Rev Jackson sounds dangerously paternalistic or big-brotherly, which could well be acceptable to such people as PM Tsvangirai but not to nationalist politicians like President Mugabe.
On the substance of his view, it becomes clear that his efforts are not moralistic as his civil rights pedigree points to but he is in pursuit of business for his country.
Zimbabwe has no “national interest” in the expansion of the imperial America and it is hardly imaginable that Zimbabwe allows to be so used.
The Sunday Mail
By Tichaona Zindoga
PRESIDENT Mugabe recently met an American business delegation led by civil rights leader Reverend Jesse Jackson on the sidelines of a United Nations meeting in New York.
To an observer, the meeting was quite interesting because of the context in which it took place.
First, it came hard on the heels of a meeting between President Mugabe and Ambassador Charles Ray, America’s envoy to Zimbabwe, who requested the meeting and emphasised the need for commonality between Harare and Washington.
Business was the theme, with a meeting to explore and discuss investment opportunities in Zimbabwe slated for America soon.
Secondly, Rev Jackson had earlier met Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai in Chicago, the substance of which meeting is understood to have been similar to the one he held with President Mugabe.
Factor in the fact that the American envoys are “men of colour”, deployed to do the errands of white America with this black nation of Zimbabwe and, equally, black leaders.
Addressing a meeting in Chicago, PM Tsvangirai aptly called Jackson “my brother”.
The fourth context is that of Rev Jackson’s pedigree as a civil rights activist, which renders him an acceptable voice of reason both in his country and abroad.
But there is also something even more interesting in what Rev Jackson said after meeting President Mugabe.
He said in part that he was “interested in trying to work on ways to have more reconciliation in Zimbabwe which will create more opportunities for economic investment and growth”.
He also said: “So, our interest is to try to figure out a way to get the rival forces to see that there are some values that transcend politics.
“There is a national interest in opening up access to capital, industry, technology, medical equipment, housing, deal flow and those things we have in common.”
Rev Jackson also said he looked forward “to being a factor in helping to bring them (President Mugabe and PM Tsvangirai) closer together so that Zimbabwe’s interests and growth can take place”.
Against all this is the super background of an America that is losing out on business in Africa, Zimbabwe included, to its nemesis from the East, China.
The same America has imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe that other than constricting and/or restricting commerce with Zimbabwe at multi-national institutions, prevent individuals and companies from dealing with Zimbabwe.
America sanctions and fines those who breach this regime.
Additionally, it sniffs and hounds legitimate Zimbabwean business money through the Office for Foreign Assets Control.
But with the economic reality that has seen America managing only about half of China’s African bounty, America now wants to shift, and engage.
In particular, it is said that it now wants small and medium-scale business to lead in the gaining of ground.
Zimbabwe cries for and conduces to such investments.
Rev Jackson said the Americans were eyeing investment in health, construction, tourism and the media.
So Zimbabwe must, without questioning, accept these businessmen and women who have no connection to the American state, or have they?
It must be noted that what America is trying to do is wiggle out of its sanctions against Zimbabwe.
The leadership must be trusted to realise this.
It would do a lot of good had Rev Jackson been preaching against sanctions.
They not only punish, hurt and dehumanise the poor black folk of Zimbabwe but also America itself.
Does the Bible not have some very moralistic passage on those who set traps for others ending up falling into them or some such message?
Rev Jackson did not bring himself to comment on the issue of sanctions but chose to blabber about “Now is the time to engage and talk it out and not fight it out . . . find common ground”; etc.
Does the good reverend not consider sanctions an issue, or its very mention triggers uncomfortable situations?
If he is so dishonest, or is simply in denial, he does not have business dealing with the Zimbabwe issue.
And, by the way, since when has Rev Jackson become facilitator to the Zimbabwe dialogue?
He incredibly talks of reconciliation and bringing President Mugabe and PM Tsvangirai together.
Does this mean Sadc-appointed mediator South African President Jacob Zuma is out of his job?
Will Sadc, and the parties here, at least those that are reputed to be sensible in the GPA, accept the superimposition of the newest Uncle Tom on the scene?
Rev Jackson will, no doubt, learn that the generous amounts of melanin in his body, which about equal ours, will not be a passport to get his and, by extension, the empire’s way here.
America has not had much joy with its dark coloured agents here and these include the likes of James McGee, Jendayi Frazer (whose name it has been observed almost sounds Zimbabwean) and Condoleezza Rice.
Ambassador Ray and ultimately President Barack Obama are part of a not-so-short line of what some would call “house niggers”.
That Rev Jackson sides with the imperialist forces and plays a role similar to what the likes of Rev C. D. Helms played during colonialism, erodes his moral pretences.
In one of the quotations above, he tries to teach Zimbabwe’s principals that “there is a national interest in opening up access to capital, industry, technology, medical equipment, housing, deal flow . . .”
Without sounding paranoid, it has to be observed that as his main point, Rev Jackson blows his cover on this.
Before venturing into the implications of this statement, it has to be asked: since when have outsiders defined “national interest” of another country?
Rev Jackson represents a country that has imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe, which is an act of aggression.
Rev Jackson sounds dangerously paternalistic or big-brotherly, which could well be acceptable to such people as PM Tsvangirai but not to nationalist politicians like President Mugabe.
On the substance of his view, it becomes clear that his efforts are not moralistic as his civil rights pedigree points to but he is in pursuit of business for his country.
Zimbabwe has no “national interest” in the expansion of the imperial America and it is hardly imaginable that Zimbabwe allows to be so used.
Zimbabwe is in a process of promoting locals in industry as opposed to opening up to ravaging well-heeled foreign capital.
Although this policy provides for partnerships with foreigners, Western corporates have shown not to be partial to such an idea.
The idea of promoting the majority has never been entertained in the West and they have fought it in Zimbabwe and other countries in South America and elsewhere.
Rather, they are at least partial to comprador alliances that milk the poor countries.
Zimbabwe needs a genuine wealth-creating middle class that is home-grown and empowered.
Perhaps Rev Jackson could preach about that, too, if he were genuine about Zimbabwe’s “national interest”.
Only he is not.
Importantly, he must declare his interest as an Uncle Tom in the service of America.
After all, we are reliably informed that he sought to usurp the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission’s function when he declared Mr Tsvangirai the winner of Zimbabwe’s presidential election at his church in Chicago.
No comments:
Post a Comment