Articles
“Terrorism and Media: Zimbabwe as a case study,”
A presentation by Geoffrey Nyarota, Editor-in-Chief of The Daily News, Zimbabwe, at the Terrorism and Media Conference in Manila, on Wednesday, 1 May 2002
As the government of the United States and its allies intensified their crackdown on terrorism in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks, the government of Zimbabwe waged a war of its own on terrorism. The targets of this onslaught by the authorities in Harare were, however, terrorists of a totally different nature.
The terrorists referred to in rather incongruous terms by the regime of Mr Robert Mugabe were the journalists working for the country’s small but increasingly vibrant and popular privately owned independent press.
Also listed by government among the ranks of Zimbabwe’s special breed of terrorists were members, especially the leadership, of the major opposition political party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). The party’s President, Mr Morgan Tsvangirai, lost an election two months ago to President Mugabe, in a poll that was embroiled in controversy and allegedly fraught with irregularities. Mr Mugabe has openly been accused of winning through fraudulent means.
More than 100 supporters of the MDC were butchered by militants and agents of the ruling Zanu PF party and government. Scores were arrested.
Also to bear the brunt of the government’s so-called onslaught on terrorism were members the small white commercial farming community who, over the past two years, have been the victims of a vicious land expropriation and redistribution, programme which has left more than 12 people dead, and many more displaced or arrested on various spurious charges.
While no journalist has paid the supreme sacrifice yet, death threats have been issued and journalists on each of Zimbabwe’s three weekly and one daily privately owned newspapers have been arrested.
The MDC was accused in the run-up to the presidential election held in March 2002 and its members were locked by the government of Mr Mugabe on murder and terrorism charges following the death of activists of the ruling Zanu PF party.
Information Minister, Jonathan Moyo, one of Mugabe’s top aides accused the country’s small population of 4000 white commercial farmes of colluding with journalists to commit what he described as “economic terrorism”.
Moyo made this accusation when an elderly farmer and 20 of his workers were arrested and hauled before the courts on accusation that during clashes with supporters of the ruling party who raided his farm John Bibby, the farmer caused the death of two of the invaders. Security guards, however, painted an entirely picture of events on the farm, where, according to their testimony, the two invaders were run over after they fell off the tractor they were riding on.
Taking up the cudgels on behalf of government, The Chronicle, a government supporting daily newspaper, stated in an editorial comment:
“The ongoing foreign-sponsored political thuggery that has raised its ugly head should not be allowed to go unchecked. We would like to urge the government to use the state security machinery to deal with these acts of terrorism before they get out of hand.”
As if in direct response, President Mugabe soon after his re-election in March signed the controversial and draconian Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Bill, which seeks to silence Zimbabwean journalists through licensing, through the prosecution and handing down of stiff penalties on those whose writings are deemed to be disruptive, the barring of foreign journalists from working in the country and the prevention of foreigners from having a stake-hold in any Zimbabwe media organisation.
“The government will use the law to bring to book MDC terrorists and their media supporters without fear or favour,” enthused Moyo in The Sunday Mail, another government owned newspaper. “No terrorist or terrorist sponsor will find comfort in Zimbabwe. The use of the media, whether local or international, will not suffice as a cover for terrorism.”
Despite the minister’s assertions that the government will apply the new law without fear or favour, evidence abounds to the contrary. Since it became law in March Zimbabwe’s Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Bill has been selectively used to haunt journalists working for the country’s independent press, who were obviously the prime target of the new legislation, anyway.
I now hold the dubious distinction of being the first Zimbabwean journalist ever to taste the wrath of government under the provisions of this repressive and obnoxious legislation, which is aimed at gagging the quality of information reaching the public of Zimbabwe. I was arrested on 15 April and charged with violating the Access to Information Act. My arrest followed the publication in The Daily News which stated that there was a discrepancy between the figures of election results broadcast live by Zimbabwe’s Registrar General and the actual figures.
The basis of the story was a tape containing the live recording.
Also arrested were Iden Wtherell, the Editor of the privately owned weekly, The Zimbabwe Independent and his chief reporter, Dumisani Muleya. The two were detained following publication in their paper of a story linking the First Lady of Zimbabwe, Mrs Grace Mugabe to a labour dispute between a white-owned company and an employee alleged to be her brother.
For journalists arrested by the government of Zimbabwe what is usually more painful than the arrest itself is the wholesale condemnation, normally unwarranted, by the state-owned media. The Daily News story was described as a “preposterous and deliberate falsehood consistent with many previous claims made by the…British sponsored paper…behind the disinformation campaign on behalf of the MDC.
The Daily News is not British sponsored.
The international media watchdog Reporters Sans Frontierers (RSF) was not spared the wrath or the sharp tongue of the government of Zimbabwe on this occasion. Information Minister Moyo launched a scathing and vitriolic attack on RSF, which he accused of promoting lawlessness in Zimbabwe. RSF had written to Moyo expressing concern over the arrest of the three journalists. Moyo described the appeal as “nothing but a shameless partisan voice for imperial Europe deserving of the greatest contempt”.
If the strict definition of terrorism is applied it is obvious that the journalists of Zimbabwe are not, in any way, engaged in terrorist activity as alleged by the government.
Terrorism denotes a particular type of violence. It is not employed as a synonym for politically motivated violence in general. It has five distinguishing characters:
· It is premeditated and designed to create a climate of extreme fear,
· It is directed at a wider target than the immediate victims,
* It inherently involves attacks on random or symbolic targets, including civilians;
· It is considered by the society in which it occurs as “extra-normal”, that is in the literal sense that it violates the norms regulating disputes, protest and dissent and
· it is used primarily, though not exclusively, to influence the political behaviour of
governments, communities or specific social groups.
It would be nearer the truth to suggest that it is the independent journalists of Zimbabwe, along with the commercial farming community and the leadership of the major opposition party who have become the victims of state-sponsored acts of terrorism as Zimbabwe descended into the state of lawlessness and anarchy which has prevailed in the country since the run-up to the parliamentary elections, held in June 2000.
During that period The Daily News has experienced a bomb attack on its offices in April 2000, a bomb attack on its printing press in January 2001, which completely ruined the newspaper’s printing press, the arrest and other harassment on numerous occasions of its journalists and newspaper vendors, two threats of death against me, the seizure and destruction of thousands of copies of the newspaper and the banning of the paper in certain areas, especially the rural areas, which are the stronghold of the ruling party.
Through their tireless effort to provide information to the public the media of Zimbabwe could, in a way, be guilty of promoting acts of terrorism in the country, especially where pertaining to the illegal invasion of white-owned commercial farming land by the so-called war veterans.
Critics, some of them within the media, argue that if the media had not provided wide publicity to the farm invaders, who became instant celebrities, especially in ruling party circles and among certain landless peasants in the rural areas, land invasions might not have become as prevalent as is the case now, with rather devastating consequences on the food security and the general economy of Zimbabwe.
As the “war vets”, some of them too young to have made any meaningful contribution to Zimbabwe’s war of liberation from colonialism, marched onto the commercial farms to evict the farmers, invaded private sector companies, some of which immediately closed and stormed into the chambers of Supreme Court judges seeking to evict them, hordes of local and foreign journalists were in attendance.
The perpetrators of these outrages then watched themselves being paraded as heroes on state-sponsored television. They saw their pictures, AKs held aloft, gracing the front pages of the newspapers.
This fawning adoration and adulation by the state media of young men who, with impunity tantamount to state protection, went about committing acts of lawlessness and wreaking general havoc, must have served as an incentive to further acts of terrorism.
But then this concern must be addressed in the context of the need by the media, especially the private press, of Zimbabwe, to inform the public on all matters of interest and relevance to them.
The terrorists referred to in rather incongruous terms by the regime of Mr Robert Mugabe were the journalists working for the country’s small but increasingly vibrant and popular privately owned independent press.
Also listed by government among the ranks of Zimbabwe’s special breed of terrorists were members, especially the leadership, of the major opposition political party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). The party’s President, Mr Morgan Tsvangirai, lost an election two months ago to President Mugabe, in a poll that was embroiled in controversy and allegedly fraught with irregularities. Mr Mugabe has openly been accused of winning through fraudulent means.
More than 100 supporters of the MDC were butchered by militants and agents of the ruling Zanu PF party and government. Scores were arrested.
Also to bear the brunt of the government’s so-called onslaught on terrorism were members the small white commercial farming community who, over the past two years, have been the victims of a vicious land expropriation and redistribution, programme which has left more than 12 people dead, and many more displaced or arrested on various spurious charges.
While no journalist has paid the supreme sacrifice yet, death threats have been issued and journalists on each of Zimbabwe’s three weekly and one daily privately owned newspapers have been arrested.
The MDC was accused in the run-up to the presidential election held in March 2002 and its members were locked by the government of Mr Mugabe on murder and terrorism charges following the death of activists of the ruling Zanu PF party.
Information Minister, Jonathan Moyo, one of Mugabe’s top aides accused the country’s small population of 4000 white commercial farmes of colluding with journalists to commit what he described as “economic terrorism”.
Moyo made this accusation when an elderly farmer and 20 of his workers were arrested and hauled before the courts on accusation that during clashes with supporters of the ruling party who raided his farm John Bibby, the farmer caused the death of two of the invaders. Security guards, however, painted an entirely picture of events on the farm, where, according to their testimony, the two invaders were run over after they fell off the tractor they were riding on.
Taking up the cudgels on behalf of government, The Chronicle, a government supporting daily newspaper, stated in an editorial comment:
“The ongoing foreign-sponsored political thuggery that has raised its ugly head should not be allowed to go unchecked. We would like to urge the government to use the state security machinery to deal with these acts of terrorism before they get out of hand.”
As if in direct response, President Mugabe soon after his re-election in March signed the controversial and draconian Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Bill, which seeks to silence Zimbabwean journalists through licensing, through the prosecution and handing down of stiff penalties on those whose writings are deemed to be disruptive, the barring of foreign journalists from working in the country and the prevention of foreigners from having a stake-hold in any Zimbabwe media organisation.
“The government will use the law to bring to book MDC terrorists and their media supporters without fear or favour,” enthused Moyo in The Sunday Mail, another government owned newspaper. “No terrorist or terrorist sponsor will find comfort in Zimbabwe. The use of the media, whether local or international, will not suffice as a cover for terrorism.”
Despite the minister’s assertions that the government will apply the new law without fear or favour, evidence abounds to the contrary. Since it became law in March Zimbabwe’s Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Bill has been selectively used to haunt journalists working for the country’s independent press, who were obviously the prime target of the new legislation, anyway.
I now hold the dubious distinction of being the first Zimbabwean journalist ever to taste the wrath of government under the provisions of this repressive and obnoxious legislation, which is aimed at gagging the quality of information reaching the public of Zimbabwe. I was arrested on 15 April and charged with violating the Access to Information Act. My arrest followed the publication in The Daily News which stated that there was a discrepancy between the figures of election results broadcast live by Zimbabwe’s Registrar General and the actual figures.
The basis of the story was a tape containing the live recording.
Also arrested were Iden Wtherell, the Editor of the privately owned weekly, The Zimbabwe Independent and his chief reporter, Dumisani Muleya. The two were detained following publication in their paper of a story linking the First Lady of Zimbabwe, Mrs Grace Mugabe to a labour dispute between a white-owned company and an employee alleged to be her brother.
For journalists arrested by the government of Zimbabwe what is usually more painful than the arrest itself is the wholesale condemnation, normally unwarranted, by the state-owned media. The Daily News story was described as a “preposterous and deliberate falsehood consistent with many previous claims made by the…British sponsored paper…behind the disinformation campaign on behalf of the MDC.
The Daily News is not British sponsored.
The international media watchdog Reporters Sans Frontierers (RSF) was not spared the wrath or the sharp tongue of the government of Zimbabwe on this occasion. Information Minister Moyo launched a scathing and vitriolic attack on RSF, which he accused of promoting lawlessness in Zimbabwe. RSF had written to Moyo expressing concern over the arrest of the three journalists. Moyo described the appeal as “nothing but a shameless partisan voice for imperial Europe deserving of the greatest contempt”.
If the strict definition of terrorism is applied it is obvious that the journalists of Zimbabwe are not, in any way, engaged in terrorist activity as alleged by the government.
Terrorism denotes a particular type of violence. It is not employed as a synonym for politically motivated violence in general. It has five distinguishing characters:
· It is premeditated and designed to create a climate of extreme fear,
· It is directed at a wider target than the immediate victims,
* It inherently involves attacks on random or symbolic targets, including civilians;
· It is considered by the society in which it occurs as “extra-normal”, that is in the literal sense that it violates the norms regulating disputes, protest and dissent and
· it is used primarily, though not exclusively, to influence the political behaviour of
governments, communities or specific social groups.
It would be nearer the truth to suggest that it is the independent journalists of Zimbabwe, along with the commercial farming community and the leadership of the major opposition party who have become the victims of state-sponsored acts of terrorism as Zimbabwe descended into the state of lawlessness and anarchy which has prevailed in the country since the run-up to the parliamentary elections, held in June 2000.
During that period The Daily News has experienced a bomb attack on its offices in April 2000, a bomb attack on its printing press in January 2001, which completely ruined the newspaper’s printing press, the arrest and other harassment on numerous occasions of its journalists and newspaper vendors, two threats of death against me, the seizure and destruction of thousands of copies of the newspaper and the banning of the paper in certain areas, especially the rural areas, which are the stronghold of the ruling party.
Through their tireless effort to provide information to the public the media of Zimbabwe could, in a way, be guilty of promoting acts of terrorism in the country, especially where pertaining to the illegal invasion of white-owned commercial farming land by the so-called war veterans.
Critics, some of them within the media, argue that if the media had not provided wide publicity to the farm invaders, who became instant celebrities, especially in ruling party circles and among certain landless peasants in the rural areas, land invasions might not have become as prevalent as is the case now, with rather devastating consequences on the food security and the general economy of Zimbabwe.
As the “war vets”, some of them too young to have made any meaningful contribution to Zimbabwe’s war of liberation from colonialism, marched onto the commercial farms to evict the farmers, invaded private sector companies, some of which immediately closed and stormed into the chambers of Supreme Court judges seeking to evict them, hordes of local and foreign journalists were in attendance.
The perpetrators of these outrages then watched themselves being paraded as heroes on state-sponsored television. They saw their pictures, AKs held aloft, gracing the front pages of the newspapers.
This fawning adoration and adulation by the state media of young men who, with impunity tantamount to state protection, went about committing acts of lawlessness and wreaking general havoc, must have served as an incentive to further acts of terrorism.
But then this concern must be addressed in the context of the need by the media, especially the private press, of Zimbabwe, to inform the public on all matters of interest and relevance to them.
