Opinion
Analysis
Easy access information necessary
A few weeks ago about nine Permanent Secretaries went abroad to gain first-hand
experience on how their counterparts disseminate information to the public and
the interaction between the ministries and the media.
When they came back they told the media how others ensure that the media and the
public obtain the required information and how fast it takes to channel that
information. The Chief Secretary, Matern Lumbanga said that the United Kingdom,
in particular, had reached an advanced stage in channelling information by
having a communications unit that is accessible by the public and the media.
This sounds far from the reality in Tanzania. Here it is very difficult to get
information from some Permanent Secretaries or ministries. You might be told
that nobody can say anything until they get the permission from the Permanent
Secretary. To be fair, they are following some protocol in the government system
of giving out information to the press. Nevertheless, getting the permission is
not an easy task as the Permanent Secretaries are not always available.
Is Tanzania ever going to have a transparent society where the media and the
public can get the information they want, without having to plead with
officials?
President Benjamin Mkapa, in Bagamoyo last year urged the Permanent Secretaries
to be open and avail information to the public. This in relation to, what he
felt was unfair reporting by the media, especially the media producing stories
not based on facts. This was defended by media participants claiming that it is
hard to get information from officials. How much have the Permanent Secretaries
changed since then?
It seems as if Tanzania has a long way to go before the government reaches its
goals of having a clear and easy channel of information flow between the
government, the media and the public, as is the case in the UK and South Africa.
However, we hope the required results can be achieved soon.
Although there is classified information that should not be released to the
public, a clear channel of communication flow is essential. It helps to reduce
misinterpretations among the governmental officials, the media and the public in
general.
We congratulate the efforts made by the government in training their officials
locally and abroad to avoid grudges from the government’s side in the future.
Hockey: A few steps to comeback
In what suggests a serious comeback of hockey in the East African sports scene,
Kenya, Uganda have been invited to play in the 2005 edition of Mapinduzi Cup
Hockey Championship, set to start January 12 in Dar es Salaam.
The move to include our East African neighbours is significant and has come at
the right time. Having Kenyans and Ugandans to challenge our teams, will surely
help our players gain international exposure.
Just to confirm the wisdom of the decision, the Secretary General of the
Tanzania Hockey Union (THU), Yusuf Jusabani, said the decision to extend an
invitation to the neighbouring teams was aimed at making the event more
competitive and exciting.
Jusabani said preparations for the forthcoming Mapinduzi hockey cup were going
on smoothly and efforts were being made to ensure the competition has a regional
look.
As the wonderful news of hockey comeback continues to spread, there is
intriguing news of new hockey teams being formed in Tanzania. Magereza (Prisons)
hockey team, which represented Tanzania in East and Central African Club
Championship, a few months ago in Uganda, went there quite unknown by the hockey
enthusiasts in Tanzania.
Hockey, a popular sport in Tanzania in the sixties and seventies, lost its
stronghold in later years, forcing a big number of players into retirement.
There were no tournaments to advocate the existence of the sport before THU
Committee under its chairman, Rizwan Fazal, announced a nationwide campaign to
fight for hockey comeback in the beginning of this millennium.
TPDF, Dar Institute, El Hillal, Twiga Sports and Zanzibar were the only big
teams active, but they all remained with veteran players since new and future
stars were not produced due the absence of tournaments.
We are sure if THU takes the initiative to encourage the sport in military
institutions like JKT, Police, KMKM and Immigration, the sport will spread
across the country quite easily as all these institutions have their branches in
all parts of Tanzania.
We hope the forthcoming Mapinduzi Cup brings the changes we desire.
Having ensured that Kenya and Ugandan teams are coming, our teams must undergo
serious training to fight the challenge from the guest teams.
Arafat did work for peace
By Evarist Kagaruki
Anyone with a correct understanding of the dynamics of the Palestinian
liberation
struggle, will dispute and dismiss as utter nonsense the fallacious assertion
that
the departed Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, was “anti-peace”. Indeed many
people around the world know that is a falsehood shared by those who don’t
regard the Palestinian people’s self-determination as their legitimate right,
but
something to be given to them by, and at the pleasure of Israel!
Arafat, in the eyes of the US, Israel and some Western countries, was someone
“not to do business with” because he was principled. He was uncompromising on
the land-for-peace principle and other fundamental issues which formed the core
of the Palestinian agenda for independence and statehood. He was an obstacle
only in the path of those who wanted, and still desire, to see Palestinians get
a
raw deal at the negotiating table.
A sober analysis of the second phase of the Palestinian struggle that came with
the advent of the intifada (uprising against the occupation) in 1988, would show
that Arafat had worked conscientiously for a peaceful settlement of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Unfortunately, he lacked an honest, committed and
consistent partner in Israel with the exception, perhaps, of the slain prime
minister, Yitzhak Rabin. There are many empirical facts to support this view.
But
due to shortage of space, I will mention only a few.
Fact Number One: In November 1988, in the wake of the intifada, the Palestinian
National Council (PNC), under Arafat’s leadership, held a historic conference in
Algiers, Algeria, and put the Palestinians on the threshold of a new dawn. The
conference marked a watershed in the Palestinian struggle for independence. The
PNC made the historical decision in the interest of peace in the Middle East:
One,
it renounced all forms of armed struggle; and two, it recognised the right of
the
state of Israel to exist. But there was no reciprocal pronouncement from Israel
that they also recognised the Palestinian’s inalienable right to
self-determination
and statehood!
How could Arafat be an ‘obstacle” to peace when he could lead the highest
decision-making organ in the Palestinian hierarchy to reach such historic
decisions?
Fact Number Two: The decisions made by PNC at the Algiers conference, as
mentioned herein above, were a decisive factor in the efforts of the
international
community to bring pressure to bear on Israel and the US to respond to the call
for an international peace conference on the Middle East; hence the Arab-Israeli
Madrid peace conference of 1991 under US and Soviet auspices. Although this
conference excluded the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organisation) at the
insistence of the Israelis and Americans, Arafat was still recognised as an
indispensable key element in any feature negotiations.
Fact Number Three: The peace accord signed in Madrid led to the Oslo interim
peace accords of 1993 signed on the White House lawn between Arafat, Rabbin
and then Israeli Foreign Minister, Shimon Peres. This won the trio a Nobel Peace
Prize which they shared. If Arafat was “anti-peace”, how could he have signed
those peace agreements? And indeed how could a person opposed to peace be
awarded the highest peace prize in the world? How?
Fact Number Four: Since Oslo, Arafat had signed several other peace deals with
two Israeli prime ministers – Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak both of whom
lost power by falling victim to their own country’s incoherent, inconsistent and
often confused policies regarding the Palestinian question. Arafat was ready to
negotiate with Barak’s successor, Ariel Sharon; the latter was not!
It is not true that Arafat was the cause of the collapse of the Camp David
peace-talks in mid-2000. What killed the talks and consequently derailed the
peace process was Israel’s uncompromising position (covertly supported by the
US) on the four key issues of most concern to the Palestinians, which the Jewish
state adamantly maintained were “nonnegotiable”. These are: the settlements,
borders, the status of Jerusalem, and the right of return of the Palestinian
refugees and those in the diaspora.
What the Israelis seemed liberally prepared to negotiate with the Palestinians
and
offer some concessions was the question of withdrawal from those areas of the
occupied territories which they considered “non-strategic” – and even this on
their own terms! Arafat saw this as a no-deal. If he had agreed to be duped,
what kind of deal would he have taken from Camp David to the Palestinian
people? Because of some concessions he had had to make to the Israelis, some
radical Palestinians portrayed him as little more than “an Israeli agent”!