House of Stones – Zimbabwe.
The Zimbabwean flag: Yellow and Green with a White isosceles triangle edged in black with its base on the hoist side; a yellow Zimbabwe bird representing the long history of the country is superimposed on a red five-pointed star in the center of the triangle, which symbolizes peace; green symbolizes agriculture, yellow – mineral wealth, red – blood shed to achieve independence, and black stands for the native people.
(image and text from: www.travelblog.org/World/zi-flag.html)
*Political change due to cycles of political upheaval are promised by opposition parties at times when the eternal sentiments of hope, imagination and belief are at their most culturally permeable.
Indeed, percentages of new generations become gradually active on a political footing, within the space of different eras as the texture of their lifelong civil experiences dictate.
But for whatever kind of sorrowfully formulated condition a Nation State can land itself in, the mores of Zimbabwean policy makers directly contributed to the unnecessary economic hardship and suffering of so many of its people.
After a span of 28 years as president, it seems ironic that Zanu-PF’s “Land Reform” Proposals should have been put on the party’s administrative adgenda at a period when the new millennium was first beginning.
On April 18 1980, the United Kingdom ceremoniously transfered sovereignty back to Zimbabwe in accordance with the “Lancaster House Agreement”, a document which was incremental to the returning of authority under black majority rule.
Indeed, as a document dealing with the independence of the country, its rightful title is as follows: “Southern Rhodesia” – Report of the Constitutional Conference, Lancaster House, London.
As something which accounts for the eventual cordial transfer of power to Zimbabwe the document was sign during the months of September and December, 1979.
The Land Reform Policy in which Robert Mugabe augmented in 2005, and is otherwise known as ” Operation Murambatsvina“ has at least two workable translations; the first is quite derogatory by way of its reference meaning ” Operation Drive Out Trash”, while the second carries far more of a juridical sense to its nature, namely “Operation Restore Order”.
What may be interpretted as an despotic action so sanctioned by Robert Mugabe with regard to him wishing to show political dominance in one way or other; the intention to offset the now recognised land reform policy in Zimbabwe, as part of the overall character to developments since the change-over from Rhodesian authority, does effectively coincide with what was negotiated through the “Lancaster House Agreement”.
As far as the issue of the reclaiming of land correlates with the delegations made between September to December 1979, the redistribution of land ownership from Causasian to African possession was seminal to these plenary events.
In fact the Land Reforms plans were stalled for a decade and the Rhodesian farmers were given an assured reprieve up until 1990, when the Zimbabwean Government were constrained no further by the provisions of the Lancaster Agreement.
For further reading see:
Extraordinary Rendition
Invariably known to proceed under rather interminable circumstances the practice of “Extraordinary Rendition” attracts some inordinate controversy in respect to how any seminial issue relating to “acts of terrorism” are dealt with.
Just as many branchs of mainstream understanding over such an issue remains obscure, most basic outlines pointing to the foundations of this policy explain that it is:
“The practice of transporting suspected foreign terrorists or other individuals suspected for crimes, to third countries for interrogation and imprisonment. The purpose of extraordinary rendition is to gather intelligence information from suspects, who are sent either to facilities maintained by the United States or put into the custody of foreign governments. Suspects are transported to countries where safeguards against torture and abusive treatment are looser than in the United States. Extraordinary rendition thus permits the torture and other practices of detained suspects, despite the fact that torture is illegal according to international law, under any circumstances.”
(Quote taken from a page on “Terrorist Issues”, please refer to www.About.com)
Now whether it is solely because these kind of actions have to be undertaken for the purpose of saving lives, or otherwise about the American Government pushing across an extremely forceful political counter-measure is hard to determine.
Intelligence gathered upon the activities of countries involved in ”State Sponsorship” and therefore complicit in military tripartite warfare, help to be of later benefit to national authorities in enabling them to challenge how and on what exact grounds the procurement of grades of weaponry kept in the possession of extremists is made possible.
As is pretty much well known by most of the international community, the value of inter-governmental co-operation pertaining to the sharing and interception of crucial information about a suspected terrorist plan, could potentially stop an atrocity from happening.
Where good results have been seen to come from the use of “Extraordinary Rendition”, even though its use is difficult to fully justify, what essentially, and perhaps all too beautifully underlines the facilitation and tranporting of people to places where the judicial use of torture is considered permissible; is the wholly exponential and corroborative work of statutory agencies towards tackling this most notorious modern global menace.
The Israeli and Palestinian Troubles
Political Ideologies when stood up against the workings of foreign policies in the world, can be so quickly denigrated within international circles throughout modern periods.
There would be greater validity in saying that “truth is stranger than any serious form of anachronism” than delicately associated to imaginative fictions.
Indeed, the plethora of commemorative phenomena relating to events undergone within an Israeli twentieth century context; have resulted in other ethnic nationalities being left beleaguered and, ultimately frustrated that the question of territorial disputes are still internationally relevant for negotiation almost a decade into the 21st century.
The proposal for a two-state solution to the crisis augmented by the American Federal Government, will definitely not be something that Palestinians or Israelis will ever endorse as a future prospect.
As things stand, both negotiating parties, equally stricten by the horrors of war, have to come to accept that both of their claims for possession and habitation rights can not be defended all too easily, not at least because the crux of the issue relates to ecumenical what is spoken of within suras or scripture about the sanctity of land, rather than be established upon any empirical set of conditions.
In most cases there is a more general sense that the present political settlement has become seriously stagnate.
Even though, quite purposeful diplomatic measures are standardly proving fruitful, the acquisititious fervour of the State of Israeli toward orthodox Islamic movements such as Hamas is uncanningly similiar to how many campaigns of war were fought in the middle part of the twentieth century.
When refering to any or no particular aspect of the politics surrounding this issue, the mentioning of the Jews as a diaspora population manages to throw any discussion of the topic lopesided, where it is swiftly subdued on the grounds of its sensitivity when spoken about out of hand.
Whether it is appropriate or not for leading countries to have a presence on the world stage and therefore a justified probity to make comment, is hard to say exactly who’s intermeditary inclusion within talks would be regarded as “broadly essenial” to the success of the delegations.
Intrinsic national interests often play their part within conflict resolutions, and as a firmly supporting America is of Israel, I believe that it is itself facing unilateral pressure to disengage partially in Middle Eastern affairs.
Since 1967, the history of this conflict has be raised exclusively in international media circles, piously managing to elevate the existence of this territory well above its global station and solely because the international community reserves the right to protect a petty diaspora of lost folk.
United Stakes for Americans
Coverage in the UK media of the US elections has lessened just of late, perhaps quite simply in order for there to be some clear demonstration of either Hilary or Barack suceeding in their efforts to move into either one’s centrifugal positions.
Both of them seem to be doing very well without directly reiterating any form of sentiment connected with the past. Comparatively well advised on exactly what to concentrate on in terms of projecting themselves as likeable people to the public and concerned about the mainstream issuses relating to America’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, most of the world’s democratic nation states or at least those signed to the idea of a coaliton, are jointly expected to tolerate what insinuations of compicity each signatory government has levelled at it.
Indeed, from a very immediate and contrieved footing we can see that through each nation state’s agreement to participate in taking action against Islamist/Terrorist ideology, countries are automatically assumed to empathize with what value judgements are believed in by Americans.
How this situation has purposefully manifested itself is definitely astonishing. Maybe, as a test to each candidate’s political calibre we might hear America renounce itself as hedgemonic.
-
Web Links: www.barackobama.com/youtube
The American Presidential Elections
People having mixed opinions upon a variety of issues is at least considered as healthy in the main by as many political commentators as it could ever be. In fact, it seems that how the American public will come to the decision of who to elect as President over the coming weeks, will also bare ramifications for how the entire continent’s ideology over the defence of “Freedom and Liberty” might be later understood abroad.
Perhaps both Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama do champion a new vision and direction for the U.S. which does have its roots in the 21st Century rather than in the nationalistic twentieth. Indeed, every intellectual stance held by either one of the proposed candidates on the matter of what really are the Western Hemisphere’s democratic ideals, just well be seriously scrutinized if an Afro-American happens to be granted the public’s overall endorsement.
What is put across particularly well by Senator Obama, is that his idea of sparking off ”change” means that he aims to augment something comparative to outright reform. No doubt that personal imaginations do keep to believing in hopeful idioms in the light of all eventualities, but I feel that in most situations people can not come to appreciate that what is often tapped into by politicians in terms of any society using its conscience are these kind of incisive value-based judgements, sub-structurally forming the basis of our security and organisation.
Social values are otherwise categoried as “Normative Concepts” which mainly refers to what moral principles all of us may have and how these are taught to children. They go on to contribute to how the “individual” may later conduct him/herself in daily life.
Whilst most kinds of formalised norms are cyclical in the way they are transmitted from one generation to the next, it is the expressed belief in hope which I feel can pose as little dangerous.
Take a look at historic events where people have been deceived and carried by ideology, and we arrive at remembering what happened on the 18 November 1978 with the Jonestown Massacre.
From a very peculiarly placed political platform 901 people committed suicide on grounds almost too ludicrous to give breath to. While at the behest of a Cult Leader, who could be considered as a megalomaniac today, persuaded followers collectively to take their own lives referring to the action as revolutionary act of direct protest.
Originally established as an off-shoot religious group known as the “People’s Temple”, an rural American evangelist named James Warren Jones later went on to set up a community in Guyana.
Now, the reason why I wish to make people aware of the position historically of this event is that there seems to be sharp similiarities between how Jimmy Jones managed to raise and manipulate what were shown to be a people’s hope and expectation, to that of the enigmatic presentational delivery of Senator Barack Obama.
In fact, the use I feel of certain psychological methods putting emphasis upon idioms and overall concepts, does indeed have the effect of capturing people’s imagination, and I am astonished by what extent individuals will allow their emotions to be carried quite simply on simple premises like that of change and hope.
Comparatively, I would say that if it is possible to train an individual, enlisted as a soldier to kill, putting into perspective the psychological impact this type of mental preparation and acceptance has upon the mind, then there is feasibility in requesting that societal populations are reeducated more rationally towards viewing the matter of structural change in their societies together with the place of hope with more immediate temperance.
leave a comment