “a flop”, without presenting any evidence for
this, while the submissions of those groups supporting the
government line, were hailed as having “carried the day”.
Its rival, The Standard, on the other hand, carried a straightforward
story under the heading, Government ordered to delist farms,
which was supported by relevant quotes from the Commonwealth
team’s communiqué.
What none of the media managed to explain, or penetrate with any
great clarity, was the obscure diplomatic wording of the
communiqué. Nor did they provide a clear summary of the points it
made, or analyse whether it was indeed, a feeble fudging of the
issues the Commonwealth team had come to assess. But in its
calls on government to speed up the de-listing of farms and the
need to “…implement the entire process in accordance with
the laws and constitution of Zimbabwe,” (ZTV 27/10 8pm)
among other appeals, The Standard fairly assessed that
“Government, through its failure to comply with the Abuja
accord, has, for the time being, effectively put paid to British
aid to fund land reform…”
This was not the impression given by ZTV, although it initially aired
some footage of the Commonwealth group’s chairman, Nigeria’s
Sule Lamido, reading out some sections of the communiqué
without providing either comment or analysis. Viewers were left to
wrestle with the interpretation of the diplomatic jargon in the
communiqué until its main news bulletin the following evening when
it allowed the director of an obscure organization, Zimbabwe Land
Case Research, to do the hatchet job of providing an entirely
misleading analysis of the communiqué unchallenged.
ZTV’s reporter, Judith Makwanya, allowed Noah Muzorori, the
ZLCR director, to endorse ZANU PF’s perspective that Abuja was
only about funding Zimbabwe’s land reforms when he said:
“(The) Abuja agreement is about the land issue as if affects
Zimbabwe-UK relations. These other issues of the rule of law,
electoral supervisors (sic) and the like, are peripheral
issues…These are issues which can be tackled in different
fora…We are looking at the Abuja agreement as it should
solve the Zimbabwe land issue…”
Worse still, Muzorori was allowed to manipulate the
Commonwealth statement in such a way as to give the impression
that it had endorsed government’s fast-track land reform when he
was quoted saying: “The communiqué stipulated that
Zimbabwe should solve the land issue within the context of
the law…That is what is happening…”
No other analysis was sourced, although the national broadcaster
later adopted these claims and those made in The Sunday Mail as
fact.

Such distortions of reality provided the climax to a week of severe
manipulation in the government-controlled media.

Before the arrival of the Commonwealth committee, the state-
controlled media relied heavily on Foreign Affairs Minister, Stan
Mudenge, to promote the notion that Zimbabwe was implementing
the Abuja agreement.
ZTV gave a total of 38 minutes to the topic of the Commonwealth
team’s visit in its Newshour bulletins during the week, representing
14% of the bulletin’s total news time in the seven days. Stan
Mudenge alone was allocated 11 minutes. He first appeared on
Newshour (ZTV and all radio stations, 8pm) on October 23rd stating
that government ministers had visited a number of provinces to
monitor the situation in the commercial farming areas and ZTV
used this as proof that government was fulfilling its obligations.
MMPZ notes that accepting without question government ministers’
statements as truth has been the stock-in-trade of ZBC’s coverage
of most issues relating to land reform.

After attracting lead story status in the government owned
Zimpapers' titles the following morning (The Herald and The
Chronicle 24/10) for his rejection of European Union demands to
send observers to next year's presidential election, ZBC (ZTV,
24/10, 8pm) accorded Mudenge another five minutes 30 seconds to
expand on his conspiracy theory about the motives of the EU that
appeared at the end of The Herald's story. Evidently taken from the
same interview, ZTV quoted Mudenge as saying: "That’s how they
got rid of Milosovic (of Yugoslavia). They used the time they
got to organize the opposition, to pay for the opposition and
defeat Milosovic. That’s what we don’t want" Surprisingly,
Mudenge admitted that his argument relied on The Herald, a paper
whose credibility has been severely eroded by its unwavering bias
in support of government policies. Any professional broadcaster
would have sought comment from the EU, but not ZBC.
Mudenge’s outburst was meant to reinforce increasingly strident
government accusations that Britain, a member of the EU with a
representative in the Commonwealth's "Abuja" committee, had a
hidden political agenda to persuade its partner states to impose
sanctions against Zimbabwe and contribute to the overthrow of the
government.
This too, had been contained in another front-page story of the
same edition of The Herald ostensibly announcing the expected
arrival of the Commonwealth delegates. But once it had this piece
of information out of the way, the story degenerated into
speculative propaganda quoting "diplomatic sources" saying
"Britain was now trying to hijack the Abuja agreement and
'turn it on its head'".
Apart from attempting to discredit Commonwealth secretary-
general, Don McKinnon, for attempting to insist on a restoration of
the rule of law, the paper stated: "Fears abound that Abuja
would be 'abused' to divide African countries by Britain and its
allies in the 'white' Commonwealth."
The paper provided no evidence for any of this deranged racial
innuendo other than reporting that Mudenge believed "some forces
were working to undermine the Abuja agreement."
This attempt to undermine the Commonwealth delegation was a
theme Zimpapers pursued the next day when The Herald (25/10)
accused Britain, Jamaica and South Africa of not sending as high-
ranking officials as those at Abuja. Unnamed sources, as was the
case in most of the paper’s stories under review, were used to
support this: "This is a way of making sure that no real
progress is made," they claimed. An editorial in the same edition
of the paper, EU’s double standards abominable, transformed the
EU's demand to have election observers attend the presidential
election into a conflict between African, Caribbean and Pacific
(ACP) countries and Europe. Said the paper: "If demands and
ultimatums become the modus operandi of the EU-ACP
relationship, then the ACP countries have every reason to
believe that the partnership is only in word, and the reality is
worse than during the colonial era."
The article also seemed to have been calculated to gag the
Commonwealth team from pressing government to adhere to its
Abuja promise of guaranteeing a democratic electoral process,
among other conditions.
The Financial Gazette’s (25/10) Zim threatens to dump Abuja,
underlined government’s preoccupation with the possible damage
the Abuja agreement was likely to inflict on President Mugabe’s
chances of winning next year’s presidential election. In the story,
government is reported to have threatened to dump Abuja if the
Commonwealth team arm-twisted Harare into sticking to the pact.
It was no surprise then, that the next day, The Herald (26/10) led
with Stick to Abuja, in which the paper again reported Stan
Mudenge, warning the Commonwealth team against working
"outside the parameters of the Abuja agreement".
Mudenge also tried to squeeze out other visiting non-African
Commonwealth members by claiming that "the Abuja pact was
an African initiative by Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo".
"The countries involved in the initiative should not derail the
Abuja agreement in the name of the Commonwealth," the
paper reported him as saying. They should "serve both the intent
and substance of what President Obasanjo sent us to do".
Warned Mudenge: "The postman who takes it upon himself to
edit the love letter he is delivering has tragically misread his
service charter. Our ministerial committee must, while
laughing at this silly postman, be careful to eschew his
wayward way."
In fact, an earlier story in The Herald (22/10) reported a planned
"major" protest by the United States-based Friends of Africa to
thwart MDC, British, and American plans to push through the
proposed Zimbabwe Democracy Bill.
The story, speculative and mostly editorialized, relied on claims
made by an unnamed spokesperson of Friends of Africa and
supported by nameless diplomatic sources.
Speculated the paper: "The opposition MDC that engineered
and supported the Bill was now caught in internal squabbles,
violence and bickering, which militated against the Bill¹s
assertions that the ruling ZANU PF government was
responsible for political violence in the country."
The story also tried to convince the visiting Commonwealth team
that events had stabilized in Zimbabwe. "The fast-track
programme has virtually ended with the resettlement of over
130 000 families and that the Abuja agreement was holding on
the ground, not withstanding a smear campaign by the
Commercial Farmers’ Union". The private press responded to
this entirely notional claim with its own story: Mugabe ups
propaganda to dupe the world, The Financial Gazette (25/10).
This report claimed – without providing any source - that before the
Commonwealth delegation¹s visit, the Cabinet Action Committee
on Land, led by Local Government Minister Ignatius Chombo, had
urged militant settlers to scale down their activities and create a
picture of calm on the farms. At the same time, he issued an
ultimatum to all resettled farmers to move onto land allocated to
them or lose out in a bid to enable government to show that it has
a properly run land reform exercise.
The Reuters news agency story, Commonwealth mission may get
right words, but no action from Mugabe, in The Daily News (26/10)
also warned: "Mugabe¹s government has mixed charm with
belligerence ahead of the visit, promising total co-operation
with the Commonwealth, while attacking white farmers who
have questioned its commitment to the deals".
In its front-page comment No more games, The Financial Gazette
cited various cases in which government had contravened the
terms of the Abuja agreement. Noted the comment: "Thus the
visiting Commonwealth team and the entire community bear
the gravest moral and legal responsibility to ensure that not
only are these acts of madness stopped without delay but that
Zimbabweans do have minimum conditions under which a
free and fair ballot can be staged."
The Zimbabwe Independent (26/10) comment, Open letter to
Commonwealth ministers, chronicled the problems besieging the
country.
Only the private press carried stories of the continuing violence and
intimidation in the commercial farming areas ahead of the
Commonwealth team’s visit.
The Financial Gazette’s stories recorded continued incidents of
violence on commercial farms and its effects on both farmers and
the workers.
Other examples are: ZANU PF supporters attack Madzimure¹s
house again, The Daily News (23/10); ZANU PF arms war vets, re-
ignites terror, The Zimbabwe Independent (26/10); Land invaders
assault Nyabira farm workers, and War vets impound maize, The
Daily News (26/10).
Allegations of racism characterized coverage of the Commonwealth
team’ s activities in The Daily News and The Herald (27/10). In an
article nonsensically headlined, Fits of racial bigotry, The Herald
brazenly concocted a story about white commercial farmers who
"went into fits of racial bigotry" after they had been goaded "to
mislead Club delegates" by one of the Commonwealth team’s
delegates, Canadian Secretary of State for Africa, David Kilgour,
during a visit to one farm.
However, the newspaper, like ZTV’s report the previous evening,
failed to provide a shred of evidence for its absurd allegations of
racism or bigotry against the farmers, let alone "fits". And the worst
crime it could find evidence for against Kilgour was his apparent
intervention in selecting a spokesman for the farmers in the area.
According to the paper, he had "stunned everyone" when he took
over the chairmanship of the meeting from Nigeria’s Sule Lamido
and picked on Johannes Jackson to represent commercial farmers.
But the paper contradicted its own allegation when it quoted the
initial representative of the farmers in the area, Handrieks Erasmus,
as saying his replacement by Jackson was not at the behest of
Kilgour, but with the agreement of his colleagues.
In ZTV’s story (26/10 8pm), Reuben Barwe reported that Kilgour
had invited the farmers’ spokesman “…to paint another bad
picture about the whole resettlement programme,” but denied
audiences the opportunity of hearing what he actually said.
ZTV’s grossly biased coverage was again reflected the following
evening during Judith Makwanya’s voice-over (ZTV, 27/10, 8pm).
Makwanya alleged that the committee was divided along racial
lines when “…the black committee realised that land is at the
core of the problems in Zimbabwe while Britain, Canada and
Australia were pushing for change of government…” and
stated that white members had consulted on their own during the
delegation’s meetings.
No comment was accessed from the members of the committee to
corroborate Makwanya’s claims. Instead, the reporter went on to
quote unnamed ‘reliable sources’ who were quoted as having said
the “divisions emerged on the rule of law, good governance
and whether Zimbabwe had adhered to the provisions of the
Abuja pact since its signing...”

The Daily News’ War vets attack whites (27/10) highlighted the
comments of the war veterans’ representative who was quoted
openly threatening the white commercial farmers and warned them
to change their attitude or risk trouble.
The same story also linked the Commonwealth group¹s visit to the
European Union¹s demand that it be allowed to send observers to
the presidential election. Without referring to the clause in the
Abuja accord relating to the government ‘s commitment to ensuring
democratic elections, the story reported Commonwealth Secretary-
General, Don McKinnon, as saying the Commonwealth would not
insist on sending observers unless it was invited to do so by
Zimbabwe.
It also carried a denial from McKinnon of unattributed allegations
contained in The Herald (24/10), claiming that he was part of a
group, led by Britain, that wanted to "hijack" Abuja in an effort to
drum up support for the opposition and oust the present
government. This effort to obtain some rebuttal of The Herald¹s
propaganda would have been most welcome, except for the fact
that The Daily News reporter included an allegation not contained in
The Herald story ­ that McKinnon was "raising funds to ensure
the Zanu PF government is ousted from power".
This prevailing belligerent atmosphere was reinforced in The Herald
comment, CFU lies: Time for final showdown (27/10).
The same issue of The Herald was awash with conspiracy
theories, including, Whites determined to see Abuja fail and, MDC
to get $10.2m UK funding. The first story, used belatedly, was a
warning to both the Commonwealth team and the impending visit
by a delegation from the UNDP that farmers were conspiring with
Britain, the foreign media, and some sections of the local media to
derail Abuja. The story was simplistic, propagandist and lacked
supporting facts. In the second story, the paper again attempted
to portray Britain as a double-dealing country that publicly
supported Abuja, but was clandestinely sponsoring the MDC in
breach of Zimbabwe’s Political Parties (Finance) Act. The story
conveniently used the bias of omission by denying both the MDC
and British authorities the right of reply.

From MMPZ- We appreciate your observations. MMPZ’s reports
focus on the week covered, although reference is made to stories
outside the week where this is required.
We invite our subscribers to submit their observations on these
and other issues to MMPZ. Please keep your letters brief.
Ends

The MEDIA UPDATE is produced and circulated by the Media
Monitorng Project Zimbabwe, 15 Duthie Avenue, Alexandra Park,
Harare, Tel/fax: 263 4 703702, E-mail: { HYPERLINK
"mailto:[email protected]" }[email protected]
Previous MMPZ reports can be accessed at
{ HYPERLINK "http://www.icon.co.zw/mmpz" }http://www.icon.co.zw/mmpz
Send all comments and queries to the Project Coordinator.
Please feel free to circulate this message.