Diasporan Africans must refuse to be used as pawns against Africa

Publié le par hort


Jendayi Fraser’s Utterances: A Prescription for Chaos

US envoy Jendayi Fraser’s announcement on 24th April 2008 that ‘Morgan Tsvangirai is the clear winner’ in Zimbabwe’s recent elections is the most egregious display of unwarranted intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign African country. This sets the template for future Western intervention to twist Zimbabwe in the mould of US and Western strategic policy planners. That these interventionist statements should issue from the mouth of an African-American woman is all the more instructive.

The US, conscious of its lack of racial credibility in the non-white developing world, has always sought to use black Americans as mouthpieces for positions and statements that coming from white Americans, would carry the baggage of America’s ongoing chronic race struggle. The US likes to project to the world that it is a democracy where ‘opportunity exists for all’ and any boy ‘can grow up to be President of the United States.’ Even were Jendayi Fraser not African-American, the statement coming from her about the results of Zimbabwe’s elections reveals the utter disregard in which Africa and its institutions are held by the West.

Could any African dare to criticize the results of elections in England, Australia, Canada, the US or Germany, implying that one or the other candidate has cheated on the elections? The consequences of such presumption would be immediate and catastrophic. Yet Africa succumbs daily to these contemptuous attacks against its sovereignty and political choices. Where and how has the AU defended the integrity of the Continent? Which leaders have stated unequivocally that Africa’s problems can and will be solved by Africans and outsiders should mind their business?

Mugabe has unswervingly stood his ground against Western attempts to demonize him and force him to back off his principles. Scraping off the muck that has been heaped on the Zimbabwe ‘situation,’ what lies at the root of the rabid Western hatred of Mugabe is the fact that he dared to take back for his people what had been brutally stolen from them 100 years earlier. This in Western eyes is unforgivable. He had to be punished.

Zimbabwe’s economic problems have less to do with economic mismanagement and farm seizures but more to do with the deliberate attempt by the West to grind Zimbabwe to dust and ensure that it does not set a bad example for Africans seeking true independence. Cuba suffers under a 50-year US embargo because she dared proclaim true independence. Sanctions have ostensibly been targeted against Mugabe and his leadership but they have fallen heavily on the masses in the hope that they would blame their leadership and thus overturn them.

We have seen how the West, to influence events in Palestine, refuses to recognize Hamas’s legitimate election victory and punishes the population in the hope of provoking uprisings against its leadership. How can we even be certain that Western intelligence, frustrated with Tsvangirai’s political incompetence, have not themselves manipulated the election and recounts are indeed necessary? All we have are media offensives by the West and unproven allegations of violence and intimidation. We have seen in the run-up to the war on Iraq how easily the Western media can twist the truth to suit any agenda. There are far greater crises in Africa than Zimbabwe. Somalia, for instance, is bleeding copiously from a brutal war that has been deliberately precipitated by the United States. The Islamic Courts had brought a great measure of stability to Somalia, but the paranoid US, with a ‘terrorism’ bee behind it seems to prefer chaos to order wherever it puts its hands. Ethiopia, a US client state with less ‘democratic’ bona fides than Zimbabwe, was used to hurl Somalia into the abyss once more.

Left to themselves, the Zimbabwe people will find ways unique to their culture to solve their problems. That is why the mouthpiece of the Bush administration, Jendayi Fraser has crossed the line with her open intervention in Zimbabwe’s affairs which  implies tha the US is more interested in promoting chaos than in encouraging solutions. But this also seems to be an incurable habit of the West: the inability to stop condescending and directing and ordering the developing world about, especially Africa, even when it is against the West’s own interests. Is it any wonder that the Chinese have outflanked them strategically in Africa?

By Amengeo Amengeo
Specialist in Spanish, Latin American, Caribbean as well as African History. He has also been a journalist, civil servant and graphic artist


http://www.blackcom mentator. com/275/275_ zimbabwe_ more_than_ silence_freeman_ guest.html

Zimbabwe: More Than Complicity of Silence

By Nefta Freeman
BlackCommentator. com
Guest Commentator
Friday, May 2, 2008,

When Collin Powell gave his infamous presentation to the United Nations, “proving” Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction Iraq dominated the headlines. It took some time and subsequent discoveries before many realized most of what we were fed was untrue.Although not as elevated, today Zimbabwe has taken a high profile place in corporate media headlines.
Are we getting the truth this time and can we rely on the same progressives who broke through misinformation around Iraq to do the same for us again?

This commentary is a response to another by BC’s Executive Editor, Bill Fletcher Jr., titled “Z” is for Zimbabwe; Turmoil & Silence as a Country Potentially Unravels. Mr. Fletcher, also being a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies where I am a program director, makes us colleagues. As I respect him for his analysis on many if not most matters, we have differences when it comes to Zimbabwe. There are several points his commentary raises that I believe omit the complexity and context of the issue.  Contrary to what is implied, many Africans (people of African descent) interpret Zimbabwean developments, not necessarily through romanticism, but with a valid rejection of imperialism’s “mania for regime change”.
Too often has the public seen leaders and countries demonized simply as a prelude for this policy.

The right of anyone to criticize ZANU PF or Mugabe is valid and should be reserved without a person being condemned as an agent of the CIA or State Department. However, progressives and certainly revolutionaries must necessarily include an analysis of and explicit stand against US-British intervention. This would mean also addressing why and how they are targeting Zimbabwe. More often critics of ZANU PF and Mugabe reduce US-British positions to mere words or rhetorical condemnations when imperialism is never so passive.
Not only did the US State Department admit on April 5, 2007 that it was engaged in efforts for regime change in Zimbabwe, such efforts were written into the text of the US’ hypocritical Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001.

This policy includes pervasive economic sanctions (war without guns) designed to strangle the people into submission. No matter what one’s position on ZANU PF and/or Mugabe, a position against imperialism’s immoral assault on Zimbabwe should be a matter of principle, being that “the stakes are too high.” After all, even though Saddam Hussein was widely believed a cruel dictator, progressives nevertheless oppose not only imperialism’s war on Iraq but avidly opposed the preceding US sanctions against Iraq. In Zimbabwe’s case, hardly any stand is taken against imperialism and progressives often corroborate much of the misinformation.

Specifically on Mr. Fletcher’s commentary the following are a few instances where I feel more clarifications are warranted: Mr. Fletcher says: “We ignored the violent crushing of a rebellion in the early years of the Mugabe administration” but another side would say: “the violent crushing of a ‘violent’ rebellion.” I don't know any other way to put down a violent rebellion than through violence. I’m assuming here that Mr. Fletcher is referring to what took place in Matebeland, often referred to as a massacre in order to demonize ZANU PF. It is a situation too complex to do justice in this commentary but knowing the alternative explanation is important. Following an agreement to integrate the armed forces of ZANU, ZAPU and Rhodesians to form a Zimbabwe National Army, it was agreed that all guerrillas and Ian Smith soldiers were to surrender their weapons to the national armory.

ZAPU secretly decided not to, hiding massive arms caches on its farms and in the bushes, including armored cars and heavy artillery. After being discovered by Zimbabwe’s Central Intelligence Organization, it is said that ZAPU failed to give a satisfactory explanation for this leading to a massive exodus of ZAPU leaders from the new government and the beginning of dissident activity in Matebeland. Shona speaking people and commercial farmers were being killed. Former ZAPU guerillas were roaming freely with guns, terrorizing people, especially in Matebeland and Midlands areas. The ZANU led government could not of course let this go on and it is said that security forces were deployed to end the dissident and banditry activity. Unfortunately people were killed along with dissidents and those who harbored them. However, what is more often mischaracterized as a massacre was more like a small-scale civil war with civilian casualties on both sides.

Subsequently, in 1987 ZAPU and ZANU leaders held talks, which culminated in a Unity Accord and is now celebrated annually on December 22nd, as ZAPU leaders were again put into the fold to form a government of national unity. It is instructive to note that the current National Chairman of ZANU is a former ZAPU leader, the National Youth Chairman is former ZAPU, the Second Vice President is former ZAPU, and the National Army Commander is former ZAPU. In fact former ZAPU members are now in control of many government and party institutions.

Mr. Fletcher says: “We ignored President Mugabe's adoption of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank formula of ‘structural adjustment.’”(ESAP) However, this ignores the context of the times and the world situation. Undoubtedly, it was a mistake to deal with the IMF and World Bank but the conditions and constraints that led to Zimbabwe's doing this were largely due to the collapse of the Soviet Bloc and were felt by all countries trying to pursue an independent path. Cuba referred to these conditions as their Special Period. This also ignores that Mugabe’s government abolished the ESAP, something done nowhere else in Africa.

Mr. Fletcher says: “And, we ignored the fact that the land was not being redistributed.” But some was. Although it represented only one third of a 162,000 household target, more than 50,000 households had been resettled by 1990. Why wasn't more land redistributed before the late 1990s? This is explained by constraints of the 1979 Lancaster House Agreement that brokered Zimbabwe’s independence and it is critical to note that the liberation forces were encouraged to accept this agreement by fellow liberation forces in the other Front Line states. The constraints in this agreement were not the choice of Mugabe or ZANU.

Mr. Fletcher says: “Many well-intentioned supporters of Zimbabwe ignored or were oblivious to the growing protests that had swept Zimbabwe in the 1990s among workers who stood in opposition to the economic policies of structural adjustment that were impoverishing them.” I don’t know what the point is here.
That instead of commending ZANU-PF, for jettisoning ESAP as soon as it could, it is better to support the opposition, which wants to cement ESAP in place?

Mr. Fletcher says: “And some of us closed our eyes to who was actually benefiting from land redistribution and who was not.” With all due respect this sounds like a version of the land going not to the landless but to Mugabe's cronies routine. I’m sorry but I can’t believe Mugabe had 134,000 cronies to dole land out to in 2002. Land audits bear out the fact that land went mainly to the landless and had reached over 250,000 families by 2006. Furthermore, not only have there been eyewitness testimonies by others, such as that of Baffour Ankomah, editor of New African who has seen things for himself but I also personally know of a youth farming cooperative started with land from this exercise. Having been there and stayed at the home of the cooperative’s chairman I attest that these youth are hardly cronies of Mugabe.

Mr. Fletcher says: “I found myself attempting to explain to them (his Zimbabwean comrades) why many African Americans were silent in the face of President Mugabe's repression.” Actually, I haven't noticed this reluctance disproportionate to any other issue. Maybe I've seen too many articles taking the standard line against Zimbabwe. I have experienced quite a bit of cynicism among most intellectual African-“Americans” about my alternative position on the issues. On the other hand I also find that the common Black person on the street has legitimate reservations about anything remotely resembling the regime change rhetoric of imperialism.

Regarding Mr. Fletcher’s position on the elections, I agree that it would have been better to announce the results even with a recount needed. Although I recognize that the MDC and Western media would have treated the initial figure as real and the recount as rigging. From that standpoint, I think I can understand why the total has not been announced. But it still may have been better to do so. The same rigging claims were going to be tossed around regardless. Statements by British officials and US make it clear that they will accept no result that does not favor the opposition. What more is the iron first and velvet glove of imperialism doing to ensure their interests in Zimbabwe? Mr. Fletcher and I agree that the stakes in Zimbabwe are higher than the mere outcome of an election but I contend that it’s one of completely embedded neo-colonialism versus the right to national self-determination and sovereignty.

Mr. Fletcher says: “Though originally planned as a labor party, the MDC became a sort of united front of opponents of President Mugabe, ranging the political spectrum from the revolutionary Left to some conservative white farmers.” There is more to this than one could gather from this summary. In December 1998, with Zimbabwe having already earned the indignation of Western governments, a plan was presented to the European Union’s Africa Working Group recommending strategies for regime change. The plan called for the formation of a political party from this spectrum of opponents in “civil society”, naming in particular, the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU). Prior to this, in May 1997 European trade unions had already singled out the then Secretary General of ZCTU, Morgan Tsvangirai as their presidential candidate against Robert Mugabe. It’s with this backdrop that the MDC was born.

I agree with Mr. Fletcher’s assertion, “Whether we like or dislike the MDC, or President Mugabe for that matter, holds second place to whether there is a political environment that advances genuine, grassroots democracy and debate in Zimbabwe.” Clearly, however such an environment cannot exist while foreign interests are so pervasively manipulating so much of what appears to be internal.

On January 24th, 1999 a meeting was convened at Britain’s Royal Institute of International Affairs to discuss the EU’s regime change policy. The theme of the meeting, led by Richard Dowden, now the Executive Director of the Royal African Society, was “Zimbabwe - Time for Mugabe to Go?” The “confiscating” of white-held land is what got a “yes” to the conference’s rhetorical question.
Dowden presented four options:

a military coup
buying the opposition
subverting Mugabe’s ZANU-PF party

A few months later, the US State Department held its version of that meeting, a seminar entitled “The Zimbabwe Crisis” to discuss its strategy for dealing with the same. Their conclusion too was that civil society and the opposition would be strengthened to foment discontent and dissent.

If we’re going to discuss Zimbabwe and what position to take on it, it’s important that the African community consider this context.
While Mr. Fletcher is concerned with infantile approaches to controversy within our communities, I’m more concerned that our assessments are arrived at with plentiful and accurate context. Because, like Mr. Fletcher, I believe the stakes are much too high.

BlackCommentator. com Guest Commentator, Netfa Freeman is director of the Social Action & Leadership School for Activists (SALSA), a program of the Washington DC based Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), a longtime activist in the Pan-African and international human rights movements, and a co-producer/ co-host for Voices With Vision, WPFW 89.3 FM,


http://www.herald. co.zw/inside. aspx?sectid= 33771&cat= 10

Chickens coming home to roost

By Stephen T. Maimbodei

THE truth is finally out.
According to wise counsel in Shona, Rina manyanga hariputirwe mumushunje.
Rinotukunyudza. (The truth cannot be concealed. It forces itself out).

In their own words, they are telling the world that British ministers, Zimbabwean white farmers and the country’s opposition have misunderstood President Mugabe and his Government.Towards the end of last year, it was journalist and MDC sympathiser, Peta Thornycroft who gravely indicted her colleagues in the Western media about the Zimbabwean issue.

The bottomline in Thornycroft’s analysis was:

As far back as 2000, the Western media knew that there were some fault lines in the opposition movement;

2. They actually saw those fault lines, but because they had a predetermined agenda of transforming Zimbabwe into a battleground for neo-colonial and imperialist forces, a battle, which they had to accomplish, what did they do?

3. They ignored the fault lines, and continued to act as if everything was normal, with the exception of the illegal removal of President Mugabe from power.
Their onslaught on President Mugabe’s government became so intense, as they propped the opposition, especially the MDC-T to such dizzying heights, that it was all very clear who was in charge of the "New Zimbabwe, New Beginning" project.

Now, three weeks after the historic harmonised poll, yet another British journalist, Chris McGreal is making startling revelations and admissions about the Zimbabwean issue.

In his own words, McGreal is also coming out clean, and saying that this blame it on Mugabe business must stop, for the Zimbabwean issue must be looked at in perspective and that all the players be put in the radar system and carefully vetted before blame is apportioned on just one person, since there are more players other than Mugabe.

McGreal also makes a striking departure from the usual Western reportage about Zimbabwe.
He is telling us that the Zimbabwean matter is an issues oriented matter with a historical, current and future perspective, and that the picture is bigger than most of us would want to honestly admit, and that to ignore these other issues would not only be fallacious and folly, and tantamount to diiging our own graves. McGreal’s admissions are printed elsewhere in this issue of The Herald under an article entitled "There are many villains to blame for Zimbabwe’s decade of horror" and were first published in The London Observer, an UK newspaper, on April 13, 2008.

Writes McGreal about Clare Short’s infamous 1997 letter, "Her letter laid bare a fundamental misunderstanding of Mugabe and the nature of the regime he leads, a mistake that others — including Zimbabwe’s whites and a rising black opposition — were to repeat as they struggled to prise him from office and that has, arguably, helped him cling to power". However, one wonders whether the misunderstandings are genuine.
Could it have also been a misunderstanding that is loaded with the usual racial supremacist tendencies?
Are these also admissions of guilt and failure on the part of the British and their Western allies?

While it looks like they are embroiled in the release of the presidential results from Zimbabwe’s just-ended elections, one wonders why someone like McGreal is now coming clean regarding the fault lines in Zimbabwe’s political scenario. Why is he also making this damning indictment on the major stakeholders in the Zimbabwean question?Is it also a change of heart on the part of the British?
Certainly not! The truth was always there.
In this admission of lack of judgment and the apparent misconceptions, there is probably now a realisation that in order for all parties to resolve the Zimbabwean issue, there is need for collective responsibility, and urging them to revisit the past.

It is no mere coincidence that McGreal chooses to identify some hitherto unknown whites in the MDC and telling us their origins and the schools they attended.
Which goes to show that opposition politics like bad blood is badly tainted, for some of these personalities have their roots firmly set in the apartheid system. This response to McGreal’s article is underlining one thing, and one thing only: at long last, the chickens are coming home to roost and that the blame it on Mugabe game is over.

As McGreal says, the Zimbabwean "horror" story that was authored and acted out on the world stage in the past decade had a number of players, and all these players should take responsibility in making Zimbabwe what it has become today, and not the lies and the misinformation that we have been fed with all along. This goes to show that time is of essence, and it is gratifying to note that some in the British media are beginning to analyse the Zimbabwean situation in a realistic manner and contextualising it as it should be.

As this writer pointed out in another analysis last week, Clare Short’s 1997 letter holds the key to the Zimbabwean matter, for they are now saying it in their own words that it was that letter that was the "spark" that set off President Mugabe, and Zimbabwean revolutionaries.

As pointed out by the Herald’s London correspondent Peter Mavunga, "For the first time a British newspaper dared to report events as we have been reporting them. "For the first time a British journalist was even prepared to quote Clare Short’s infamous letter to Minister Kangai. "There comes a time when truth cannot be resisted no matter how determined people may want to resist it."

What is worrying though is that the British government does not need to be reminded by its media, for the British government knows very well that they have obligations in Zimbabwe that need to be finalised.
They know that people took up arms to fight them as settler colonialists in order to reclaim stolen Zimbabwean land. They also know that Chimurenga giants such as Nehanda and Kaguvi were not executed for resisting the presence of settler colonialists jay walking in Zimbabwe, but that their execution was a result of them fighting for Zimbabwe’s property rights which had been stolen before them by a rule of law that did not apply to Zimbabwe. Insurrection.Britain, including the New Labour government knows that Zimbabwe’s war of liberation was premised on property rights, and that black Zimbabweans took up arms to fight for due process in terms of property rights to be restored and respected.

"Mwana wevhu" (Son or Daughter of the soil) was coined within the context of the people of Zimbabwe’s fight for stolen property, and also fighting on the premise that Zimbabwe’s property rights had to be respected, written or unwritten.Thus McGreal admissions and revelations, which should put the issue at a higher level and start the ball rolling are not surprising, but most welcome, for they were long overdue. McGreal also makes a very important perception: "a fundamental misunderstanding of Mugabe and the nature of the government he leads, a mistake that others — including Zimbabwe’s whites and a rising black opposition — were to repeat as they struggled to prise him from office and that has, arguably, helped him cling to power.

We also see this misunderstanding through Heidi Holland’s book and the subsequent interviews that she has been giving since the publication by Penguin South Africa of "Dinner with Mugabe", last March where she reduces the Zimbabwean head of state to a "Prozac" by product by alleging that his actions are a result of his deprived background.
This is despite the fact that she also acknowledges the significance of, but immense damage caused by the Short letter. Well, Holland might have to say that about all black people in Zimbabwe since they were born and raised under a system that did not only deprive them of basic necessities, but also deprived them of their God given rights in their land, until they took up arms of war to have those rights restored.

Another interesting issue is the West’ obsession on looking at every action through psyscho-therapeutic eyes. Holland claims that she had to use the services of three psychologists to try and debunk President Mugabe’s leadership and persona.
This goes to show how seriously the Zimbabwean issue has been misunderstood and trivialised, for the whole Western world will need to employ all the psychologists in the world to understand why Zimbabweans and Africans in general rally behind President Mugabe.

McGreal is very clear about what President Mugabe and his government have always said: "Britain had and still has a special responsibility, not only as the former coloniser but also because it had failed to act against Smith’s illegal regime — making necessary a liberation war that cost tens of thousands of lives, most of them black — on the grounds that it could not move against its "kith and kin" in Rhodesia, in Harold Wilson’s phrase. It was those kith and kin who made the same mistake as Short in thinking the past was history". And that, "There’s nothing the world has to teach Robert Mugabe about the rule of law."

Another indictment on the white commercial farmers was that an analysis of farm infrastructures showed that the only places that were well maintained with good infrastructure was that owned by the white farm owners and their families.
Otherwise, the farm workers lived in abject poverty.When the so-called human rights organisations cried foul about the plight of farm workers it was not their long-term security and that of their families that really mattered. These were just calls to have cheap and abundant labour available, while the farm owners raked in billions at the end of each harvest and enjoy a life style second to none.

While it was OK for the British and the whole Western world to lend their full support to Ian Smith even after imposing sanctions, when the same kinship assistance is rendered to President Mugabe by regional leaders, there is everything wrong with it. Thus former Mozambican President Joachim Chissano, rightly defended President Mugabe by saying that there was a tendency to "put a blanket" over the history of the independence struggles in Africa. He condemned those who would portray "former heroes of the freedom struggle" as "anti-democratic and even dictators". They do not know that save for a few stooges they use to undermine the gains of the liberation struggle in the region, Sadc’s regional leaders know that if the British succeed with their regime change agenda in Zimbabwe, then there will be nothing to stop them from doing the same in other countries.

Tendai Biti’s dossier made it very clear. If the MDC-T faction manages to get into power, one of the programmes they would undertake would be a de-Zanufication of the Zimbabwean society. Simply put, this means the removal of any traces of the liberation struggle philosophy and ethos from our society, just like the deprogramming exercises carried out by Americans on alleged communists and Islamists. McGreal concludes his article thus: "The region’s leaders have spent years indulging Mugabe. Now he is snubbing them by refusing to attend their summit in Zambia to discuss his country’s crisis. The coming days will show whether Mugabe’s useful idiots will finally do right by the people of Zimbabwe."

This statement says more than meets the eye.
His parting words, about the fate of Zimbabwe in the coming days are not only unfortunate since he thinks that President Mugabe has used African leaders to his advantage, but they are also loaded with the misconceptions, racism included, which he had tried to debunk in his article. When he could not "understand" why President Mugabe did not attend the recent Lusaka Sadc-Extraordinary summit, this was interpreted in all manner of form. Some, like McGreal himself safely concluded that President Mugabe was snubbing the regional body’s leaders. Since the publication of his article, the "coming days" have shown us how useful and important, regional cohesion and integration are, contrary to what McGeal would want us to believe.

Isn’t it also ironic that the British government has taken over the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission’s constitutional mandate of announcing the presidential result? Despite wanting to tell the UN Security Council that President Mugabe had not won the March 29 poll, they still expected him to attend the Lusaka Sad-Extraordinary Summit as a head of state, and not a gallery spectator? Haven’t the "coming days" since April 13 revealed to Zimbabwe how the plot to recolonise Zimbabwe is getting?
Haven’t the "coming days" not reminded us of those four meetings MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai held with officials from the Canadian-based company Dickens and Madson in 2001/2002, where it was revealed that the meetings centred around a plot to assassinate Zimbabwe’s head of state at a cost of US$500 000?

The rest is just being replayed!

But McGeal’s closing comments could mean that we are back to square one. One personality will continue to hog the limelight and be blamed for all the ills being faced by Zimbabwe, although he was right when he reminded the world that Mugabe is not waging a one-man struggle against the West. As former Mozambican President Chissano reminded a world, which was not willing to listen, we will also reiterate it: "There’s nothing the world has to teach Robert Mugabe about the rule of law."

Only time will tell!


http://www.herald. co.zw/inside. aspx?sectid= 34115&cat= 10

West desperate to unseat President

Thursday, May 15, 2008

THERE comes a time when the truth, no matter how unsavoury, just cannot be repressed.
The Sunday Times, a South African weekly with a rabid anti-Zimbabwe slant this week carried an article — ‘‘The West is conspiring to unseat that valiant warrior, President Mugabe’’ — by its regular columnist, MOHAU PHEKO, exposing the West’s hand in the problems in Zimbabwe and how President Mugabe’s refusal to kow-tow to London and Washington has driven them to pursue his ouster at all costs. Read on.

I SUSPECT there is more to the Zimbabwean election than meets the eye. It’s hard to decipher where the truth lies, what with MDC-aligned activists masquerading as "independent analysts".
In the meantime, President Thabo Mbeki gives Western powers the finger at the United Nations Security Council, signalling that Africa will handle its own problems.

In the cacophony of Mbeki’s critics, we missed the pronouncement he made in a briefing to religious leaders that his mediation process was dogged by the interference of the US and the UK governments. Is this plausible? Can we unapologetically begin to find some truth in his statement without the debate deteriorating to how Africans always blame the West?

Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair’s longtime chief of staff, argued that Britain should not be afraid to intervene in Zimbabwe to defend "our interests" and promote "our values" because "intervening in another country no longer risks tipping the two superpowers into global war, because there is only one superpower".

On the other hand, the US government passed the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, which among other things decreed that President Robert Mugabe could restore relations with international financial institutions on condition that he restore Zimbabwe’s rule of law, withdraw his troops from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and change the conduct of internal elections.

Why does this only apply to Zimbabwe?

Uganda, a far less open and democratic country, also had troops in the DRC and has successfully annihilated all opposition parties and freedom of the Press — but has not been subjected to the same conditions because it’s happy to do the US’ bidding.

The Act authorised US President George W. Bush to fund opposition media and "democracy" and "governance" programmes in Zimbabwe aimed at "discrediting" President Mugabe. It’s instructive to note that the MDC vigorously lobbied for sanctions against its own country, prompting this US law to have the power to instruct all US members of international financial institutions to oppose and vote against any extension of loans, credits or guarantees to Zimbabwe. According to Gregory Elich, author of Strange Liberators: Militarism, Mayhem and the Pursuit of Profit, "Western financial restrictions made it nearly impossible for Zimbabwe to participate in international trade". President Mugabe, we are made to believe, unilaterally brought Zimbabwe’s economy to its knees, bringing about widespread poverty, a reign of terror and despotism.  

On the other hand, Morgan Tsvangirai is spoken of as the author of a noble "revolution" against President Mugabe and Zanu-PF. This hides the fact that the MDC is in collusion with the US administration and the British government, who both acknowledge that they are working with the MDC to bring down the President Mugabe Government.Neither the US nor Britain would tolerate outside interference in their internal politics.  The fairy tale that presents a clash between the "evil king" President Mugabe and the "heroic prince" Tsvangirai fails to recognise the geopolitical interests surrounding Zimbabwe and the Sadc region.

Allowing into our backyard the same coalition of countries (Britain and the US ) that brought destruction to Iraq — under the guise of a UN Security Council resolution on Zimbabwe — would plunge the Sadc region into a human disaster of enormous proportions. The anatomy of falling out of favour always follows the same pattern: Elected officials who defy the White House and 10 Downing Street are denounced as dictators despite winning free and fair elections.

The credibility and legitimacy of the elections is deemed suspicious.
Then it is said these leaders govern in an anti-democratic way. The opposition calls for Western countries to apply economic sanctions detrimental to their own people. The US and Britain fund civil society, media and the opposition to begin the regime-change agenda and bring down the "dictator". Election campaigning is used to force the "dictator" to step down.The fact that the "dictator" is holding elections at all is considered a sham.

There is a declaration of victory by the opposition party even before the election results are announced, supported by local media mimicking the Western media and promoting a narrative of rigged elections.
Western media repeat this mantra in all their broadcasts just in case you are too dense to comprehend the message. Predictably, official results contradict the opposition’s claim and the elections are deemed fraudulent.

Forecasts from the opposition that blood will spill begin to do the rounds in the capitals of the world,and of course end up at the UN Security Council — where regime change can mean bombs falling on the heads of the very people to whom democracy and "change" is being brought.

President Mugabe no doubt has made gross mistakes in governing, but this is not why he has been singled out as a "tyrant" and an "African Hitler". Western governments detest President Mugabe’s impertinence — in particular, his audacity in daring to seize white farms; in meddling in the DRC without consent from the US; and his criticism of Western colonialism, which has gained him the reputation of valiant warrior against Western superiority in Africa.


Publié dans contemporary africa

Pour être informé des derniers articles, inscrivez vous :
Commenter cet article