THE West has singled out Zimbabwe’s security sector as the main impediment to its regime change agenda against President Mugabe and ZANU PF.
As such, Western countries have established a special project called the Zimbabwe Peace and Security Programme (ZPSP), whose whole thrust is to ‘reform’ the security sector.
This, broadly, means transforming the security sector from being a patriotic institution into a corrupted sector prepared to abandon the objectives of the liberation struggle.
The ZPSP is the operational arm of the Zimbabwe Peace and Security Trust (ZPST) whose founding Board of Trustees are Sobusa Gula Ndebele (Chairman), Reg Austin, Tichaona Augustus Mudzingwa, Paul Temba Nyathi, the late Freedom Nyamubaya, Jeremy Brickhill (Executive) and Nyasha Masiwa (Executive).
The list betrays a cheap attempt to seek legitimacy for the programme as most of these people were associated with the liberation struggle, but have since openly behaved in a manner that betrays disgruntlement against the ruling party.
The ZPSP was established in 2010 and its stated objective is “to enhance the democratic governance, security and national sovereignty of the people of Zimbabwe,” by providing, “impartial professional technical assistance to effective sustainable modernisation and transformation of the security sector,” (Note that emphasis is on the modernisation and transformation of the security sector).
The natural question to ask is, what is it that is not modern about the Zimbabwe security sector and, in any case, what business is it of the Western countries to feel compelled to spend huge sums of money to seek the ‘modernisation’ of the security sector of a country they hate with a passion?
What is not disputable, however, is that the West has been frustrated by the Zimbabwe security sector’s credentials as the single most incorruptible institution that is at one with Robert Mugabe in his struggles to seek the fulfillment the objectives of the liberation struggle.
The security sector has been Mugabe’s most potent shield against the West’s regime change agenda.
This was demonstrated after the March 2008 election in which a ‘Bhora Musango’ subverted ZANU PF performed badly.
Because of the huge potential for conflict that had been generated by the March election, the security sector wore their liberation cap and assisted the Party in its commissariat duties.
ZANU PF won the June 2008 run-off election resoundingly scuttling the West’s regime change designs in the process.
The security sector’s credentials as the protector of the nation had earlier on in 2002, been similarly demonstrated when the security chiefs addressed the press to declare the principled position that they would not recognise or salute a Western-sponsored President; that only a person with an established liberation background would be recognised and saluted by the security sector.
For the foregoing reasons, the security sector must be ‘reformed’, ‘transformed’ and ‘modernised’ and be made to accept that Western-sponsored political parties, such as the MDC, as a genuine and as a legitimate political party just as ZANU PF.
The ZPSP says Zimbabwe has “highly contested security sector issues” which “constitute perhaps the major threat to conflict management, resolution of the political crisis and long term stabilisation and development.”
As part of the long term solution to the ‘problem’, the ZPSP was established to use the education sector as the vehicle through which the future leaders of the country, in every sector including security, must be taught to understand the concept of security from a Western point of view.
Through ZPSP, our universities will teach Security Sector Governance (SSG) courses presumably designed by our academics under the supervision of Pamela Machakanja and our enemies from Western Europe.
For the purpose, in 2011 the ZPSP established the Zimbabwe Peace and Security Education and Training Network (ZIPSET) which is made up of academics and researchers from the country’s 13 universities, “to facilitate the institutionalisation of peace and security studies in the curricula of Zimbabwe’s institutions of higher learning.”
The ZIPSET is chaired by Munyaradzi Nyakudya (Chairman) and Kudakwashe Chirambwi (Secretary) both IPLG graduates and lecturers in ‘Peace and Security Studies’ at Bindura and NUST, respectively.
Progress has already been made as ZIPSET is “currently developing new curricula for teaching SST/R (Security Sector Training /Reform) and peace and security governance in all major academic institutions in Zimbabwe including courses offered to police officers, local administrators and other security sector related professionals.
“Additionally, ZIPSET has plans to substantially increase the number of postgraduate courses and qualifications in security and governance capacity.”
ZIPSET also plans to start an academic journal on SST/R, peace and security governance and to produce books and other reading materials on the subject.
As an entry point and strategy to seek legitimacy and acceptance in the community, ZPSP conducted 608 meetings with government officials, traditional leaders, security sector commanders and managers, parliamentarians, political party leaders, civil society and others between 2010 and 2012.
As if to bribe the targeted groups of people, significant payments of money are made to the people attending or presenting papers at these meetings under the guise of facilitating the event.
Holding meetings with a variety of people in different social sectors is not only an intelligence gathering exercise for the Western countries, but it is also a way to make institutions such as Parliament and traditional leaders to put pressure on the security sector to understand security from a Western point of view and behave as prescribed as part of society’s oversight role.
We are told that ZPSP is funded by the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Government of Norway and the European Union.
A few questions stick out, however.
If the programme is genuinely good for Zimbabwe why should Sweden, Norway and the European Union fund an education programme through a non-governmental organisation (NGO) instead of doing it in partnership with the Zimbabwe government?
The other intriguing question is, why is the government of Britain not mentioned as a sponsor when we know, as the erstwhile coloniser, it will be the biggest beneficiary when the security sector in Zimbabwe is ‘transformed’ and ‘modernised’.
Despite the veneer of the absence of British involvement in the Peace and Security programme in our universities, we have reason to suspect that Britain is heavily involved to the extent of being the main funder of the project.
For instance, the invitation letter to attend a recent ZIPSET conference held at Bindura University (July 2 – 3 2015), says in part, “Each attending member of ZIPSET will be given the equivalent of 240 pounds.”
Why should the money be quoted in British pounds in a country where the pound is rarely seen or used?
Also suggestive in this respect is the presence at the Bindura conference of Professor D Francis from Bradford University who also has strong connections with DFID and the Commonwealth Scholarship Programme.
Meanwhile, the so-called funders, namely Sweden, Norway and the EU are not indicated as having sent any representatives to the conference.
This clearly suggests that the British have a lot more to do with the ZPSP programme than is publicly admitted.
The only reason why countries such as Sweden, Norway and Austria are often touted as the source of funding for such treacherous projects appears to be because they are not tainted by colonial history unlike Britain whose history in Africa literally stinks.
Also interesting is the fact that Bradford University which was represented at the Bindura ZIPSET conference is the institution where Pamela Machakanja, the director of IPLG did two senior degrees and two postgraduate diplomas in Peace and Security Studies in preparation for her current role at IPLG.
One thing worth mentioning is that while we have the Centre for Defence Studies (CDS) at UZ that offers courses designed for the security sector, similar institutions exist in almost all countries of Southern Africa.
ZPSP, however, has no comparable programme in the region.
Surely, it cannot be that Zimbabwe is the only country in the region with a security sector that needs ‘modernisation’, ‘transformation’, and ‘reform’.