Who, for example, would believe Ray’s statement that US “does not favour any one party over another in Zimbabwe” and wants to see a level playing field in the party politics of Zimbabwe?
By Tichaona Zindoga
Against a backdrop of rasping actions lately, United States of America Ambassador to Zimbabwe Charles Ray made quite a sober presentation at a dialogue forum last Thursday.
He was making a presentation on “The Future of US-Zimbabwe Relations”.
The American diplomat recently ruffled feathers when he said that Zimbabwe needed to be rebuilt from the from the foundation not from the roof which was interpreted to mean that his country had a more hideous agenda above the current regime change it wants to institute through the MDC formations.
Ray has also been active interacting with youths and newspapers among other curious activities, which would, as pointed out by some observers, make anyone mistake him for an MDC activist.
Some have called him the de facto MDC spokesman.
But at the diaogue forum Ray was more diplomatic, to the extent of calling for the opening of communication lines and building of bridges “of mutual confidence that we have allowed to fall into disrepair”.
In fact, Ray pointed out, he did not believe in the semantics of “re-engagement” as his country had full diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe.
But for the ideal relations between Washington and Harare there had to be certain conditions that the latter had to fulfil in this future that Ray said would be without “sanctions or restrictive measures”.
Zimbabwe’s parties, said Ray, should implement fully “the commitments that they themselves have made in the Global Political Agreement, as state institutions are delinked from partisan allegiances, and as credible elections are held and honoured, there will be no reason for the United States to retain our current sanctions policy in place.”
He declared: “I do not think that any of these objectives is terribly contentious.
“I would argue that those most likely to feel concerned when they hear some of these statements are those who recognise the illegitimacy of their positions of privilege or who recognise the abuses of authority in their own records.”
Not so many people would however fail to see beyond Ray’s seeming sincerity and practicality.
In fact, there is everything terribly contentious and indeed dangerous about US intervention in Zimbabwe.
Who, for example, would believe Ray’s statement that US “does not favour any one party over another in Zimbabwe” and want to see a level playing field in the party politics of Zimbabwe?
To this date of the inclusive Government the US government continues to have blatant allegiances to the MDC formations, especially MDC-T, and would cough when the party sneezes and have the idiosyncrasy of feeling along with the party when it is perceivably under attack from Zanu-PF.
Haven’t the world seen the almost similar statements that the US embassy in Harare and MDC-T issue on topical issues?
Take the statement made by Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai when he did not attend the Anti-sanctions petition campaign in March and went on to address a press conference at his house in Strathaven.
Ray went on to write a letter in an “independent” newspaper which bore striking resemblance to Tsvangirai’s statement, including complaining that Zanu-PF had abused the Government coat of arms on the anti-sanctions adverts that appeared in the Press.
Then there is a multiplicity of organisations in the civil society with whom MDC formations share mutual funding, all in the name of America’s democracy promotion.
Clearly, the US itself has failed to de-link its allegiances to the MDC formations in the inclusive Government to the extent of barring a Zanu-PF member Walter Mzembi from attending a meeting between a Zimbabwe delegation led by Tsvangirai and US President Barack Obama.
(It does not matter, does it, that the US has removed Mzembi from their sanctions hit list.)
When it comes to the big issues of elections, the US provides support to the MDC formations and their foot soldiers in the media and NGO industry to win the hearts of Zimbabweans.
This does not make it any neutral nor does it make the Zimbabwe field even.
Right now the same media, NGOs and the MDC formations are calling for institutional “reforms” that are designed to clear the institutions of perceived Zanu-PF interests and “hardliners”.
The crime of these institutions and individuals is that they are resisting re-colonisation of Zimbabwe as intended by America.
America, it will be recalled as someone put it, is in a better position than former coloniser Britain to carry the out same.
America now seeks to rebuild Zimbabwe from the foundation not the roof by removing President Robert Mugabe only.
The modus operandi includes US diplomats getting to the communities and grassroots to get a favourable face.
It even includes the use of black people like Ray himself.
The latter has been thoroughly discredited and Ray exposed as an Uncle Tom in the service of the empire.
The Zanu-PF that Ray believes “will, and should, continue to play an important part in Zimbabwe’s future” is certainly one bereft of “hardliners” who do not compromise on sovereignty.
Suffice to say a reformed Zanu-PF peopled with “reform-minded” members and leadership.
On elections it is no doubt that any elections that are won by Zanu-PF are in the eyes of US and the west are not free and fair, even in conditions and conduct that the West finds acceptable elsewhere.
Institutional “reform” will make sure Zanu-PF does not win.
This has little to do with the party being averse to reform but the fact that US always makes sure the field is tilted towards securing its interests.
It therefore insults to hear Ray making a pre-emptive judgement against those who might oppose its machinations and manoeuvres, believing that people would take US moves at face value.
As insulting is the patronising claims by America that she wants Zimbabwe as an equal partner when in fact it is known that when she has completed building the house from the foundation it will big-brother over us.
It is in its DNA.
That DNA has traces of racism that seeks to subjugate the black people of Zimbabwe that America did not want to see independent as America supported that rogue called Ian Smith who declared that blacks could never rule themselves in 1000 years.
That racism saw America imposing sanctions on Zimbabwe in 2002 and legislator Cynthia McKinney helpfully noted that disturbing aspect.
In a word, there is everything terribly contentious in US’ meddling in Zimbabwe’s affairs.
No comments:
Post a Comment