Zimbabwe moves to restrict NGOs

[muriel_volestrangler]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3585132.stm

Zimbabwe's government has published a proposed law that would ban foreign human rights organisations and restrict many local charities.

The bill requires non-governmental organisations to apply for a licence, but says none will be granted if the group's aim is to promote human rights.

Local groups would also be banned from receiving funds from abroad to finance work in such fields.
...
But the National Association of Non-Governmental Organisations said the proposed law would criminalise groups which helped the most vulnerable in society, including the unemployed and those living with HIV/Aids.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. OK, let's hear from the Mugabe apologists....

[AP]

2. If you asked Zimbabwe for an explanation, they'd probably say because

some of those NGOs are more interested in serving the interests of their corporate donors rather than the citizens of Zimbabwe.

Don't you remember when the DU'er posted here -- a DU'er with actual experience doing development work in Africa -- and said that some NGOs have little interest in developing self-sufficiency, and in fact have a great deal of interest in maintaining dependency.

Then wasn't there and article linked here which explained how at least one NGO wouldn't build infrastructure (I think it was a canal system for farmland in Zimbabwe) when asked because it turned out they received money from an ag business in the US, and it turned out that that ag business made a lot of money by convincing congress to buy the grain they couldn't sell at the end of the year with taxpayer money for much more than it was worth and then dump it on Zimbabwe, calling it "aid" when it fact it was barely edible, and took up space in a warehouse attracting rats until it had to be burned. Or was I imagining that?

There are two sides to every story. I'd like to hear Zimbabwe's before I condemn this.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Note the law isn't about aid NGOs

but human rights NGOs. So the arguments about self-sufficiency and dependency aren't relevant here.

[AP]

6. The article is about NGOs criticizing the government.

I suspect that if you heard the full story, and not just the BBC or NGO side of the story, it would be that Zimbabwe is perfectly willing to license NGOs to help build infrastructure and to help end economic dependency on the west, but they don't want NGOs getting involved in politics and and arguing against the existing government and for a new government which will pursue policies that result in dependency.

But I'm just guessing.

It's really hard to get Zimbabwe's side of the story.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. Exactly, Zimbabwe is a brutal dictatorship that starves children

and brooks no dissent.

[AP]

8. It's (also?) a country that is doing more to end its dependency...

...relationship with the west than many third world countries. Which is why you hear more from the western press about its being a brutal dictatorship than you hear about what it's doing to end the dependency relationship.

I'm not sure if "brooking no dissent" is a totally accurate discription of what's going on in Zimbabwe. Afterall, when the MDC knew it was going to lose the election, the westerners pulling the strings for the MDC gave Zanu-PF a tape of MDC leader Morgan Tsvengerai "plotting" an assassination. They were hoping that Mugabe would react by cancelling the elections and executing Tsvengerai. Instead, Tsvengerai was booked and released on bail and allowed to continue campaigning.

Of course, some might say that ZANU-PF was planning to cheat in the elections, so he didn't feel threatened by Tsvengerai. Nonetheless, I think at the very least if you're going to say that Zanu-PF "brooks no dissent" you should qualify it with the fact that they do brook a little bit of dissent.

And if you're really saying that they don't brook NGOs financed by western sources trying to get involved in the internal politics of Zimbabwe, I think there's probably more that could be discussed about that than is provided in this BBC article.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. Empty rhetoric

http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/zwe-summary-eng

http://www.rsf.fr/article.php3?id_article=10216&Valider=OK

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=africa&c=zimbab

[AP]

11. Amnesty and HRW are both great orgs, but both had nasty things to say...

...about Chavez, by the way.

[AP]

12. As for RWF...

...I think it's important to note that there probably isn't another country in Africa where the western press is more intent on getting rid of existing government, and it's not because they're upset about human rights violations. It's because they're upset about Zimbabwe ending its dependency relationship with the west.

So when RWF talks about Zimbabwe having the worst record re press freedoms in Africa, it's probably worth putting into context. For example, why doesn't Nigeria have a worse record with reporters? Because the press isn't so eager to criticize a government that is pretty friendly to western corporate interests.

I'm not saying it's good what they're doing to the press, but they probably saw what the press did to the Democrats in the US in 2000 and are overreacting.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. The famous reference to some unnamed person.

I heard Larry Thurlow using the same debate tactic the other day.

Mugabe appears to be a brutal dictator intent on starving his political opponents.

[AP]

5. It's in the archives.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

10. Even if it is, what does that prove? Some anonymous poster agrees with you

BFD

[AP]

13. If you're not aware that there is a discussion out there in the real world

about whether NGOs tend to perpetuate dependency relationships or end them, and whether they tend to do the bidding of their corporate supporters or serve the interests of the countries in which they work, then maybe you need to do a little more research.

I'm not saying this discussion is everywhere, but in other discussions on this subject, I have googled and found things. CBC also did a report on this a few years ago. The stuff is out there. I'm sorry you had to hear it from me first because that means you probably won't consider it with an open mind.