|
|
Post by [m]undas on Feb 2, 2006 18:16:57 GMT 1
What would happen to cricket in Zimbabwe? How would it help the people there?
The rights and wrongs of whether or not to tour Zimbabwe have seen a fair bit of hot air, most notably in some quaters of the British press. The morality or otherwise of this issue is far murkier then some in the press would have you believe.
There really are two issues here. The first question is, should we play cricket with Zimbabwe when it's ruled by a tyrant?
My reply here is, yes, we should. Cricket makes no difference to the political set-up of a nation, and while cricket is sometimes abused for political purposes, these abuses are by no means confined to non-democratic nations.
The other thing here is that Pakistan has been ruled by all manner of regimes, not all of them elected, and yet there's never been any question of not touring Pakistan (at least, not on these grounds.)
Mugabe showed his real nature as early as 1983, so it's not like this human rights issue has only just come up.
The other issue is should we play cricket with a nation whose cricket authority is under increasingly direct control of the government?
This is also another grey area. Pakistan also sets the precedent here, the view being that the Pakistani government has long had a direct interest in the operations of the Pakistani cricket authorities. This is one reason why India refused to play Pakistan for a long time in the 1990's.
But the motive of the Pakistani government has simply been a desire to exercise control, under the mistaken belief that government control makes things work better. I've not observed anyone who has suggested that this control had anything in mind but the best interests of cricket in Pakistan.
In Zimbabwe, on the other hand, the motive of the government is to exclude a minority group from having a dominant position in the game. Race, rather then ability, is clearly the guiding factor in Zimbabwe cricket's new selectorial policy.
This is not a clear cut policy though- the team that played yesterday had a 'token' white player, and political obedience is just as important. Cricket people are in real fear, and it is clear that the ZCU is not running the game with the best interests of cricket in mind.
That, to me, makes the exercise in playing against Zimbabwe rather a pointless exercise.
In fact, it's even worse then that. It becomes harmful to play against Zimbabwe- a boycott would make Zimbabwe cricket not worth the government controlling it. Cricketers might be able to play the game, purely as a recreational exercise. It is probably the case that a boycott of Zimbabwe will ruin Zimbabwe cricket at an international level. But it is now no longer clear that the debased version of 'cricket' that is played in Zimbabwe is worth preserving.
So in answer to Adam Gilchrist's question, I get the feeling that not playing in Zimbabwe won't help the people there a jot. But playing in Zimbabwe might increase the harm, if not to the people in general, but the much smaller cricket community. It gives the ZCU a credibility it no longer deserves.
Elsewhere, Peter Roebuck applauds MacGill's decision. Trevor Marshalsea waffles, and Patrick Smith gets stuck into the ICC.
I think Smith was wasting his time. Don't expect any interest in the moral issues from the Asian boards- and without them, nothing can be done at ICC level. Sad but true.
But even if these problems were considered solved;
Nearly a month after Zimbabwe's controversial presidential election, tensions between Robert Mugabe and the citizenry remain high.
Hundreds of activists, including children, have been arrested for organizing anti-government marches. The protests, coordinated by the National Constitutional Assembly, are aimed at rewriting Zimbabwe's constitution to reduce presidential powers. Using the recently passed Public Order and Security Bill to justify their actions, policemen have declared demonstrations to be illegal and are jailing participants for 24 hours.
These arrests come on the heels of an announcement from the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), the party that lost the contested election, that over 430,000 votes are not accounted for. The MDC claims a discrepancy between its figures and those of the government sponsored Electoral Supervisory Commission. Considering that MDC candidate Morgan Tsvangirai lost by a margin of less than 427,000 votes, this development lends credence to the widely held opinion that the elections, held from March 9 - 11, were manipulated in order to keep Mugabe in power.
A contentious two years of violence preceded the elections, in which more than 100 people were killed. International interest in the situation centered around Mugabe's controversial land reform measures, which confiscated farms owned by whites and redistributed them to blacks. While many praised the move as an example for other African nations to follow, critics felt it was a desperate move to shore up support amidst economic troubles. Since his victory, Mugabe has placed restrictions on the media, charged Tsvangirai with treason, and postponed naming his cabinet pending negotiations with the MDC.
In response, Zimbabwe has come under international criticism. The Commonwealth, a group of 54 countries that emerged arose out of the ashes of the British empire, suspended Zimbabwe's membership in March. The United States, no stranger to controversial elections, has barred Mugabe and his cabinet from traveling to America. Other nations are considering sanctions against Zimbabwe.
Observers are hoping that neighboring nations like South Africa and Nigeria can broker a compromise that will allow Zimbabwe to move forward without the threat of further violence. The 77 year old Mugabe has been the only ruler the nation has ever known, and the transition to a new era of leadership is paramount to the nation's success. With Mugabe's threat to "get tough" with critics in the near future, intervention is critical to keep Zimbabwe from a diastrous civil war.
but seriously.
What are the possible consequences of a prolonged political deadlock in Zimbabwe? Are there viable options open to the international community to address the current humanitarian, economic, and political crisis there?
On January 29, the Institute hosted a Current Issues Briefing to explore the current crisis in Zimbabwe and possible avenues to peace. Moderated by Institute board chairman Chester Crocker, former assistant secretary of state for African affairs and current Schlesinger professor of strategic studies at Georgetown University, the briefing featured assistant secretary of state for African affairs Walter Kansteiner, Zimbabwean ambassador to the United States Simbi Mubako, Robert Rotberg of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, and Institute senior fellow and University of Zimbabwe professor Masipula Sithole.
Recounting his experiences working on issues related to Zimbabwe over the past twenty years, assistant secretary of state Kansteiner said the promise seen in the early 1980s had yet to be fulfilled. A nation that at first had showed a promising focus on good governance, literacy, and reconciliation now is confronted with hyperinflation and a massive humanitarian crisis, he said. In addition to current inflation rates of 300-400 percent, currently less than 15 percent of workers in Zimbabwe are employed and half of the population is dependent on foreign food aid. Making this situation worse, Kansteiner emphasized, is an underlying political crisis that has left the people of Zimbabwe without the leadership needed to help the nation out of this crisis. Summing up the current crisis in Zimbabwe, he said that "the government of Zimbabwe does not have a plan."
After presenting a brief overview of how Zimbabwe's neighbors are handling the crisis, Kansteiner said he believed that other nations in the region such as South Africa are concerned and actively discussing the situation—even if largely behind closed doors. However, he felt that in regard to U.S. policy that the best option for the United States and the international community at present is to continue with strong multilateral sanctions—including a travel ban—against the Mugabe regime.
Discussing the crisis from the Zimbabwean perspective, Ambassador Mubako stressed that Zimbabwe faced four primary challenges: the AIDS/HIV epidemic, drought and food shortages, a severe economic recession, and a diplomatic stand-off with the West. Of all the current problems facing Zimbabwe, Mubako said perhaps the most critical problem to address, besides the scourge of AIDS/HIV that is sweeping all of Southern Africa, is the food shortage. In searching for a solution to this problem, however, Zimbabwe and the international community must emphasize solutions that would address the current food shortage as well as prevent food shortages in the future. In particular, Mubako emphasized that attention must be given to four primary areas for long-tem food security in Zimbabwe:
Increased food production during non-drought years.
Better food storage facilities and capacity.
Less reliance on foreign food and grain.
Expansion of irrigation and dam construction.
Lastly, Mubako maintained that the current recession was being sustained by the economic sanctions imposed by the West and that only a combination of domestic measures and international investment could address Zimbabwe's economic problems. He also stated that although "problems" exist, political tensions could be resolved peacefully and did not constitute a crisis. To move this process forward, Mubako called on the leaders of the major political factions in Zimbabwe to enter immediate talks (perhaps mediated by an elder former African statesman such as Nelson Mandela) to ensure political stability in Zimbabwe. Mubako also called for the international community to pledge to support any agreements reached through the talks irrespective of the outcome.
Noting that the situation in Zimbabwe is, "one of the main paralyzing questions about Africa" currently facing the international community, Harvard Africa scholar Robert Rotberg stressed that the crisis in Zimbabwe "is much closer to Côte d'Ivoire and Somalia than many people might think." Outlining the challenges to regional security posed by instability in Zimbabwe, Rotberg expressed his concern about a growing refugee problem and noted that the Mugabe regime was basically starving its own people. He also noted that neighboring states were concerned about being overrun by an ever-increasing wave of refugees. Unfortunately, he said the lack of leadership that South Africa has played in organizing Zimbabwe's neighbors to find a strategy to combat this impending humanitarian crisis is only making this situation more uncertain—a crisis that he feared could impact the stability of the entire region.
In examining options to stabilize Zimbabwe, Rotberg stressed that regime change was the only viable long-term solution. He also emphasized that Zimbabwe inherently has the human and natural resources needed to rebuild and rebound from this current crisis if it could be freed from the current regime. Rotberg also noted in closing that regime change need not come about through violence. Instead he suggested that an offer of immunity from the international community to convince Mugabe to step aside or even some type of intervention by South Africa (such as the imposition of sanctions) may be viable options for spurring regime change in Zimbabwe.
The last presenter at the briefing, Zimbabwean professor Masipula Sithole, stressed that the Mugabe regime has completely failed to take care of the Zimbabwean people—the primary mission, in his opinion, of any legitimate government. Stressing that regime change in Zimbabwe was of critical importance to the nation's future, Sithole stated that the international community and people of Zimbabwe must be honest about the state of affairs in the country today and that people "must not [attempt to] legitimize the illegitimate."
In offering a potential way forward, he suggested moving the presidential elections scheduled for 2008 up to 2005—to coincide with the parliamentary elections—along with soliciting a pledge from Mugabe not to run again. This, Sithole argued, appears to be a viable option that the military could be convinced to support and could potentially also stave off further civil unrest throughout Zimbabwe—a situation that he feared was in the offing. The critical questions, he cautioned, were if Zimbabwe could last another three years under the current regime and if Mugabe could be convinced to step aside peacefully in 2005. Yet, while this road would be difficult, Sithole was optimistic that an appeal to Mugabe's better nature to step aside for the greater good of Zimbabwe could be successful and noted that "he did love them [the people of Zimbabwe] once and in the national interest he can love them again."
Zimbabwe has gotten a lot of bad press lately which gives people the impression that it is a dangerous country (not true) run by a crazy leader (true) where all the people are starving (no more than their neighbors) and there is absolutely no fuel (slight exaggeration).
The item that has gotten the most press is the bulldozing of a lot of the flea markets which included the bulldozing of the homes of many poor people. This happened a few weeks before I entered Zimbabwe and was still big news when I got there. Zimbabwe's official line on this action was that it was a good thing because they are building new homes for the people who were displaced which will actually be better than where they were living. New flea market stalls will be built and the government will regulate them better so that there won't be any squatters.
The international media and NGO line is that the removal was bad because it displaced a lot of poor people who were left with no where to go and since NGOs were not allowed access to the people there was no way to help them.
As with most things, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. I have no reason to believe that the government is not building the homes they said they were building -- I saw pictures of them on TV. (Not that that proves anything, really, but they they generally prefer to spin things rather than straight out lie.) And according to travellers who were in Zim when the "clean-up" occurred, it actually made things safer. That said, it probably would have made more sense to build the new homes first and then destroy the old homes. It also would probably have made sense to allow aid organizations access to the people.
After visiting with Isabel I met the Zimbabwe director of the organization through which I sponsor her and asked him about the situation. He said that the organization actually had had two projects running in the destroyed areas which had to be abandoned. (Lots of sponsors were going to be getting some carefully worded bad news in the mail.) The organization has had some luck tracking down the kids and is trying to integrate them all into other projects. Most of the kids and their families have gone back into the country-side where they had originally come from. So, they did have someplace to go, but there were most likely good reasons why most of them left. (For example, the 4th year in a row of drought.)
The reason why no aid organizations went in to help the people was completely political. The director was saying that they would have liked to have gone in to help, but that doing so would have been seen as disagreeing with the government and would have jeapardized all of the organizations projects within Zimbabwe. What eventually happened was that some religious (Christian) organizations went into the area to help out. Zimbabwe being a predominantly Christian country the churches could get away with helping out and then, after they had been there and broken the ice, so to speak, other organiztions were able to begin helping.
Aside from the "clean-up" project the poor political situation in Zimbabwe right now has created other problems, most notably a fuel shortage and money problems of all sorts. It is currently really difficult to get fuel. NGOs apparently have preferential access to fuel, but when I went to visit Isabel, my guide still had to wait on line for what was probably a couple hours. The gas stations that actually had petrol generally had lines of about fifty cars waiting at the pumps. And to buy fuel, it was best to pay in US dollars, a very rare and precious commodity. This of course meant that transport prices were way up -- if it was going at all. You could still get busses between major routes, but less frequently than they should have been travelled. On lesser routes, hitch-hiking was often the only way to go. (And Mom & Dad, not to worry. It wasn't normal hitch-hiking. Private cars would stop and the busstops and bunches of people would get in and the driver would be paid a standard rate.)
And then, there was the money situation. Once upon a time, Zimbabwe dollars used to be worth something. I was talking one evening to a man who used to work in Zimbabwe about 15 years ago. His salary that year was about $30,000 Zim dollars. My dinner the night I spoke to him cost $130,000Zim. The amount of inflation is just incredible. A couple days before I entered Zimbabwe the exchange rate was $17,500Zim to $1USD. By the time I left Zim about 2 weeks later it was $24,500Zim to $1USD. That was the official rate. The black market rate was between $40,000Zim and $52,000Zim to $1USD. That ridiculous amount of inflation is, well, ridiculously bad. The economy is basically destroyed. Saving is pretty much impossible. Even if you save all of this years salary, it probably won't be worth anything next year. And then there is just the problem of the number of bills you need to carry around with you. The highest dollar amount of a bill is $20,000Zim. So, its actually hard to fit enough bills into your wallet to buy things. Despite this, there are still coins floating out there. I actually have a $0.05Zim coin. (To be technical, the highest bill is actually $1,000Zim. A few years ago the government started issuing bearers checks in $5,000, $10,000, and $20,000Zim denominations as a temporary measure until inflation got under control. They are apparently very easy to forge and they also expire. But at this point even the expired bearers checks are legal tender.)
Unfortunately, it is unlikely that any of the problems in Zimbabwe are going to go away any time soon. Perhaps when Mugabe dies a better leader will come into power, but, unfortunately, any new leader is likely to be just as bad. Despite its problems, though, Zimbabwe is a safe country to visit (as long as you don't get caught changing money on the black market) and the people are really friendly.
To wrap it up;
President Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe's leader since independence in 1980, maintains his grip on power. Under his rule, the country has become an international pariah: its economy has collapsed, white farmers have been driven off their large, commercial farms, and millions of Zimbabweans are suffering from famine, illness, drought, and economic hardship. A flood of Zimbabwean refugees has swamped Southern Africa, threatening regional stability.
Zimbabwe's gross domestic product (GDP) plummeted 40 percent from 1999 to 2003, and the annual inflation rate rose to 620 percent for the year up to November 2003, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Unemployment hovers near 80 percent. "The economic situation continues to decline very rapidly," says Princeton N. Lyman, the Ralph Bunche senior fellow in Africa policy studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Experts say that in the last 10 years, Mugabe has transformed Zimbabwe from a prosperous agricultural producer to a country wracked by corruption, political conflict, and economic upheaval. Half of Zimbabwe's 12.5 million people currently depend on food aid to survive. Mugabe's controversial program of forced land redistribution--commercial farms were seized from white farmers, the country's major landowners from colonial times, and turned over to blacks--sent the economy into a tailspin.
Much of the land went to Mugabe cronies, government officials, or people with no farming experience. Food production crashed. Extensive corruption and the arbitrary nature of the land redistribution, combined with other expressions of Mugabe's increasingly repressive rule, scared off foreign investors.
To hold onto power, according to Africa experts, who say that is Mugabe's only remaining goal. Taking land from the small white minority that controlled most of Zimbabwe's richest farmland won widespread approval from the country's black majority. "In Zimbabwe, and only because of the color line arising from British colonialism, 70 percent of the best arable land is owned by less than 1 percent of the population who happen to be white, while the black majority are congested on barren land. We have sought to redress this inequity through a land reform and resettlement program" that will result in "economic and social justice and [adhere to] our constitution and laws," Mugabe said in a speech to the United Nations Millennium Summit on September 8, 2000.
What are Mugabe's goals for the land program?
To appease a restive population and fine-tune his exit strategy, experts say. "If Mugabe has a long-term plan, it's not about his country. It's about how he gets to a safe, secure retirement with an ample income," says Chester A. Crocker, distinguished professor of diplomacy at Georgetown University and former assistant secretary of state for African affairs. Many experts say that Mugabe, isolated and increasingly paranoid, has a tenuous grip on reality. "It's hard to deal rationally with an irrational person," Lyman says. "Hopefully, he's the last of a dying breed."
Through his ruling party, the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF). It organized the farm seizures and encouraged armed bands to force out white farmers, experts say. ZANU-PF authorities have also consistently harassed, intimidated, and used violence against journalists, critics, and members of Zimbabwe's main opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), experts say. In March 2002, Mugabe extended his hold on power by winning an election, widely viewed as rigged, that was marred by voter intimidation and violence.
The United States and the European Union have imposed visa bans on Zimbabwe's leaders, frozen their overseas assets, and halted official assistance to Mugabe's government. Secretary of State Colin Powell, in a New York Times op-ed on June 24, 2003, wrote that "President Mugabe and his Politburo colleagues have an absolute monopoly of coercive power, but no legitimacy or moral authority." He pledged increased U.S. assistance to Zimbabwe only "with the president gone." The Commonwealth suspended Zimbabwe last year to protest human rights abuses during the run-up to the March 2002 election. A recent meeting of Commonwealth heads of state in Abuja, Nigeria, decided to extend indefinitely Zimbabwe's suspension from the group. In response, Zimbabwe announced on December 7 that it would quit the Commonwealth.
Several African countries argued for Zimbabwe's reinstatement, a move British Prime Minister Tony Blair called "defending the indefensible." But recent developments in Zimbabwe--increased farm seizures, expulsion of foreign aid agencies, and violent suppression of dissent, among other events--helped Commonwealth members resist those appeals.
A voluntary association of 54 states, mostly former members of Britain's colonial empire, that pursue common goals like fostering democracy, human rights, and sustainable development around the world. Its member countries represent nearly a third of the world's population. The Economist magazine described the group as "the most important global organization that the United States does not dominate."
Like other international organizations, it had expressed its dismay about the March 2002 election results and the heavy-handed policies of Mugabe's government. Human Rights Watch has accused the Zimbabwean Army and police of violating protestors' human rights and withholding food aid from government opponents. The Commonwealth had two groups working on the Zimbabwe problem: a high-level delegation of heads of state and a six-nation committee charged with suggesting ways to improve the political situation in Zimbabwe. The committee, made up of South Africa, Australia, Canada, India, Jamaica, and Mozambique, recommended that Zimbabwe repeal legislation that limits the freedoms of speech, press and free assembly, end the harassment of opposition and civil society groups, and cooperate with Commonwealth observer teams. None of these steps have been taken.
Indefinitely. International food aid is fending off starvation, experts say, and the departure of millions of Zimbabweans has reduced the ranks of malcontents and the demand for scarce resources. I think it's going to go on until Mugabe leaves or dies.
|
|
~nimda[s]*
Junior Member
U are liek parasit widout breadwinner
Posts: 96
|
Post by ~nimda[s]* on Feb 3, 2006 9:49:41 GMT 1
Then don't go OFF-TOPIC!  ON TOPIC: I'm sorry but I have to disagree, as you can see HIV is a common denominator in all of the African continent yet none tops the HIV prevelance rate in Zimbabwe. The problem is not misinformation, Zimbabweans know all about the sexual transendency of the HiV Virus yet they lack knowledge about other ways in which the virus opportunes to set foot on fertile, foreign land... Which brings us to criquet, I agree criquet might confirm Zimbabwe's presence in the world yet only in former-commonwealth countries such as India, Soedan ect. and of course Great Britain itself... The African Nations cup was supposed to reunite Zimbabwe (Robert Mugabe) with Europe (Tony Blair) yet half of the Zim Football Team 'escaped' during a training excercise in Britain... Now Mugabe is looking to confirm ties with China, not only economical but also cultural ties as he feels the asian race is more worthy than the white, European, opressor's race... |
|
|
|
Post by [m]undas on Feb 3, 2006 15:15:30 GMT 1
Then don't go OFF-TOPIC! ON TOPIC: I'm sorry but I have to disagree, as you can see HIV is a common denominator in all of the African continent yet none tops the HIV prevelance rate in Zimbabwe. The problem is not misinformation, Zimbabweans know all about the sexual transendency of the HiV Virus yet they lack knowledge about other ways in which the virus opportunes to set foot on fertile, foreign land... Which brings us to criquet, I agree criquet might confirm Zimbabwe's presence in the world yet only in former-commonwealth countries such as India, Soedan ect. and of course Great Britain itself... The African Nations cup was supposed to reunite Zimbabwe (Robert Mugabe) with Europe (Tony Blair) yet half of the Zim Football Team 'escaped' during a training excercise in Britain... Now Mugabe is looking to confirm ties with China, not only economical but also cultural ties as he feels the asian race is more worthy than the white, European, opressor's race... which is, less as a race than a nation, a dangerous idol, considering that china is ruled by a morbid mixture of communism (socialism) and nazism. becoming to dependant on such nations may force you sooner or later to adopt their habits and eventually their political systems. in the worst case, zimbabwe could transform into the "communistic heart" of africa, sealing off itself even more. china can afford that, cuba can afford that, but zimbabwe simply cant. |
|
~nimda[s]*
Junior Member
U are liek parasit widout breadwinner
Posts: 96
|
Post by ~nimda[s]* on Feb 3, 2006 15:58:27 GMT 1
Well if Zimbabwe would only cease "Operation Murambastvina" then the white Farmers could stay and asses their inherit economic capacities and tradesmanship to benefit the whole of Zimbabwe. Yet most black zims (mainly ZANU-PF loyalists and other scum that follows Mugabe without thought) are afraid of a second "Ian Smith's Rhodesia". There is no denying Rhodesia's former wealth, nor is there any denying the fact that in Rhodesia blacks were given an equal chance to education yet they were kept "dumb"...
It is not without reason that countries like Nigeria and Cameroon offer great sums of money to lure these "Boere" (as the Zimbabwean situation is quite similar to that of South Africa, post-apartheid that is) to their country to lead the agricultural activities of such...
Yet Mugabe and the ZANU-PF reject the thought of co-working with whites out of fear of a "New-Rhodesia",
is this fear justified or not? Only time can tell, but the way things look right now...I have to agree that communism is something the Zim state cannot afford, certainly not with a 300% inflation.
However, the presence of the globalist MDC may not be forgotten, in the same way that the ANC has tried to get it's foot in the door of the South African government, so has MDC's popularity increased slowly yet steadily over the past few years...
The MDC is clearly an open minded, socialist party which, with the right (white/european) guidance might save Zimbabwe from certain doom...
|
|
~nimda[s]*
Junior Member
U are liek parasit widout breadwinner
Posts: 96
|
Post by ~nimda[s]* on Feb 3, 2006 16:16:27 GMT 1
The National Parks are the last tourist attraction Zimbabwe posesses, next to it's crippled agricultural industry...(don't forget Zimbabwe doesn't have any sunny beaches) Zimbabwe used to be the TEXAS of AFRICA, now it looks like Brooklyn... "Govt designates tourism zones Eric Chiriga THE government has designated Tourism Development Zones (TDZ) to hasten development of the tourism sector. Tourism minister, Francis Nhema, said the government had designated the Great Zimbabwe and its surroundings, Chiredzi, Gonarezhou National Park and the Beitbridge-Shashe-Limpopo area for development of TDZs. "To fast-track tourism development in specific areas that will have been identified to have the potential, government has come up with the concept of Tourism Development Zones," Nhema said during an EU-Sadc Tourism Investment Partnership Promotion workshop last month. Under the TDZ facility, a number of incentives will be provided by the government. These include tax holidays and duty exemption on goods imported by an investor for use in the TDZs. Nhema, who also called for foreign investors to participate in the development of TDZs, said there were vast investment opportunities in the national parks, tourist resort areas and communal areas. "Realising that the world investment climate remains challenging due to the global events that negatively impact on tourism, the government of Zimbabwe is encouraging partnerships between Zimbabweans and foreign investors," he said. Recently, Nhema announced that the government had set aside $190 billion to renovate lodges in the Gonarezhou and Hwange national parks. He said $100 billion and $90 billion had been disbursed as capital for refurbishments of lodge facilities in Gonarezhou and Hwange respectively. The money will be used for, among other things, fuel procurement and infrastructure development to keep up with international hospitality standards. Zimbabwe is battling to revive its tourism sector, battered by perception problems emanating from reports of human rights abuses in the country. According to figures released by the Zimbabwe Tourism Authority, the tourism sector experienced a 27% decline in arrivals in the third quarter of 2005. Arrivals from China declined by 89% in the third quarter.While 13 100 tourist arrivals were recorded between July and September 2004, only 1 389 Chinese tourists came to Zimbabwe during the same period last year. " Striker, always yours!  |
|
![~nimda[s]* Avatar](http://www.lineage2-online.com/database/images/etc_piece_bone_black_i00.png)
![[m]undas Avatar](http://www.videogamesprites.net/FinalFantasy6/NPCs/Empire/Kefka%20-%20Laugh.gif)
