Zimbabwe And The Battle of Ideas
Again, no matter how valiant the people of Zimbabwe or our people in any other part of Africa and the world resist imperialism; it is a global system that can only be defeated by an internationalism that presupposes a Pan-African vision the likes of Kwame Nkrumah and Ahmed Sekou Ture.
Cuban revolutionaries often point out the significance of
what they call the “battle of ideas” and they explain how “ideas are worth more
than weapons.” It stands to reason then
that the goal in such battles is to win the hearts and minds of people. Because the so-called Western World dominates
the most sophisticated and pervasive methods of information today, people
should carefully scrutinize ideas pushed and popularized by these sources. This means we should never take for granted
anything we read or hear and only half of what we see.
year on September 11th Zimbabwe’s two rival parties, Zimbabwe
African National Union – Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) and Movement for Democratic
Change (MDC-T, representing a faction lead by presidential hopeful Morgan
Tsvangiria) signed a power
sharing agreement that details several critical points. Just a few of these points important to note
-Reaffirm the principle of the United Nations
Charter on non-interference in the internal affairs of member (states/nations);
-Agree that no outsiders have a right to call
or campaign for regime change in Zimbabwe;
-Call upon the governments that are hosting
and/or funding external radio stations broadcasting into Zimbabwe to cease such
hosting and funding; (this is illegal under international law but something the
US sponsors and has sponsored in several places)
-Accept the irreversibility of the land
acquisitions and redistribution;
-Agree to call upon the United Kingdom
government to accept the primary responsibility to pay compensation for land
acquired from former landowners for resettlement;
-Recognize that the consequent contribution
of Western financial and economic isolation to the further decline of the
-Agree that all forms of measures and
sanctions against Zimbabwe be lifted?
Those who do not read this agreement and only understand it
through the web of corrupt ideas spun around it by Western World sources and
sources supported by the West are sure to misunderstand Zimbabwe. They are sure to misunderstand the contending
elements in this particular battle of ideas and what motivates them. Malcolm X called this being “bamboozled.”
Currently it is common to hear positions of reluctance and
doubt cast upon the unity agreement at a time when an eager confidence would be
a more constructive and conscientious position.
This reluctance is mostly attributed to the alleged inability to trust a
“repressive ZANU-PF” which is said to hold on to power pretty much for power’s
sake. These notions have not been
asserted without a corresponding but no less dubious backdrop.
Furthermore the historic agreement for
national unity was not birthed without the typical attempts of foreign
interference. “US and British diplomats
have confirmed to
Business Day that their advice to Tsvangirai has been to not sign the draft
agreement from the early hours of yesterday and to negotiate for more power.
Their governments — which are preparing to provide aid to a new dispensation —
would not bankroll any deal in which Mugabe retained control, they said.” This explains why, after signing 13
agreements with Zanu-PF and the Arthur Mutambara-led MDC formation, Tsvangirai abruptly
pulled out of the South African-facilitated talks. He only returned after realizing his stubborn
could lead to his forfeiting any role in the new government.
The idea that an authoritarian Mugabe assumed the Zimbabwe
presidency in an uncontested 2008 election dominates the thinking from conservatives
to liberals. “Uncontested” is to imply an undemocratic process where the
electorate had only one choice, Robert Gabriel Mugabe. We are also bombarded with the idea that
state sponsored violence, tantamount to that following Kenya’s December ‘07
elections, preceded Zimbabwe’s run-off date to so intimidate Zimbabweans that
even the secrecy of the ballot was not enough for people to express their
will. These stories are parroted by
“leftist” policy analyst and activists respected for their “progressive” and
“democratic” ideals. The apparent aim of
these ideas is to popularize an acceptance of regime change in Zimbabwe.
When it comes to Zimbabwe, Imperialists governments,
corporate and liberal media, and so-called Africa advocacy organizations all
reinforce this same simple message.
These narratives however, neglect the intricate nature of events in
Zimbabwe and the real backdrop in which they take place. This article will deconstruct the essence and
methods of imperialist propaganda against Zimbabwe by dissecting misinformation
in two articles deemed as progressive sources/views: African Dictatorships and Double
Standards by Stephen Zunes and Ballots vs. Bullets in Kenya and
Zimbabwe by Briggs Bomba.
Bomba’s article crudely compares recent elections in
Zimbabwe and Kenya. First he fails to
clarify that manipulated ethnic tensions between the Kikuyu versus the Luo and
other groups were at the center of the Kenya situation. No such factor plays a part in Zimbabwe. The polarization in Zimbabwe is of an
ideological nature, two opposing political tendencies.
Bomba, a Zimbabwean misleads readers about the situation in
his country by implying that there was “a victorious opposition” in the March
29th presidential election even though the country’s constitution
requires a candidate to gain over 50% of the vote to be victorious and neither
MDC-T's Morgan Tsvangirai nor ZANU PF's Robert Mugabe did so. Even though a picture is always painted of
Mugabe as a widely unpopular leader he did receive 43% of the March 29 vote,
only 4% less than Tsvangirai.
Furthermore, the candidate receiving the most votes in the required June
27th run-off was Robert Mugabe; 2,150,269 votes to 233,000 (85.5% to
9.3% of the vote). Yes, the author is
counting on his readers to accept the false but commonly repeated premise that
the run-off was uncontested due to Tsvangirai announcing to the media one week
before voting day that he was pulling out of the election. However, Tsvangirai never followed
established procedures for rescinding his candidacy, which requires candidates
to notify the Election Commission (ZEC) in writing no later than 21 days before
Election Day. Even the opposition
leader’s grandstanding announcement to the media was after the mandatory
deadline, which is probably designed to prevent candidates from sabotaging an
election in progress in that very manner.
Accordingly, Tsvangirai was still on the ballot as an option for the
electorate. Not to mention that the June
27 run off also included elections for three vacant seats in the House, in
which Tsgangirai’s MDC-T continued participating and accepted victory for one
of the seats. So contrary to the
consistent media spin this was not an uncontested election. The whole business of pulling-out was clearly
a charade by a candidate (on the instructions of his Western masters) who
wasn't confident he'd succeed in the run-off.
Electorate Turn Around
Allow me to digress from Bomba’s article for a moment. Because it makes sense to ask, what could
have turned the electorate around for Mugabe to receive 1,106,818 more votes in
June than he did in March and for Tsvangirai to receive 936,860 less? This is an important question.
First there was the fact that the MDC-T falsely announced
victory over the presidency, claiming that they’d received over 50% of the vote
on March 29th, even though their own figures showed otherwise. And they kept changing their claims from
figures like 58%, to 53% down to 50.3% or something. These announcements were also a violation of
the law since the ZEC was the only entity permitted to make the official
announcement. MDC-T expressly agreed to
this law in view of the situation in Kenya.
So people could take their breach of the law as dishonest and an attempt
to incite citizens into violence.
Then, there was how the MDC-T along with the Western
countries treated the delay of ZEC in disclosing the March 29th
results. Gordon Brown of Britain and
Condeleeza Rice of the US were demanding the immediate release of results
instead of stressing the importance of accurate ones. It was not made clear to the world what
Zimbabweans already knew. This was the
first time the country was holding “harmonized elections”, meaning elections
for not just the Presidency but that also included its House, Senate and many
Municipalities for Mayors, etc. Of
course this would take longer to tally with unforeseen challenges arising and
because of what happened in Kenya, the ZEC was being especially careful to make
sure all the tallies were accurate.
Instead of making this clear the MDC kept up claims to the international
media that the ZEC was an extension of the ruling party ZANU-PF and the delay
was an attempt to rig the results.
However, 50% of ZEC members are actually appointed by the opposition
party in accordance with the election guidelines of the Southern African
Development Community (SADC), so it was dishonest to say they are an extension
Another thing that held up the result and must have had an
impact on how the electorate voted in June was that some ZEC officials were caught manipulating
results in favor of the opposition.
This caused requests for recounts by ZANU-PF and some later by MDC. Complicit media frenzy only made matter
worse. How many of us heard of the
story, which made the front page of the New York Times, backed up by a photo of
the 11-month old boy whose little legs were shattered by ZANU-PF brutes looking
to terrorize the opposition during the run-off period? Of those who learned of the story, much less
of them found out what most Zimbabweans learned right away, that the story was
There were so many attempts to discredit the elections one
could easily miss reports that youth who were really MDC-T deployed were posing
in ZANU-PF regalia while terrorizing their own people. This seems more credible than, while denying
to the world that they were using violence and intimidation, that ZANU-PF would
deploy people wearing anything that would so obviously identify them. On the other hand, attacking its own members
is not out of character
for the MDC, as Trudy Stevenson can attest.
Leading up to the run-off there was also an extremely
suspicious incident when US embassy officials took Zimbabwe police on a
high-speed chase after being stopped in an area they were not authorized to be. It was eventually discovered that the
“diplomats” were on a mission meeting with MDC-T members.
It was in the aforementioned context that ZANU-PF stepped up
its campaign efforts to win more support in the run-off. Their campaign was also aided by Tsvangirai’s
behavior, which was to call for more foreign intervention. Tsvangirai went
gallivanting the world on this mission during the time he should have been
campaigning inside country and none of his stops were even in any African
countries. If you were Zimbabwean would
you vote for him? Members of his own
party were saying he should return to Zimbabwe.
It was even said that US ambassador to Zimbabwe, James McGee had to
instruct Tsvangirai to return to his country because he was squandering his
Then to top things off, once in the country, in a dramatic
attempt to gain sympathy and discredit the run-off Tsvangirai pretended his
life was in danger and took “refuge” in the Dutch embassy in Zimbabwe, off all
places. Anyone who knows the history of
the Dutch in Southern Africa from which the Boers are descendants knows why
that could have lost Tsvangirai votes.
But for some reason Bomba wants to insist that the opposition was or
even could be victorious under such circumstances.
More Missing Context
Back to Bomba’s comparison of Kenya and Zimbabwe, he
rhetorically asks, "In the battle of the ballot vs. the bullet, can there
ever be a fair match?" He ignores the fact that the MDC-T has the full
weight of the most powerfully
sinister forces in the world on its side, imperialism
tipping political scales in its favor.
Because Zimbabwe's situation is completely dissimilar to Kenya, Bomba's
rhetorical questions should be more like the fact-based questions of columnist
Stephen Gowans in his well researched piece, Zimbabwe At War: "Should an election be carried out when
a country is under sanctions and it has been made clear to the electorate that
the sanctions will be lifted only if the opposition party is elected?
"Should a political party which is the creation of, and
is funded by, hostile foreign forces, and whose program is to unlatch the door
from within to provide free entry to foreign powers to establish a neo-colonial
rule, be allowed to freely operate?
"Should the leaders of an opposition movement that
takes money from hostile foreign powers and who have made plain their intention
to unseat the government by any means available, be charged with treason"?
Being Zimbabwean, maybe Bomba doesn't understand that such a
situation would never be even remotely tolerated in the US. Leaders of any party in the US having the
type of relationship with foreign governments that the MDC has with the UK and
US would be intensely vilified and immediately imprisoned for treason.
Bomba also misleads his readers by first pointing out that
"SADC adopted 'Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections'
aimed at 'enhancing the transparency and credibility of elections and
democratic governance as well as ensuring the acceptance of election results by
contesting parties'". But then he
fails to point out that Zimbabwe was the first SADC member country to implement
these guidelines in 2005 and that observers from SADC and other missions have
approved Zimbabwe elections in compliance with them.
Bomba tries to bolster faith in the development of
"independent civil society" in Africa, independent meaning
organizations without loyalty to African governments. On the surface this may seem appropriate but
there are ample reasons to be skeptical of this idea, particularly regarding
how "independent" this civil society can really be. For instance the fact that for decades
imperialist governments have used civil society organizations in other
countries to implement immoral foreign policy objectives by funneling funds to
them and directives they cloak as “technical assistance”. One very revealing reference is a paper by
former CIA agent Philip Agee, called Terrorism and Civil Society
As Instruments of US Policy In Cuba.
Agee points out that 1979 events in several countries, including
Zimbabwe, were the impetus for the US to create the American Political
Foundation to explore ways the US could exploit civil society in other countries
for their own ends. Agee goes on to
explain how this began setting the policy agendas of the USAID and eventually
led to the formation of the National Endowment for Democracy in 1983. Now the NED directs funds to overt activities
that were once the covert operations of the CIA.
Bomba should think
about the words of T.A. Raheem, Secretary General of the Pan African
Movement based in Uganda when he said: "Why is it 'appropriate' for African
NGOs to be funded by non-African governments and it is 'inappropriate' if they
are funded by African governments. The illusion being spread is that somehow
European governments are more interested in (good governance) than their
African counterparts. Why should our future be based on the (telescopic and
hypocritical) goodwill of European and American taxpayers?…Why are NGOs or
civil society organizations that relate well to our governments or even get
some support from them regarded as 'political' or 'puppets' yet those dependent
on Western governments are by that very fact 'independent'? Who is fooling
In so many words Bomba accuses the judiciary in Zimbabwe of
being dominated by "loyalists" but if this were true Tsvangirai would
be in jail right now for his plot
to carry out a coup on the government and assassinate Mugabe. And one could list a host of other judicial
rulings that have favored the opposition in ways that completely refute this
Bomba's article is full of accusations against the Zimbabwe
government but he substantiates none of them.
In one paragraph he clearly uses incidents in Kenya to vilify
Zimbabwe. He makes the unsupported
assertion that the Zimbabwe "army, the police and the secret services
merged seamlessly with the violent campaign machinery of the ruling (ZANU
PF)". Then he switches to
mentioning actual incidents in Kenya where the "the police stood in
President Kibaki's corner and brutally massacred hundreds of opposition
activists in protests that followed the disputed election." This is a slight of hand for readers to
assume incidents around the elections similar to those in Kenya also took place
in Zimbabwe when nothing of the sort was ever even reported. It is instructive here to note that while the
post-election death toll in Kenya reached to around 1500, there haven't been
more than 100 post-election deaths in Zimbabwe and the police there have
publicly challenged the opposition accusers to produce
evidence that even all of those killings took place. The opposition has to this day failed to do
The only difference between Kenya and Zimbabwe the author
bothers to identify is also not exactly true. Bomba says in “Kenya, unlike
Zimbabwe, the opposition used mass mobilization and threats of total economic
paralysis to leverage its power…” But the opposition in Zimbabwe did attempt a
mobilization of this sort in April 2008, only to fail in getting
"mass" support. US
imperialism's own propaganda apparatus, Voice of America (VOA), which
consistently favors the opposition even admitted in an April 15 report that the
strike “was largely ignored by Zimbabweans, most of whom reported for work
Tuesday.” This is not the first time
people ignored such calls. The
opposition in Zimbabwe, including the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions often
call for strikes that go “largely unheeded”.
There are too many contradictions in Bomba's article to
address them all. This happens when an
ideological premise is so flawed. His is
a premise ignoring the nature of US-UK interests and policy in Africa, as he
makes bizarre references to the “access” and “diplomatic leverage” Western
saviors don’t have with Mugabe so they can help put things right in
Zimbabwe. He understates the
“interference” by Western powers in Zimbabwe saying it “is not always helpful,”
and advocates for a “balanced intervention” and is careful “not to say that the
West has no role to play.”
“In Kenya,” he says, “the United States, Britain, the AU,
and other players in the international community played a key role in brokering
the power-sharing deal…”
He overlooks that in Kenya the US and UK are not engaged in
their regime change shenanigans and feel comfortable that their Africa
interests there are safe in the hands of either a Kibaki or an Odinga in
power. They had even extended premature
congratulations to Kibaki on his “electoral victory” having to rescind it two
days later once aware of discrepancies in the results and the erupting unrest. In Zimbabwe on the other hand both the US and
UK have been obsessed with the outcome of elections since 2000. They've consistently condemned them as marred
even before they’d taken place. This has
only been because the prospect for victory of their favored MDC didn't look
good enough for them and they wanted the option of playing the fraudulence card
when the results didn’t suit them.
Bomba says, “Mugabe's response to Britain's ‘school yard’
isolationist diplomacy has been to throw his toys and act like he just does not
care.” I’m at a loss to see which
actions by Mugabe fit this analogy but more tellingly what diplomacy is he
talking about? The UK and US have made
it perfectly clear that they want nothing short of regime change in
Zimbabwe. There is nothing diplomatic
about that. This is not some unfounded
accusation by Mugabe. They are public pronouncements
by the US and UK
A revolutionary African ideology recognizes it is now more
important than ever that we push Africa’s only solution, a continental war
against neo-colonialism. No matter how
valiant the people of Zimbabwe resist the imperialist, it is an intricate
global system that cannot be defeated by a single microstate, or even an
alliance of microstates like SADC, ECOWAS, COMESA, etc. To borrow a quote from a mentor, it is either
“Pan-Africanism or perish”. African
people must help each other recognize on a mass scale the vital need for the
total integration of the continent, under one socialist government. Nothing else will work and is a complete
waste of time.
Kwame Nkrumah understood this clearly when he emphasized the
need for an All-African Union government, All-African trade union, women's
federation and student union, All-African military and united front of
political organizations (i.e. All-African People’s Revolutionary Army,
All-African Committee for Political Coordination, and an All-African People’s
Revolutionary Party). Far too many of us
pay lip service to African unity while substituting it for alliances with
so-called Africa supporters, loose regional based associations of heads of
government and states, united fronts of Africans devoid of any serious
revolutionary principles and the like.
With such a set up vitalized from the bottom up, Africa can
establish a Pan-African monetary banking system with uniform currency, unlike
the imperialist controlled African Development Bank. We need a Pan-African telecommunications
system that serves the continent much like Latin America’s TeleSUR and a continental
transportation system that helps to facilitate commerce, economic development
and social and cultural exchanges that are first and foremost in the interest
of all African people. These things can
be done but not so long as a defeatist dependent ideology dominates the people.
Bomba sees the US' lack of international credibility
undermined simply by practices of the current administration instead of due to
the history and nature of imperialism proven also by its domestic
policies. Does he forget that, like
Rhodesia the US is a settler-colony, which to this day disenfranchises
indigenous people? What about the fact
that there is police repression of African (Black) and Latino people and
political repression of social justice activists? There are no less then 70 political
prisoners in the US, some imprisoned long before Zimbabwe got its
independence. The US' electoral process
disenfranchises people of color and the poor.
Bomba also lessens criticism of US foreign policy to “a discredited Iraq
war” and its "embracing favored dictators," but ignores the multitude
of crimes beyond a Bush administration, such as other military invasions,
overthrowing democratically elected leaders and fueling devastating wars. This list includes Korea, Cuba, Congo, Ghana,
Vietnam, Angola, Chile, Iran, Grenada, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Panama,
Afghanistan, and the list goes on and on.
I cannot relate to why Bomba completely excuses US, UK and
EU destabilization efforts against his own country in the form of pervasive
economic sanctions designed to strangle his country into submission, covert
operations using political provocateurs, and sophisticated propaganda that
perpetuates misinformation, half-truths and outright lies against Zimbabwe. None of these things apply to Kenya, nor is
any of it a secret given a little research.
Zunes’ Double Standards
Stephen Zunes tries to be more sophisticated in his article,
African Dictatorships and Double Standards. It is clear Zunes doesn’t want to be
associated with the common practice of demonizing Zimbabwe while overlooking US
neo-colonial governments in Africa.
However, his reduction of US foreign policy in Zimbabwe to mere
condemnations has equally dire repercussions.
As pointed out earlier the US admits to actively engaging in efforts for
regime change. April 5, 2007 was another
occasion when the US
State Department went on public record saying that, among several measures,
they are working to "discredit the government of Mugabe." Facts both Zunes and Bomba ignore. No honest focus on foreign policy can ignore
Zunes saying that the US government "has justifiably
criticized the Zimbabwe regime of liberator-turned-dictator Robert Mugabe"
is to say this same government that supported Ian Smith's racist apartheid
regime of Southern Rhodesia before it became Zimbabwe and this same government
that conspired to assassinate Patrice Lumumba, overthrew Kwame Nkrumah, bombed
Libya, orchestrated countless coups against legitimate democratically elected
governments in Africa and the world, and is now responsible for the second
largest refugee crisis in history between Iraq and Afghanistan is now being
altruistic when it comes to Zimbabwe.
They also had a big hand in the largest refugee crisis of the
Palestinians that saw the creation of Israel at Palestine’s expense and its
occupation of adjacent territories.
Zunes commends the Bush administration for joining what he calls
“a unanimous UN Security Council resolution condemning the campaign of violence
unleashed upon pro-democracy activists and calling for increased diplomatic
sanctions...” A point of correction: The Bush administration did not “join”
anything. They collaborated with the UK
to get others to join them. In typical
fashion Zunes' commentary also fails to point out that the violence in the
country has been determined to be from “supporters” of “both sides” and aside from
mere unsubstantiated yet repeated accusations by the opposition, none of the
violence has ever been confirmed as being precipitated or instigated by the
Mugabe government. Zimbabwe police arrested
supporters of both parties for politically motivated violence. In fact Mugabe himself publicly scolded
supporters of ZANU-PF who perpetuated acts of violence (Zimbabwe Sunday Mail,
May 18, 2008), while presidential hopeful Tsvangiria and his party's secretary
general Tendai Biti are on public record for doing the opposite (BBC, September
30, 2000 and Washington Post, May 16, 2008)
Similar to Bomba’s “isolationist diplomacy”, Zunes seems to
downplay the nature of US sanctions against Zimbabwe when he refers to them as
“diplomatic sanctions.” I see no other
reason to put those two words together unless the author is trying to abet the
regular falsehood that sanctions against Zimbabwe are limited to the travel of
certain Zimbabwe government officials.
US sanctions against Zimbabwe (in cahoots with those of the UK and EU)
explicitly outline stipulations designed to damage the economy by denying any
extension of credit to the government or any balance of payment assistance by
international financial institutions.
They also actively dissuade investments in, or trade with the country.
These moves have had devastating effects on the ordinary citizens of Zimbabwe,
a fact that Zunes and Bomba are consistent in ignoring in their analyses. What usually happens is that the symptoms of
these sanctions are pinned on “Mugabe’s economic mismanagement.”
Rarely does anyone ask scrutinizing questions like those of
Ugandan journalist, Timothy
Kalyegira: “Before the Mugabe Government started uprooting the white
farmers in 2000, this Government kept inflation at 5 percent, 8 percent (or 11
percent in difficult years.) How, then, does a country with all the same
factors and leaders from 1980 to 2000 suddenly (because the white commercial
farmers have been uprooted) see inflation soar to world record levels in a
space of just six years starting in 2000? And how is it that a stable Zimbabwe
has an inflation rate 1500 times higher than Somalia, a country without a
government since 1991?”
It’s important to note that this resolution to increase the
sanctions, which Zunes praises as unanimous, actually failed to pass in the UN
Security Council leaving the indisputably racist governments of the US, UK and
the EU to execute their own sanctions.
So much for the so-called unanimous character of the resolution.
Zunes distorts the essence of the US' double standard
treatment between Equatorial Guinea (EG) and Zimbabwe into the US only wanting
the oil reserves in EG, as if they want nothing in Zimbabwe besides democracy
and human rights. Imperialism’s recent
aggression toward Zimbabwe corresponds to the ZANU-PF government's confiscation
of land from a white-settler minority in the face of unrest by a
disenfranchised indigenous African majority.
It also has to do with moves by Zimbabwe to begin controlling its
natural resources in the mines and disavowing the Economic Structural
Adjustment Programs (ESAPs) of the IMF/World Bank. These are telling omissions for a foreign
policy analyst to make.
Tactics Versus Principles
Now a little sidebar is in order here. Many of the so-called advocates for Africa
attempt to make confusion around the fact that Zimbabwe abandoned the ESAPs by
countering that the government is still repaying the loan it received from the
World Bank in 1990. While this is true,
the ESAPs and the actual loan attached to them are two distinct things. This also smacks of dishonesty on their part
because most of them never call for African governments to refuse repaying
these loans. Instead their work in this
area is merely to try convincing the World Bank and IMF (imperialism) to
“relieve” or “cancel” the debts of various countries, except Zimbabwe. While Zimbabwe is the only African country
that has abandoned the actual immoral ESAPs, which make dealing with these
financial institutions so fatal, they never commend them for this.
There is another
double standard related to this that also explains why Zimbabwe is repaying the
loan. A couple years ago when the
Bolivarian government in Venezuela finished repaying a loan to the World Bank
that they inherited from the previous government, many of these same civil
society advocates recognize it as economic prowess. Even though Venezuela was able to finally rid
itself of such an odious situation, the country still remains a member of the
World Bank. Why?
If these detractors
of ZANU-PF and Mugabe were honest they would admit the current capitalist world
order puts underdeveloped or former colonized countries between a rock and a
hard place and refusal to repay these loans would completely drive a country
out of the global economy. This is
because the economies of the world don't operate in cash. Everything is on credit and IMF and
World Bank are the arbiters for international credit standing. If a
country pulls out of the World Bank they are also effectively out of the world economy.
Zimbabwe is already facing heavy economic sanctions. Can one imagine what reprisals the country
would face if they compounded its jettisoning the ESAPs with a default on the
loan? These are strategic and tactical
questions. So to pretend it is a matter of principle just to suit an argument
is dishonest, particularly since these advocates for Africa spend much of their
efforts on this issue, deferring to the financial institutions themselves and
not the countries hamstrung by them.
The same thing goes for why the Oppenheimer assets in
Zimbabwe currently remain untouched for now.
Some attempt to discredit the land reclamation process in Zimbabwe by
pointing out the enormous tracks of land still held by the family of infamous
settler Ian Smith, along with that of the international conglomerate family of
Oppenheimer. Without a much stronger
Pan-African movement Zimbabwe has little choice but to tolerate this. It can, in essence be compared to Cuba
tolerating the occupation of Guantánamo
by the US military, actually in
violation of international law.
However, for Cuba to do anything about it would invite a battle not in
their presently calculated interest.
When journalist Jared Ball, on a visit to Zimbabwe asked
the Minister of Foreign Affairs why the Oppenheimer land had not been
reallocated, he was told that “due to the Oppenheimer power in a wide range of
resources from oil to sugar to copper to wheat they could, by either flooding
or withholding from the market any or all of these goods, ‘alone whisper the
demise of our economy.’”
Again, no matter how valiant the people of Zimbabwe or our
people in any other part of Africa and the world resist imperialism; it is a
global system that can only be defeated by an internationalism that presupposes
a Pan-African vision the likes of Kwame Nkrumah and Ahmed Sekou Ture. We must revitalize the march toward the
United States of Africa that once flourished in the hearts and minds of many
politically conscientious Black people.
Zunes points out that, on visits to the US Obiang of EG has
been warmly received by Condoleeza Rice and George W. Bush but has Mugabe ever
had such a cozy relationship with imperialism?
When in history can one point to an occasion when Mugabe sat down with US
officials of the likes of these? But
it's common knowledge that the MDC-T does have such a relationship with the US
and UK, agents Zunes refers to as “pro-democracy activists”. What does all this that Zunes conspicuously
neglects say about the situation in Zimbabwe?
What does it say about his analysis of Zimbabwe? In his article Zunes constantly reduces US
actions to condemnations, which are mere verbal or written denunciations,
implying that a motivating factor is for Americans to "feel self-righteous". Frankly it seems like this article is to help
Zunes feel self-righteous while he aids the destabilization of Zimbabwe through
propaganda. That is, by supplementing it
with a condemnation of a real US backed dictator in Africa. Zunes even says the benevolent US should not
wait "until it first ends its support of Obiang and other African
dictatorships before joining the rest of the international community in
condemning repression in Zimbabwe".
This is clearly nothing but more White Man's Burden crap.
As this commentary goes public Zimbabwe’s President Robert
Mugabe will be in New York to address the 63rd Session of the United
Nations General Assembly, again meeting face to face with not only his most
powerful enemies but also the enemies of Africa and all people of African descent
in general. Yes, the government of the
United State of American and many of those in Europe serve a role within the
world order that makes them enemies of African and all oppressed people. Our only recourse is to create an “Africa
with the labor, technical and productive capacity to address all of the
material, cultural and spiritual needs of African People” and based on
“collectivists, humanist, egalitarian and socialist principles offer our labor,
technology, skills and resources to the world.” (Brochure #1, A-APRP, GC)
Let’s not go for the okey-doke. Given the lessons of history and some lessons
even implicit in Zunes' article, if Mugabe has really been bent on holding
power at all costs (a common accusation against him), wouldn't it be easier and
more effective for him to simply comply with imperialism's interests and then
get their assistance to quell any civil unrest that may result in the
process? That seems to work for Obiang
and other dictators. Why not in Zimbabwe?
Because the unscrupulous interests of the West, or should we
say beneficiaries of neo-colonialism in Zimbabwe have not disappeared, we
should expect maneuvers to derail and/or sabotage any positive outcomes of this
unity agreement. Maybe it will come in
the form of ideas that paint ZANU-PF and Mugabe as acting in bad faith and
breaching the agreement. In any event we
should not sleep on our enemies. This
historic agreement is special in the sense that it was brokered without
non-African interference, despite all attempts.
And is, in anti-imperialist fashion, an example of how Africa leaders
should address contentions on the continent.
Netfa Freeman is the Director of IPS’ Social Action& Leadership School for Activists and an activist in the internationalist and Pan-Africanist movements. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org. The positions herein do not reflect the positions of IPS.
A version of the article appeared on blackagendareport.com
To comment or to subscribe to or to advertise in New York's leading Global weekly investigative newspaper, or to send us news tips, please call (212) 481-7745 or send an e-mail to email@example.com
Also visit our sister publication Harlem Business News at www.harlembusinessnews.com and The Groove music magazine at www.thegroovemag.com
"Speaking Truth To Empower."