DR NOAM CHOMSKY, professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who is often hailed, by many, as the moral conscience of America on many global issues such as Palestine/Israel, inexplicably lost his moral compass when asked to comment on Zimbabwe during a recent interview with globalbreakingnews.com.
Dr Chomsky, the author of countless scholarly and political books and articles, spanning decades, refused to condemn the US economic sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe since 2001 that was responsible, according to a United Nations' official, for the spread of cholera in the country in 2008.
"Mugabe is a monster who has caused irreparable harm," Chomsky ranted, referring to Zimbabwe's President.
And, without offering any evidence, Chomsky charged that President Mugabe has committed major crimes against Africans.
Chomsky takes his cue from so-called non-government organisations such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the International Republican Institute (IRI) and TransAfrica.
These organisations dismiss the historical right of black people in Zimbabwe, in particular, and Africa in general, to reclaim the land that was stolen from their ancestors by white settlers. The IRI is an affiliated organisation of the NED, which has an annual budget of over US$30 million that is financed by the US Congress.
The board of directors of both the IRI and the NED comprises a virtual who's who of the American national security establishment, including Lawrence Eagleburger, former secretary of state in the George H.W. Bush administration, Brent Scrowcroft, retired US Air Force lieutenant-general, former Democratic congressman Richard Gephardt, and Republican senator Norm Coleman.
The NED boasts that it is the darling of America's mainstream conservative activists and thinkers.
According to its website, "endorsements of the NED have been offered by the leadership of such stalwart conservative organisations as the Heritage Foundation and Empower America, and favourable editorials have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times and National Review."
Although the NED pretends to be independent of the US government, it frequently consults with relevant policy makers about its work, "going well beyond the level of contact required by its authorising legislation", according to its website.
Carl Gershman, president of the NED, advised the US Senate to deploy assets to bribe and coerce officials of Zimbabwe's "electoral systems, national legislatures, judiciary, local governments, civil society and the Press", to destabilise, and ultimately overthrow, the government of Zimbabwe.
On Zimbabwe, Dr Chomsky and the so-called progressives in Europe and America are the leftwing of the rightwing shills of white settler interests.
What was disturbing about our exchange with Dr Chomsky was that he refused to acknowledge that the imposition of US sanctions in 2001 coincided with the Zimbabwean government's acceleration of its policy of "one man, one farm," which deprived white settlers of their huge land holdings.
What is also disturbing is that no "progressive" publication in America or Europe champions the rights of indigenous Zimbabweans to control the levers of economic power in their country. Matthew
Rothschild, editor of The Progressive magazine, refuses to publish any article, which asserts the right of black people in Zimbabwe to control their economic space.
It is a default position of so-called progressives - support the right to vote for black people but not the right for black people to own and control their economic resources.
When asked to comment on matters of African economic control, Dr Chomsky resorted to the same prevarications as Zimbabwe's rightwing detractors:
"Do you believe that the seizure of white settler land is a just policy to reverse over 100 years of economic terrorism against Africans?", Chomsky was asked. No response.
"Are you familiar with the workings of Zimbabwe's democratic institutions?", Chomsky was asked. No response.
"Do you agree that the sanctions against Zimbabwe should be rescinded immediately?," Chomsky was asked. His response: "Sanctions are wrong".
"Will you be as vocal in your opposition to those sanctions which are killing Zimbabwean children as you are of Israel's killing of Palestinian children?," Chomsky was asked. His response: "No, because the US role is much less significant and the situation is much more ambiguous."
Correction dear Professor! There is no ambiguity. The US' role is front and centre of the suffering of Zimbabwe's people. The Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, enacted by the US Congress in 2001, prevents the Zimbabwean government from accessing the loans and lines of credit it needs to purchase medical equipment and supplies for its hospitals, so that its citizens can receive effective treatment for cholera and other diseases.
The Act empowers the United States' secretary of the treasury to "instruct the US executive director to each international financial institution to oppose and vote against any extension, by the respective institution, of any loan, credit or guarantee to the government of Zimbabwe."
And, one of the most odious conditions of the Act is the demand that the rule of law be restored in Zimbabwe "including respect for ownership and title to property," before the sanctions are lifted.
The only people who are complaining in Zimbabwe today about the lack of "respect for ownership and title to property" are the white settlers whose land, which was stolen from indigenous
Zimbabweans has been returned to their rightful owners.
In other words, what the US government is really saying is: "Until the white settlers are given back their land, Zimbabwe's economy will continue to be attacked by the American government."
When questioned about those issues, Dr Chomsky resorted to intellectual puerility: "I am sorry that you don't understand that I have not been appointed your slave, and therefore choose my own priorities", was his childish retort.
For someone who is often called upon by the media to mediate between that huge body of knowledge lying out there, about various matters, and consumers of news, Chomsky's lack of integrity on the Zimbabwe land and sanctions issue is disappointing.
As a mediator between the news and those who consume it, Chomsky ought to know that he has a responsibility to be a purveyor of truth.
Instead, he has assumed the role of an imperial knave regurgitating innuendo, half-truths and outright lies.
You need to hit the books, Professor!
- I. K. Cush is the editor-in-chief of globalbreakingnews.com and the New York correspondent of the London-based New African magazine.
No comments:
Post a Comment