Find us on Google+

Thursday, 31 July 2008

Zimbabwe's growing sex trade..

Two separate IRIN reports highlight how the worsening economic situation in Zimbabwe is fuelling sex trade. Women with families are now being forced by the economic conditions to literally sell sex for soap. Many wives are now coerced by their husbands to seduce other men for food. I can only imagine that in Zimbabwe's many villages, early marriages have reached record proportions, as families try to cope with the economic mess. This is the side of Zimbabwe that Mugabe denies exist.

12 comments:

  1. There is sex trade everywhere in poor countries, and red light districts and internet sex sites are a dime a dozen in developed countries.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I wonder how 'moral' sanctions against Zimbabwe's economy look when this is the result.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'll try again.

    By which process the precise sanctions against Zimbabwe, which consist of travel bans, denial of credit with the IMF (from which Zimbabwe defaulted anyway) and the freezing of the assets of a hundred of so individuals is supposed to generate the worst hyperinflation since WW2, a complete collapse of industrial capacity and an even worse collapse of agricultural output ?


    I know you like to play the "i didnt say it did" game but quite honestly, how did those sanctions result of those outcomes ? How does it work ?

    And neither blah blah and links from dummies masturbating on Allende or nor the use of the magic word "neo-colonial" count. What's needed is a coherent explanation of how those precise sanctions we're talking about caused both hyperinflation and the collapse of agricultural output.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Prince_T,

    There is sex trade everywhere in poor countries, and red light districts and internet sex sites are a dime a dozen in developed countries.

    Not sure what that has to do with anything. Isn't the appropriate comparison that of Zim before the mess and after the mess?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mrk,

    "I wonder how 'moral' sanctions against Zimbabwe's economy look when this is the result"

    I think any external restriction of economic activities presents governments with a choice on how it reallocates the little resources it has. Mugabe's illegitimate government continue to use those resources to fund their children abroad (and know one or two of these children who are profitting from such plunder), maintaing unnecessary embassies abroad, unlimited foreign travels, etc etc. In short, Mugabe thinks very little of these women.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Cho,

    I think any external restriction of economic activities presents governments with a choice on how it reallocates the little resources it has.

    Sanctions whereever they are applied, are intended to destroy the economy.

    They can't say so openly, because when the people are not behind sanctions, it makes any party that calls for those sanctions unelectable (unless if getting sanctions lifted is only achieved by electing them - which is what happened in Zimbabwe, and one more reason why the MDC is a highly undemocratic organisation).

    I just re-watched the Roy Bennett interview with Stephen Sackur for the BBC on Hardball, I caught this repulsive individual out in at least 4 lies.

    Roy Bennett is caught in at least 4 lies.

    1) "Hundreds of thousands of protestors" demonstrated for the MDC - which Stephen Sackur calls him on.

    2) "There are no sanctions against Zimbabwe"

    Stephen Sackur did not confront him on it, but the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 (see c) Multilateral Financial Restrictions), which bans multilateral financial institutions and the IMF from working with the government of Zimbabwe, not individuals in ZANU-PF. Bennett stated twice that there are only sanctions against targeted individuals, when multilateral financial restrictions had been in place since 2001.

    3) "The opposition is not divided"

    They obviously are. Tsvangirai, Mutambara and Makoni are all leading different factions of the MDC. Also, he even blames ZANU-PF for the infighting in the MDC.

    4) "Informal talks aren't talks"

    I guess they're not talks when Roy Bennett says they're not talks.

    Also, the attempt to keep people from actually doing an analysis and to continuously blame everything on Robert Mugabe personally is also a lie, and an obvious one at that.

    If the MDC was truly an organisation that represented the Zimbabwean people, they would not run away from taking responsibility for their own policies and their effects.


    However back on the effect and purpose of sanctions. This article is about Zimbabwe, but describes how economic warfare was used to manipulate and in the end destroy socialist Chile back in the 1970s. The result of this US policy was to install a military dictator, who killed tens of thousands of his own people - Augusto Pinochet. The similarities with Zimbabwe are obvious.

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5391/is_200705/ai_n21288057


    How sanctions are making the economy 'scream'
    New African, May 2007 by Mahoso, Tafataona

    Britain and its Western allies claim that they have only imposed "targeted sanctions" and "travel bans" on the Zimbabwean leadership and not economic sanctions on the whole country. "Who do they think they are deceiving?," asks Dr Tafataona Mahoso, head of Zimbabwe's Media and Information Commission.

    There is a campaign of what I call "economic terrorism" against Zimbabwe mounted by Britain and its Western allies. "Economic terrorism" is what was meant by the former US president, Richard Nixon, when he instructed US spy agencies to ''make the economy of Chile scream".

    On 15 September 1970, Nixon called a meeting which was attended by (among others) National security Adviser Dr Henry Kissinger, Attorney General John Mitchell and ClA Director Richard Helms.

    Helms' notes of that meeting show that the US used its global power over financial institutions, international corporations and aid agencies to throw basic economic factors in the Chilean economy completely out of control and therefore precipitate social and political havoc.

    That is what Nixon meant by "make the economy scream". Because the economic havoc would start after the popular election victory of President Salvador Allende, the people would be made to believe (through massive media propaganda) that the turmoil was being caused by Allende's "mismanagement" of the economy.

    In Confessions of an Economic Hitman, John Perkins confirmed in 2006 that the economies of targeted countries were made to "scream" and collapse not just through the actions of the CIA and other spy agencies alone, but also through the action of genuine-looking multinational companies which the US National security Agency set up in order to make sabotage look like free enterprise. Sabotage schemes had to be made to look like normal business.

    But Kow was the Chilean economy to be made to "scream"? The following were some of the ways: According to the US National security Memorandum 93, America was to mobilise all its institutions and agencies to create a worldwide impression, starting from November 1970, that Chile was no longer "creditworthy". In Zimbabwe, the economic saboteurs have also been pushing the same claim since the implementation of the African land reclamation programme.

    In Chile, the US would influence all donors and financial institutions who used to extend lines of credit to the country to stop doing so. The US had veto powers not only in the UN security Council but also in all major international finance institutions through the IMF and the World Bank.

    Chile was immediately struck off the list of countries eligible for US loans, for ExportImport Bank loans, for Intet-American Bank loans and for World Bank and IMF loans.

    The immediate effect of this was that Chile was demoted from credit-rating category B to category D, which meant that by fiat, the country was unilaterally and arbitrarily reclassified among the least solvent nations in the world, even though this was far from die truth.

    The US used its power and influence to demand from Chile speeded-up repayments of loans which were otherwise not yet due. The US influenced international companies inside Chile to make their own extortionist demands on the country in order to make sure the economy would "scream".

    The funding and credits denied to the government of Chile were selectively given to organisations and institutions inside Chile which were anti-government and were part of the US regime change agenda.

    Because copper was the most valuable Chilean export, the US and its companies inside Chile asked European courts to block payments to Chile for its copper in order to deny the country foreign currency earnings. In Zimbabwe, we have seen similar efforts to have the country's diamonds condemned as "blood diamonds".

    Finally, the US set aside an economic destablisation fund to be used to make the economy "scream". Some of the money was used to pay transport operators to park their vehicles in order to make commuters stranded.

    Some of the money was used to pay certain unions to stay away from work in order to cripple production. Pare of [he fund also went to finance anti-government and pro-US media inside Chile in order to whip up support for the "economic terrorism" programme.

    Making the economy scream means making the majority of people suffer economic hardships. The same template is being used in Zimbabwe today, or has been used since 2000 when the African people started to reclaim the land chat once belonged to their ancestors.

    You can substitute the name Zimbabwe for Chile, and everything you have read above has happened in the last six years since President George Bush signed the obnoxious Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act into law (see story on p112).

    There is very little difference between a man whose house has been petrol-bombed and burned with all his household goods bought over a lifetime {this is terrorism) and a worker who finds that his salary which supported a family of eight last year can no longer buy one litre of cooking oil (this is economic terrorism). This has been exactly the impact that the Zimbabwe Democracy Act and other economic sanctions imposed by Britain and its Western allies have had on the Zimbabwean people.

    Read on here...

    ReplyDelete
  7. MrK,

    I fully accept that sanctions are there to cripple economies. Thats why they are imposed (I don't want to get into the old discussion on whether Zimbabwe's sanctions are that crippling - its an endless one).

    My point is that no matter how bad sanctions are government still retain choice over how it deals with the little it has.

    If your point is that Zimbabwe has no money...why then is Zimbabwe choosing to spend all of its money on supporting leaders' children abroad? Why is it spending money on maintaining endless embassies? Who funds Mugabe's endless trips abroad?

    I know Zimbabwe has little money...my problem is how it is choosing to spend that money.

    If you went bancrupty..would you still be going on holiday and let your family starve? Obviously not. Well that is what Mugabe is doing...instead of him spending the little he has wisely, he is choosing luxurious trips to Rome to discuss world food crisis....pointless trips to Egypt to meet other corrupt leaders..

    This is my argument..

    ReplyDelete
  8. This article is about Zimbabwe, but describes how economic warfare was used to manipulate and in the end destroy socialist Chile back in the 1970s.

    Except that your little cute article doesn't say anything about how the ZDERA has hurt Zimbabwe except for the little "replace Chile with Zimbabwe".
    And that barely makes sense.

    And certainly doesn't answer any question asked to you.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Cho,

    If your point is that Zimbabwe has no money...why then is Zimbabwe choosing to spend all of its money on supporting leaders' children abroad? Why is it spending money on maintaining endless embassies? Who funds Mugabe's endless trips abroad?

    I'm sure that there is some money left. Look, this is not going to be any different under the MDC.

    In fact, in the MDC you have a party that has no ideological impediment against stealing everything that isn't nailed down - free markets, small government, so let's loot everything that belongs to the government.

    People thought that KK was 'corrupt', until they saw what Frederick Chiluba the neoliberal trade unionist could do.

    All the charges against ZANU-PF are dripping with hypocrisy, because they come from Rhodesian operatives (Roy Bennett, David Coltart) who murdered tens of thousands of African people to prevent the introduction of democracy, which Robert Mugabe accomplished, and former trade union types who are in it to get paid.

    The MDC sends up douzens of red flags. They are as entitled, highhanded and arrogant as their masters. They accuse the ZANU-PF of corruption, but their philosophy is to follow in Zambia's footsteps and sell off state assets for cents on the dollar and call that privatisation. They say they want to champion the economy while they are riding on a wave of sanctions that have destroyed the economy, and are calling for more. They say they want the wellbeing of the people of Zimbabwe, while they impoverish them to the point where they must vote for the MDC. At the same time, thousands will be fired after privatisation, and those who won't will toil in slavery type jobs as the people at BGRIMM and other foreign owned mines and factories.

    Do they really want to reduce the size of government, because I have not heard one word on which ministries they would abolish.

    They have no independent vision of the economy or the country, but they have a long and sinister history in disenfranchising the people of Zimbabwe.

    That, and they are liars. They are lying about sanctions which they claim don't exist when they have been in force since 2001, they are lying about the strength of their support, the origin of their finances, their real motives for getting into power, etc.

    Does Morgan Tsvangirai really believe that the land reform issue is over and done with, and the likes of Roy Bennett who are seething with hatred for anything ZANU-PF, does Tsvangirai believe that he and other white farmers don't want 'his farm' back? They are lying about land too.

    All this personalisation of the evils of the world on Robert Mugabe personally has kept the spotlight off the MDC, who they really are, and what they really want. And where their money comes from.

    I do not trust Roy Bennett. I think there is nothing new under the sun, I do not think he had an epiphany and became some kind o reformed character. His body language, his limited intellect betray that.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Look, this is not going to be any different under the MDC.

    Did they promise to keep the money printing presses running or something ? Or is it your imagination once more ?

    ReplyDelete
  11. MrK,

    "Look, this is not going to be any different under the MDC."

    I am not arguing for MDC, I am arguing against ZANU-PF's management of the little resources it has.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This is spam. The keywords may have a negative effect on this blog's google rating.

    ReplyDelete

All contributors should follow the basic principles of a productive dialogue: communicate their perspective, ask, comment, respond,and share information and knowledge, but do all this with a positive approach.

This is a friendly website. However, if you feel compelled to comment 'anonymously', you are strongly encouraged to state your location / adopt a unique nick name so that other commentators/readers do not confuse your comments with other individuals also commenting anonymously.