"...the new letter is a "T", not an "I" or a "U" for "inclusive" or "unity" Government. Obviously the divisive goals of the law make "unity" or "inclusivity" incongruous. The accent is on transition, but not to suggest the importance of elections, but rather the ephemerality of the present politics which clearly fall short of America’s foreign policy goals."
The Herald
(Column)
THE conquest and opening up of North America to British occupation in the 17th Century was achieved through the exertion of various players: individuals, orthodoxy missionaries, heretics, fortune-seekers, hardcore criminals, companies, etc, etc.
Always couched in the language of gushing divinity and wonderfully good intentions, this enterprise of subduing and despoiling local Indians was, quite naturally, a bloody affair whose justification lay in bringing "civilisation" and "good news" to the heathens. It was no irony to Albion that "good news" flew to natives as piercing projectiles of hot lead or cannon balls, indeed visited them as fire and brimstone from the maxim gun.
Colonial lore
Those to be civilised had to be killed first, Britain’s strange kindness which repeatedly comes through in colonial lore. In 1703, soon after the slaughter of Pequot Indians, a colonial soldier, prompted by a clergyman, wrote: "Sometimes the scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents." If you think this was some freak sentiment, listen to Massachusetts Bay Company. Founded in 1620 to herald corporatised British imperialism, the Bay Company was no less ingenious in explaining such needful genocidal deaths of natives. Blending so well with this abiding ethos of impunity and nonchalance in the face of genocidal mass murder of native Indians - by arms, by diseases or as in the case of Barbados, by rum — the company’s governor [CEO in those days ruled the main!], John Winthrop, upon hearing the "good" news that a smallpox epidemic [imported by the invading British] was wiping out local Indians, was not slow in detecting and reading Divine Will in the ensuing tragedy. He remarked: "They [local Indians] are all dead of the small pox so as the Lord cleareth our title to what we possess". Imperialism has always draped its mission in divinity and high purpose.
Come over and help us!
But Massachusetts Bay Company is richer in significance. Its history furnishes mankind with an exemplum of seminal grim humour. It set on its seal a device which showed an Indian with a scroll above his head with the inscription: "Come over and help us." This was a benighted native’s call and plea to the white man, all written in perfect English! So the company could not have been an invader or killer. Reluctantly and with the humility of the wielder of a burdensome mission, it had harkened to an emergency call from "a thing most brutish", a benighted race of heathens. No iota of self-aggrandisement, no hurtful contact. Only selfless, puritanical zeal and piety as befits God’s chosen race! How different is this from a man and woman who goes to America with a sanctions draft bill for formalisation into America’s punitive arsenal? Come over and help us!
Colonial sense and sensibility
For many, all this belongs to history, which is what would seem to make the above paragraph some kind of gratuitous self-indulgence, a dabbling in superfluous memories from a bygone era. Yet few know that imperialism works through forced erasure for the colonised. Its trends and thoughts appear to have been a one-time oddity, long gone by and severely antiquated and therefore discarded. That is a grave error for the colonised. The imperial tradition has an abiding hold on western mind, politics and practices. It is a living tissue that permeates current (mal)practices. This seminal juxtaposition of cruelty and kindness, greed and piety, death and redemption then, persists and exists now, albeit manifesting itself through various and vexing permutations. The western mind, specifically Anglo-American mind, remains steeped in colonial sense and sensibility. One citation suffices. Bring me any one lynching statement of Zimbabwe by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, or by State Department which is not prefaced by long statistics of what Britain/America has done to help heathen natives in Zimbabwean: by way of health, food, clean water, education and, hey, good governance, democracy and human rights, and I will be prepared to give you a decolonised Britain or America. Yesterday it was ignorance and heathenism. Today it is poverty and underdevelopment. The white man’s burden may be changing with time and circumstances, but it runs through and through to the current interface, uninterrupted from the days of Captain Cook.
And now ZTDERA
This issue is a long tale whose telling is sure to outlast many moons, many lives, many ears. I will narrow it down to Zimbabwe Transition to Democracy and Economic Recovery Act (ZTDERA) of 2010, the new law which presumptuous America - itself a British transplant – proposes for our country, Zimbabwe. Call it America’s sequel law under Democrats and their Obama.
How sweet America sips
This new law is packaged as an improved sequel to the notorious Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act (ZDERA) which America, then under the Republicans and their Bush, passed against Zimbabwe in 2001. So America has moved from Republican ZDERA to Democrats’ ZTDERA. The net gain is the mighty letter "T" which Obama’s Democrats, in their infinite wisdom, thought of adding to mark and reward the new situation we find ourselves in, by way of the Inclusive Government. Let’s test the Democrats’ "T" for sweetness.
And you, too, Brutus?
Here is a sample of the confusion which can easily visit an unsuspecting nation. The Southern Times, itself a joint venture publication between Governments of Zimbabwe and Namibia initially welcomed this so-called amendment to ZDERA, simply on the strength of some regime-change NGO which the editor may have read for direction. After a better wind, the editor "withdrew" his baffling editorial for a better one. But the damage had been done by a man who should know better. Then you have our Prime Minister who happened to have been in the US when the monstrous law was introduced and debated. He, too, welcomed it! Some very high-ranking MDC official and Cabinet Minister went as far as suggesting Cabinet must draft a supportive paper to the Fishmonger Group. My goodness, turning Zimbabwe’s Cabinet into a Committee of a strange association of equally strange imperial ambassadors? I hear the Fishmonger Group has since met and resolved that ZTDERA is indeed a good legal proposition which must be supported. Did this minister have anything to do with this decision of those who enjoy fish while sitting on Zimbabwe’s carrion? Come over and help us!
Sweetener for MDC-T
Of course it is not difficult to see why the divided MDC-T would welcome this monstrosity. Divided MDC-T, if truth be said. I happen to know a number of MDC-T officials who have taken a progressive stance against this latest American outrage, and have made this known to their Zanu (PF) counterparts. And recognition is due to DPM Mutambara for making the first official Government reaction to this thing of the disgraceful Obama, misled by his State Department under a woman who thinks President Mugabe snubbed her once upon a time when she visited us as America’s First Lady; misled by right-wing congressmen, a good number of whom wear my colour. ZTDERA’s so-called "Findings" include a paragraph which reads saccharine to the Prime Minister and Finance Minister: "Under the direction of the new Prime Minister, Morgan Tsvangirai, and Minister of Finance, Tendai Biti, both from the MDC, the transitional government in Zimbabwe has initiated a series of critical economic reforms, putting a stop to some of the quasi-fiscal activities of the previous administration, resuming salary payments to civil servants, and directing limited budget resources towards critical social protection services and infrastructure repairs." Yes, there is sweet tea in that paragraph of remarkable inaccuracies, innuendos and downright lies.
Playing divisive game in MDC-T
If Tsvangirai is "the new Prime Minister", who is the old one? And what is it which makes his premiership "new" but without making Biti’s ministerial appointment equally "new"? Surely they were appointed at the same time? Let us grant it that America will not recognise Mugabe or the Cabinet of Zimbabwe for making "new" policies. Why mention Tsvangirai and Biti in seeming apposition? Surely it would have sufficed to put everything under the "new Prime Minister" to whom America would want to see charge transfer unconditionally. Why upgrade his underling? Why mention in equal measure persons who have a hierachical relationship? A-haa, therein lies America’s poison. America envisages two competing leadership trajectories in the MDC-T, through the persons of Tsvangirai and Biti. It is remarkably revealing that the two get separate and competing reference at this time of seething rumours about their relationship, and that America has decided to enshrine this split leadership in her daft, sorry draft, law. It will be interesting to see whether name-mentioning in a bill is with precedent in the world history of law-making.
And now the real lies ...
But in which Zimbabwe does the Prime Minister and Finance Minister direct policy? And which policies have the two initiated? Why spring a lie for honest Biti? Spend a minute with him and Tendai will be quick to tell you that at the start of the Inclusive Government he did no more to the budget than what Chinamasa, as acting Finance Minister just before the Inclusive Government, presented to the nation. It was Chinamasa, not Biti, who introduced a basket of currencies as trading units at home. It was Chinamasa, not Biti, who dollarised earnings of civil servants. And much more. Further, honest Biti will tell you he found STERP already in place before his appointment, with his modest input being on governance issues to make the stabilisation plan speak to the times, as well as improve its appeal to governance-obsessed donors. So what is America talking about? And which salaries for civil servants? Empires do lie.
Barack Bush?
Read by illegitimacy, content and intention, there is no real difference between ZDERA and ZTDERA. That means no real policy shift between Republicans and Democrats, between George Bush and Barack Obama, indeed between America then and America now. A "T" is just a letter in the sanctions alphabet and let no one pontificate. Strange minds are inclined to tell us that 4(3) under "Statement of Policy" marks a departure. It allows "the promotion of trade by United States companies with Zimbabwe to stimulate the country’s economic growth and support the livelihoods of its people."
It’s very tempting to read it as a departure from previous orders prohibiting American companies from doing business with Zimbabwe. I hope you have not, gentle reader, missed the language of divinity and high purpose in that clause. What has Zimbabwe’s economic growth to do with the return of US companies? What has livelihoods of Zimbabwean people to do with US companies? Why did they leave in the first place if their anchor was the livelihoods and economic growth of Zimbabwe? Surely America has always told us its sanctions target Zanu (PF) people? And how does the collapse of Zimbabwean economy and livelihoods constitute "a continuing, extraordinary threat to US foreign policy"?
The fear of Chinese encroachment
The truth is that with the dragon (China) lurking on the continent and in Zimbabwe in particular, and against the background of the ensuing economic meltdown in that country, America has no choice but to modify its policy towards Zimbabwe, an ill-conceived policy which was beginning to pose a continuing, extraordinary threat to its interests in Zimbabwe and the sub-region. Besides, America had hoped for a short, sharp war with Zimbabwe whose Government was expected to collapse within a year of sanctions and subversion. It is remarkable that Zanu (PF) has been able to stretch America this far, including now under conditions of inclusivity. America cannot afford a longer conflict, which is why it is basically adjusting its costly and futile law to cut costs to itself, never for the high purpose of improving Zimbabwe’s economy and livelihoods.
Splitting the Zimbabwean person
Intentionally, ZTDERA seeks to divide Zimbabwe: by way of its people, by way of its parties, within its parties and by way of its Government. I have already referred to how this new law encourages divisive leadership big-headedness within the MDC-T, in line with America’s long-reached decision to take advantage of MDC-T’s leadership calendar to effect a change of guards at Harvest House. But much worse, through selective support to "reform-minded" ministries and departments, both the Zimbabwean Government and Zimbabwean person are split and partitioned. If America thinks Made is not reform-minded, while Chamisa is, the outcome of that beauty contest is that the Zimbabwean citizen is being told to seek ye the kingdom of ICT on an empty stomach! After all Christian America knows that man does not live on bread alone! Or if America thinks Mnangagwa is not good enough, while Coltart is, clearly the Zimbabwean citizen is supposed to echo the words attributed to an unnamed tribesman during the onslaught of colonisation, who was said to make the following plea to an invading colonial army: "Give me a Gospel for an assegai as the love of war has been taken out of my heart." Which economy ever grew from such partitioned, differential inputs? Clearly what is at issue here is not the Zimbabwean economy.
… and regime change
Thirdly, ZTDERA still upholds and pursues the regime change agenda. Significantly the new letter is a "T", not an "I" or a "U" for "inclusive" or "unity" Government. Obviously the divisive goals of the law make "unity" or "inclusivity" incongruous. The accent is on transition, but not to suggest the importance of elections, but rather the ephemerality of the present politics which clearly fall short of America’s foreign policy goals. Surely elections which must come as they have always done before, cannot be a marker of transition. If they were, then all democratic societies, America included, would have been perpetually transitional.
It is clear then that America is not agitating for just another election. It expects an election which changes the regime (read as bundle of rules structuring a society) of Zimbabwe as we have it, to ensure an outcome which coheres with American goals. This is why the law agitates for "security sector reforms" which America does not seem to know have become antiquated talk in the National Security Council.
Land, land, land, stupid
Lastly, ZTDERA is clear in its intention to reverse land reforms and re-introduce colonial property relations in the name of "private property rights." Surely at the global level, Zimbabwe’s natural resources are national private property which must not be violated by marauding states such as the United States of America? Why is international law permitting what it denounces under domestic law? The vehicle for rolling back land reforms is land audit and it does not need extra imagination to know what is good for America.
Still thy brother’s killer
So this is all that all those frenetic black Congressmen were trooping here for? Curiously, in the needless meetings which the President correctly ended up turning down, it was the African-African American who led the charge against an African Government. The irony is upheld when one realises the main sponsor of this latest outrage is still a black congressman. The irony gets particularly painful when one finds within our own ranks persons dangling a plaque eminently reading: "America, come and help us." Need we blame her for the lexicon of divinity and high purpose? Icho!
No comments:
Post a Comment