The one thing that i have discovered as a person and writer is my own individuality and some uniqueness.
I say some uniqueness because as i know there are so many people around who would share my thoughts and feelings.
Yet others would not necessarily do so, which i do accept, for the very same reasons i wish they understood, shared, and lived my sentiments and sentimentalities; my reason and reasonability.
In an age that is marked by steep polarisation in the Zimbabwean society, one hardly affords the luxury of being neutral, or non-partisan.
Professor Jonathan Moyo has called neutrals an "endangered species".
One could not agree more.
As a matter of fact, i consciously commented on a Facebook post by one Vio Mak, whose "friend" request i accepted on the very curiosity of our differing views, that her saying that she was "non partisan" was a sick and dishonest joke.
I am consciously partisan, and do not attempt to be otherwise, lest i be dishonest or sick to myself.
Being a holder of views that i admittedly have not been shared by many collegues, especially those of my own age, i celebrate such a status as something of a rarity.
Suffice to say, i regard myself as a member of a lost generation.
Being a columnist, i felt this keenly when i realised that my wonted style of pun and word play could have been used against me when someone called me by the name Eagle Eye, which happens to be the name of the column that i sometimes write.
Call it paranoia, but i think i heard the fella calling me Eag-lie, which in my view could have been insipired by a sentiment that what i write might not be informed by truth.
Of course, i have never deliberately lied in my writing, and i do not wish to anytime in the future .
I strongly have reservations, if not contempt, for anybody who might think that anything that does not tally with their common, if not unispiring views, is a lie.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
OF AMERICA'S N.E.D AND REGIME CHANGE
By Stephen Gowans/ What's Left
Vin Weber, a former chairman and current board member of the US National Endowment for Democracy, has written an article in The Washington Times defending the NED against calls to eliminate its funding.
The NED was established by the Reagan administration after the CIA’s role in covertly funding efforts to overthrow foreign governments was brought to light, leading to the discrediting of the parties, movements, journals, books, newspapers and individuals that received CIA funding. This undermined the efficacy of these agents as tools of US foreign policy.
As a bipartisan endowment, with participation from the two major parties, as well as the AFL-CIO and US Chamber of Commerce, the NED took over the financing of foreign overthrow movements, but overtly and under the rubric of “democracy promotion.”
As the NED’s president Carl Gershman explained,
“It would be terrible for democratic groups around the world to be seen as subsidized by the C.I.A. We saw that in the 60’s, and that’s why it has been discontinued. We have not had the capability of doing this, and that’s why the endowment was created.”
Thus, the NED was founded, as New York Times reporter John Broder explained in 1997, “to do in the open what the Central Intelligence Agency has done surreptitiously for decades.”
As part of the NED-program of regime change, governments the US foreign policy establishment targets for overthrow are demonized as anti-democratic while the recipients of NED largesse are angelized as pro-democratic.
What links targeted governments is not their electoral democratic practices – which can range from absent to present — but their economic policies, which tend to be restrictive of foreign investment, imports, and property rights. What links the recipients of NED grants is not their attitude to electoral democracy, but their embrace of US policy....
Jestina Mukoko
Meanwhile, the NED has celebrated Jestina Mukoko, a Zimbabwean who was arrested in December 2008 by Zimbabwe state security agents, who Mukuko claims tortured her.
Mukoko is variously connected in leadership roles with organizations funded by the NED and United State Agency for International Development (USAID.) She is, for example, “the executive director of the Zimbabwe Peace Project, a grantee of the” NED [10], as well as a member of the board of the Zimbabwe Election Support Network, an organization interlocked with a number of other Western-funded anti-Mugabe groups, and which receives its funding from the NED and USAID.
To understand why Mukoko was arrested, it helps to place her activities in the context of the Mugabe government’s efforts to carry through land reform, the West’s opposition to the expropriation of white settler farmland, and the efforts of the United States to enforce respect for private property rights through a campaign of regime change in which Mukoko plays a role.
The following points, therefore, are salient:
1. The United States is openly working to exclude Zimbabwe’s Zanu-PF party (which champions land reform and economic indigenization) from government, and to replace it with the Movement for Democratic Change (which advocates policies that would inevitably strengthen foreign domination of Zimbabwe’s land, labor and natural resources.)
2. The US-sponsored regime change campaign operates through the NED and USAID-financing of domestic activists, like Mukoko.
3. While the ostensible objective of NED and USAID-sponsored activities in Zimbabwe is the promotion of democracy and human rights, the real aim is the installation of a government committed to facilitating the pursuit of US and Western interests, including allowing the sale of agricultural land to foreign investors. That the United States and its foundations have the slightest concern for promoting democracy and human rights is belied by the US practices of detaining people without charge in secret prisons, the scandals of Abu Ghraib, Bagram and Guantanamo, the furnishing of aid and support to such notorious autocracies as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and the backing of the Israeli blockade of Gaza to punish Gazans for exercising their democratic rights in electing Hamas. The NED does, however, care deeply about the interests of US corporations, banks and investors which, after all, play the dominant role in shaping US policy and whose representatives staff the key positions of the US state.
In other words, Mukoko is deeply connected to a US state which is openly hostile to Zimbabwe and its land reform and economic indigenization programs, and seeks to oust the Zanu-PF element of the current government. Is it any wonder she has drawn the attention of the Zimbabwe’s security services?
This mercenary on behalf of US interests recently travelled to Washington where she was feted by US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and US First Lady Michelle Obama, an act not too much different from Petain traveling to Berlin to be showered with honors by Ribbentrop and Eva Braun. What would the US security state do to a US-based jihadist who took money from a foundation financed by the Iranian government to promote the rise of an Islamic Republic in the United States and who would later travel to Tehran to be personally presented with official honors by Mabouchehr Mottaki, the Iranian foreign minister?
At the ceremony honouring Mukoko’s services to the empire, Michelle Obama expressed shock that Mukoko “was interrogated (by Zimbabwe security agents) for hours while forced to kneel on gravel…”
This was precious, coming from the wife of a president whose country has spent the last decade kidnapping militants who oppose their southwest Asian countries being dominated by the United States and its corrupt puppet regimes and then subjecting them to stress positions, water-boarding and other “enhanced” interrogation techniques, when they’re not being shipped off to allied countries to face more unrestrained forms of torture, or are simply being assassinated. Belaboring the Eva Braun analogy, Obama’s shock was like Hitler’s partner complaining about the Soviets exchanging territory with Finland by force, long after the Nazis had gone on their rampage through Europe.
In his book Age of Empire, historian Eric Hobsbawm observed that,
“The age of democracy turned into an era of public political hypocrisy, or rather duplicity, where those who held power only said what they really meant in the obscurity of the corridors of power. Thus was born an enormous gap between public discourse and political reality”…a disparity all too evident in the NED’s public pronouncements.
Vin Weber, a former chairman and current board member of the US National Endowment for Democracy, has written an article in The Washington Times defending the NED against calls to eliminate its funding.
The NED was established by the Reagan administration after the CIA’s role in covertly funding efforts to overthrow foreign governments was brought to light, leading to the discrediting of the parties, movements, journals, books, newspapers and individuals that received CIA funding. This undermined the efficacy of these agents as tools of US foreign policy.
As a bipartisan endowment, with participation from the two major parties, as well as the AFL-CIO and US Chamber of Commerce, the NED took over the financing of foreign overthrow movements, but overtly and under the rubric of “democracy promotion.”
As the NED’s president Carl Gershman explained,
“It would be terrible for democratic groups around the world to be seen as subsidized by the C.I.A. We saw that in the 60’s, and that’s why it has been discontinued. We have not had the capability of doing this, and that’s why the endowment was created.”
Thus, the NED was founded, as New York Times reporter John Broder explained in 1997, “to do in the open what the Central Intelligence Agency has done surreptitiously for decades.”
As part of the NED-program of regime change, governments the US foreign policy establishment targets for overthrow are demonized as anti-democratic while the recipients of NED largesse are angelized as pro-democratic.
What links targeted governments is not their electoral democratic practices – which can range from absent to present — but their economic policies, which tend to be restrictive of foreign investment, imports, and property rights. What links the recipients of NED grants is not their attitude to electoral democracy, but their embrace of US policy....
Jestina Mukoko
Meanwhile, the NED has celebrated Jestina Mukoko, a Zimbabwean who was arrested in December 2008 by Zimbabwe state security agents, who Mukuko claims tortured her.
Mukoko is variously connected in leadership roles with organizations funded by the NED and United State Agency for International Development (USAID.) She is, for example, “the executive director of the Zimbabwe Peace Project, a grantee of the” NED [10], as well as a member of the board of the Zimbabwe Election Support Network, an organization interlocked with a number of other Western-funded anti-Mugabe groups, and which receives its funding from the NED and USAID.
To understand why Mukoko was arrested, it helps to place her activities in the context of the Mugabe government’s efforts to carry through land reform, the West’s opposition to the expropriation of white settler farmland, and the efforts of the United States to enforce respect for private property rights through a campaign of regime change in which Mukoko plays a role.
The following points, therefore, are salient:
1. The United States is openly working to exclude Zimbabwe’s Zanu-PF party (which champions land reform and economic indigenization) from government, and to replace it with the Movement for Democratic Change (which advocates policies that would inevitably strengthen foreign domination of Zimbabwe’s land, labor and natural resources.)
2. The US-sponsored regime change campaign operates through the NED and USAID-financing of domestic activists, like Mukoko.
3. While the ostensible objective of NED and USAID-sponsored activities in Zimbabwe is the promotion of democracy and human rights, the real aim is the installation of a government committed to facilitating the pursuit of US and Western interests, including allowing the sale of agricultural land to foreign investors. That the United States and its foundations have the slightest concern for promoting democracy and human rights is belied by the US practices of detaining people without charge in secret prisons, the scandals of Abu Ghraib, Bagram and Guantanamo, the furnishing of aid and support to such notorious autocracies as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and the backing of the Israeli blockade of Gaza to punish Gazans for exercising their democratic rights in electing Hamas. The NED does, however, care deeply about the interests of US corporations, banks and investors which, after all, play the dominant role in shaping US policy and whose representatives staff the key positions of the US state.
In other words, Mukoko is deeply connected to a US state which is openly hostile to Zimbabwe and its land reform and economic indigenization programs, and seeks to oust the Zanu-PF element of the current government. Is it any wonder she has drawn the attention of the Zimbabwe’s security services?
This mercenary on behalf of US interests recently travelled to Washington where she was feted by US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and US First Lady Michelle Obama, an act not too much different from Petain traveling to Berlin to be showered with honors by Ribbentrop and Eva Braun. What would the US security state do to a US-based jihadist who took money from a foundation financed by the Iranian government to promote the rise of an Islamic Republic in the United States and who would later travel to Tehran to be personally presented with official honors by Mabouchehr Mottaki, the Iranian foreign minister?
At the ceremony honouring Mukoko’s services to the empire, Michelle Obama expressed shock that Mukoko “was interrogated (by Zimbabwe security agents) for hours while forced to kneel on gravel…”
This was precious, coming from the wife of a president whose country has spent the last decade kidnapping militants who oppose their southwest Asian countries being dominated by the United States and its corrupt puppet regimes and then subjecting them to stress positions, water-boarding and other “enhanced” interrogation techniques, when they’re not being shipped off to allied countries to face more unrestrained forms of torture, or are simply being assassinated. Belaboring the Eva Braun analogy, Obama’s shock was like Hitler’s partner complaining about the Soviets exchanging territory with Finland by force, long after the Nazis had gone on their rampage through Europe.
In his book Age of Empire, historian Eric Hobsbawm observed that,
“The age of democracy turned into an era of public political hypocrisy, or rather duplicity, where those who held power only said what they really meant in the obscurity of the corridors of power. Thus was born an enormous gap between public discourse and political reality”…a disparity all too evident in the NED’s public pronouncements.
A STUDY IN HYPOCRISY
Perhaps the biggest story in the world this week has been that of heightening tensions, or so it appears, between Israel and the US.
One might say that it all began a couple of weeks ago when US Vice President Joe Biden visited Israel and authorities there, quite embarassingly so for the staunch pro-Israel Biden, announced expansion of settlement plans in Jerusalem. Although Israel tried to diffuse the situation, unconvincingly admitting that Jerusalem authorities had erred in giving that statement, the situation has not gotten any better.
Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu has been in Washington trying to deflect the criticism, but reportedly left an unhappy man after a 90-minute closed door meeting with Obama on Tuesday. It was of course the same Netanyahu who had earlier rebuffed Washington and anti-settlement sentiments saying bluntly before the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee that "Jerusalem is not a settlement. It's our capital".
Netanyahu was also in the news proclaiming that peace in the Middle East could not be imposed from outside.
Hilary Clinton warned Israel against any further Jewish settlements in Palestinian territory as it undermined prospects for Middle East peace negotiations. She also had what she hoped were strong words for Israel saying "As Israel’s friend, it is our responsibility to give credit when it is due and to tell the truth when it is needed."
The truth was that new construction in East Jerusalem or the West Bank undermined "mutual trust and endangers the proximity talks (between Israel and Palestine) that are the first step toward the full negotiations that both sides want and need."
Clinton also regretted that the settlements undermined "America's unique ability to play an essential role…in the peace process."
For those that have known the US and their Western relations for their "noble" intentions and their disinclination to spare the rod for erring nations of the world, the Clinton/Netanyahu subplot rather gives more than lessons enough in Western hypocrisy.
Forget for a moment that the US has protected the Apartheid State for over half a century since Israel was created on Palestinian soil and apparently won the right to become the regional bully.
The truth that is needed, which Clinton or any pretender of her kind was not saying is that in building settlements on occupied land Israel is behaving criminally, compounding its decades-old apartheid criminality.
Another home truth is the fact that America itself has no credible role, less so an essential one, as Clinton would have it, to play mediator between Israel and Palestine. It has been party to the criminal subjugation and bullying of not only the latter, but also the whole region especially countries like Lebanon, Syria and Iran. As a matter of fact, Clinton who has diabolically threatened to wipe Iran off the face of the earth, told Aipac that the US was working towards the imposition of sanctions that would bite, according to reports.
That does it: Clinton is not only a liar but also a hypocrite, and that grotesque evil is emblematic of Western unipolarism. l In a word, the Obama administration pseudo-anger at Netanyahu and his company of rightists is just a public relations makeover.
One could equate that to Britain’s so-called spat with Israel over the use of cloned British passports by Israeli intelligence to eliminate a Hamas leader in Dubai. In their view, there seems to be nothing wrong about the nefarious acts of building on occupied land or killing a Palestinian freedom fighter.
Only that in public light, which is critical for a modicum of decency, the two did not appear noble. Juxtapose Israel and Zimbabwe and the hypocrisy of America and her allies is quite evident.
While the US says it has the "responsibility for giving credit where it is due", which they think they have done in half a century of Israeli bullying and apartheid, the US and its allies have actually bullied Zimbabwe at a time when the rest of the world have supported it.
On the other hand, while the West continues with a punitive economic sanctions regime in Zimbabwe, saying that the GPA is yet to be fulfilled, it is a slap on the wrist for Israel when the latter undermines and endangers the peace initiative.
Just as it complements the oft criminal Israeli State by threatening to annihilate its opponents, the US supports overthrow politics in Zimbabwe and discourages its neighbours from helping it.
It is in light of this that the continued efforts of South Africa in particular and Africa at large, are critical in resolving the challenges Zimbabwe faces, which have largely been created and abetted by the West.
There is a compelling basis for this.
Just as Netanyahu would say the key to Middle East peace lies in the region and not from outside, African problems are best left to Africans.
The reason is simple: we share a lot in common to understand each other well. Some of these coefficients are our languages and culture and the struggle against Western imperialism.
Thus any Zimbabwean could understand the revolutionary Ayesaba amagwala (The cowards are afraid), and the "Shoot the Boer, shoot the killer…/Shoot the racist" lyrics chanted by young Malema. For whatever outcry, most of it unwarranted, this is statement enough that African people are averse to oppression, exploitation and racism. South African involvement in Zimbabwe stems from this background and it is up to Zimbabwe to complement this brotherly intervention and overcome problems at home and turn their attention to the outside enemy.
Here is hoping that, in the words of a particular politician this week, "the demon of darkness will not visit our negotiators" during the ongoing deliberations to find closure of GPA issues.
Zimbabwe has bigger issues to confront, and the dyspareunia in the threesome act called the inclusive Government is, though somewhat understandable, as unfortunate and better gone.
It is encouraging to note that our principals seem to share a lot in common by the day.
On Thursday it was PM Tsvangirai adding his voice to that of President Mugabe against the so-called "gay rights".
It had been the fear of course that his party could be used to smuggle this unpalatable issue of homosexuals/ngochani or istabane into the supreme law of the land.
Agreed, there is absolutely no reason why a man should dream of breathing in the ear of another man when there are a lot fairer beings around.
We also strongly note PM Tsvangirai’s stance on the illegal sanctions imposed on the country.
He told Norwegian State Secretary on Thursday: "The response from the international community is one which confirms the scepticism about Zimbabwe but its high time we move away from that scepticism by rewarding the progress made by the inclusive Government."
Well meaning but rather poorly said.
It appears PM has unfortunately internalised that the West, by which he meant by "international community", should police events in Zimbabwe and ‘‘reward’’ or punish our leaders.
The truth of the matter is that Zimbabwe does not need any paternalistic intervention from the West much less illegal sanctions designed to scuttle indigenous ownership of resources.
Western paternalism, which borders on racism, is the root of the ills that Africa currently faces and the sooner Africans, including PM Tsvangirai, learn to condemn it the better.
Meanwhile, we hear that PM has summoned Minister Chombo over MDC-T’s rogue councillors in Chitungwiza.
Interesting, is it not?
How could the premier for his avowed love for the rule of law want to subvert the same by bringing his party issues to Government?
Looks like we are missing something, but we surely did not see any inquiries before the "corrupt" officers were dismissed en masse last month?
Yet the newfound usefulness of Chombo by the premier does not seem to be informed by the best of intentions.
One can imagine the cries of blue murder if Chombo had taken the initiative.
There is no doubt about the hope that has been raised by the coming to life of ZMC.
We even notice that in anticipation of the return of the belligerent Daily News, Nyarota’s Zimbabwe Times Internet outfit has been re-christened "The Daily News."
And we had a feel of what freedom of speech is like in those who in the name of plurality and freedom of speech support the likes of Daily News.
Said someone in response to a story on the site: ‘‘My advice to you is, DON’T post anything to this site on Zimbabwe UNLESS you see things from MDC-T’s perspective, lest you be eaten alive.
Any analysis of Zimbabwean politics on this site MUST be concluded with praise for the MDC-T, AND bashing of ZANU-PF and Robert Mugabe if one is not going to be subjected to verbal abuse, like you’ve just received for this post…"
We were not surprised the British Parliament's so-called Africa All-party Group said in its latest report, "Land in Zimbabwe: Past Mistakes, Future Prospects", claimed that Britain never made nor betrayed any promises on land reform made at Lancaster House.
The group says "The narrative that Britain ‘betrayed’ its promises at Lancaster House plays not only an active role, but an actively destructive role in the present politics of Zimbabwe" We are told the group consulted widely and "some of the most interesting evidence of all" came from Zanu-PF and the Zimbabwean embassy in London to the effect that there was no deal that the UK would provide funds to pay for land reform.
"It is true that both Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo sought commitments on land reform...but the UK had to broker a deal between Ian Smith and his regime’s military on the one hand and the liberation movements on the other hand, and there was no agreement on land," the "researchers" said in the report presented in Parliament by Hugh Bayley, Labour (Please Note) MP for City of York.
We are told that the All-Party Parliamentary Group had chosen to investigate this subject because the violence from farm invasions has destroyed the livelihoods of 200 000 farm workers and halved the commercial agricultural output of Zimbabwe, and because of concern that UK policy is misunderstood in Africa as the UK having reneged on its promise made during the Lancaster House talks.
The group concluded that Zimbabwe’s fast-track land reform is illegal and that Britain ‘‘therefore need to bring back legal stability and a proper legal process to land ownership in countries such as Zimbabwe, to enable investment for the future so that productive capacity can be restored."
Fine words, but underlain with dishonesty.
First and foremost, is the fact that Britain DID undertake to fund land reform in Zimbabwe, which they duly did until Claire Short’s letter renouncing that obligation, saying that for her part, her country was once a British colony.
Her New Labour Government, where Bayley hails from, distanced itself from the previous administration’s undertakings.
The Lancaster House talks only succeeded when Britain and USA promised explicitly to fund land reform in Zimbabwe — under the so-called willing buyer/willing seller — cognisant of the fact that land was the primary cause for war of liberation.
That is reflected in the offshoot constitution and the resultant bona fide actions of the governments, only to be reversed by Labour.
As a matter of fact, what APPG did was just another Claire Short hypocritically seasoned with lies about concerns for farm workers and productivity.
We are also not lost to the central characters in the attempt at rewriting of history, the Royal African Society.
We know specifically that this group has been instrumental in Britain’s imperialist designs in Zimbabwe, among other things holding consultations for the removal of President Mugabe and their part in the launch of the MDC in 1999 for that purpose.
first appeared in: The Herald
One might say that it all began a couple of weeks ago when US Vice President Joe Biden visited Israel and authorities there, quite embarassingly so for the staunch pro-Israel Biden, announced expansion of settlement plans in Jerusalem. Although Israel tried to diffuse the situation, unconvincingly admitting that Jerusalem authorities had erred in giving that statement, the situation has not gotten any better.
Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu has been in Washington trying to deflect the criticism, but reportedly left an unhappy man after a 90-minute closed door meeting with Obama on Tuesday. It was of course the same Netanyahu who had earlier rebuffed Washington and anti-settlement sentiments saying bluntly before the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee that "Jerusalem is not a settlement. It's our capital".
Netanyahu was also in the news proclaiming that peace in the Middle East could not be imposed from outside.
Hilary Clinton warned Israel against any further Jewish settlements in Palestinian territory as it undermined prospects for Middle East peace negotiations. She also had what she hoped were strong words for Israel saying "As Israel’s friend, it is our responsibility to give credit when it is due and to tell the truth when it is needed."
The truth was that new construction in East Jerusalem or the West Bank undermined "mutual trust and endangers the proximity talks (between Israel and Palestine) that are the first step toward the full negotiations that both sides want and need."
Clinton also regretted that the settlements undermined "America's unique ability to play an essential role…in the peace process."
For those that have known the US and their Western relations for their "noble" intentions and their disinclination to spare the rod for erring nations of the world, the Clinton/Netanyahu subplot rather gives more than lessons enough in Western hypocrisy.
Forget for a moment that the US has protected the Apartheid State for over half a century since Israel was created on Palestinian soil and apparently won the right to become the regional bully.
The truth that is needed, which Clinton or any pretender of her kind was not saying is that in building settlements on occupied land Israel is behaving criminally, compounding its decades-old apartheid criminality.
Another home truth is the fact that America itself has no credible role, less so an essential one, as Clinton would have it, to play mediator between Israel and Palestine. It has been party to the criminal subjugation and bullying of not only the latter, but also the whole region especially countries like Lebanon, Syria and Iran. As a matter of fact, Clinton who has diabolically threatened to wipe Iran off the face of the earth, told Aipac that the US was working towards the imposition of sanctions that would bite, according to reports.
That does it: Clinton is not only a liar but also a hypocrite, and that grotesque evil is emblematic of Western unipolarism. l In a word, the Obama administration pseudo-anger at Netanyahu and his company of rightists is just a public relations makeover.
One could equate that to Britain’s so-called spat with Israel over the use of cloned British passports by Israeli intelligence to eliminate a Hamas leader in Dubai. In their view, there seems to be nothing wrong about the nefarious acts of building on occupied land or killing a Palestinian freedom fighter.
Only that in public light, which is critical for a modicum of decency, the two did not appear noble. Juxtapose Israel and Zimbabwe and the hypocrisy of America and her allies is quite evident.
While the US says it has the "responsibility for giving credit where it is due", which they think they have done in half a century of Israeli bullying and apartheid, the US and its allies have actually bullied Zimbabwe at a time when the rest of the world have supported it.
On the other hand, while the West continues with a punitive economic sanctions regime in Zimbabwe, saying that the GPA is yet to be fulfilled, it is a slap on the wrist for Israel when the latter undermines and endangers the peace initiative.
Just as it complements the oft criminal Israeli State by threatening to annihilate its opponents, the US supports overthrow politics in Zimbabwe and discourages its neighbours from helping it.
It is in light of this that the continued efforts of South Africa in particular and Africa at large, are critical in resolving the challenges Zimbabwe faces, which have largely been created and abetted by the West.
There is a compelling basis for this.
Just as Netanyahu would say the key to Middle East peace lies in the region and not from outside, African problems are best left to Africans.
The reason is simple: we share a lot in common to understand each other well. Some of these coefficients are our languages and culture and the struggle against Western imperialism.
Thus any Zimbabwean could understand the revolutionary Ayesaba amagwala (The cowards are afraid), and the "Shoot the Boer, shoot the killer…/Shoot the racist" lyrics chanted by young Malema. For whatever outcry, most of it unwarranted, this is statement enough that African people are averse to oppression, exploitation and racism. South African involvement in Zimbabwe stems from this background and it is up to Zimbabwe to complement this brotherly intervention and overcome problems at home and turn their attention to the outside enemy.
Here is hoping that, in the words of a particular politician this week, "the demon of darkness will not visit our negotiators" during the ongoing deliberations to find closure of GPA issues.
Zimbabwe has bigger issues to confront, and the dyspareunia in the threesome act called the inclusive Government is, though somewhat understandable, as unfortunate and better gone.
It is encouraging to note that our principals seem to share a lot in common by the day.
On Thursday it was PM Tsvangirai adding his voice to that of President Mugabe against the so-called "gay rights".
It had been the fear of course that his party could be used to smuggle this unpalatable issue of homosexuals/ngochani or istabane into the supreme law of the land.
Agreed, there is absolutely no reason why a man should dream of breathing in the ear of another man when there are a lot fairer beings around.
We also strongly note PM Tsvangirai’s stance on the illegal sanctions imposed on the country.
He told Norwegian State Secretary on Thursday: "The response from the international community is one which confirms the scepticism about Zimbabwe but its high time we move away from that scepticism by rewarding the progress made by the inclusive Government."
Well meaning but rather poorly said.
It appears PM has unfortunately internalised that the West, by which he meant by "international community", should police events in Zimbabwe and ‘‘reward’’ or punish our leaders.
The truth of the matter is that Zimbabwe does not need any paternalistic intervention from the West much less illegal sanctions designed to scuttle indigenous ownership of resources.
Western paternalism, which borders on racism, is the root of the ills that Africa currently faces and the sooner Africans, including PM Tsvangirai, learn to condemn it the better.
Meanwhile, we hear that PM has summoned Minister Chombo over MDC-T’s rogue councillors in Chitungwiza.
Interesting, is it not?
How could the premier for his avowed love for the rule of law want to subvert the same by bringing his party issues to Government?
Looks like we are missing something, but we surely did not see any inquiries before the "corrupt" officers were dismissed en masse last month?
Yet the newfound usefulness of Chombo by the premier does not seem to be informed by the best of intentions.
One can imagine the cries of blue murder if Chombo had taken the initiative.
There is no doubt about the hope that has been raised by the coming to life of ZMC.
We even notice that in anticipation of the return of the belligerent Daily News, Nyarota’s Zimbabwe Times Internet outfit has been re-christened "The Daily News."
And we had a feel of what freedom of speech is like in those who in the name of plurality and freedom of speech support the likes of Daily News.
Said someone in response to a story on the site: ‘‘My advice to you is, DON’T post anything to this site on Zimbabwe UNLESS you see things from MDC-T’s perspective, lest you be eaten alive.
Any analysis of Zimbabwean politics on this site MUST be concluded with praise for the MDC-T, AND bashing of ZANU-PF and Robert Mugabe if one is not going to be subjected to verbal abuse, like you’ve just received for this post…"
We were not surprised the British Parliament's so-called Africa All-party Group said in its latest report, "Land in Zimbabwe: Past Mistakes, Future Prospects", claimed that Britain never made nor betrayed any promises on land reform made at Lancaster House.
The group says "The narrative that Britain ‘betrayed’ its promises at Lancaster House plays not only an active role, but an actively destructive role in the present politics of Zimbabwe" We are told the group consulted widely and "some of the most interesting evidence of all" came from Zanu-PF and the Zimbabwean embassy in London to the effect that there was no deal that the UK would provide funds to pay for land reform.
"It is true that both Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo sought commitments on land reform...but the UK had to broker a deal between Ian Smith and his regime’s military on the one hand and the liberation movements on the other hand, and there was no agreement on land," the "researchers" said in the report presented in Parliament by Hugh Bayley, Labour (Please Note) MP for City of York.
We are told that the All-Party Parliamentary Group had chosen to investigate this subject because the violence from farm invasions has destroyed the livelihoods of 200 000 farm workers and halved the commercial agricultural output of Zimbabwe, and because of concern that UK policy is misunderstood in Africa as the UK having reneged on its promise made during the Lancaster House talks.
The group concluded that Zimbabwe’s fast-track land reform is illegal and that Britain ‘‘therefore need to bring back legal stability and a proper legal process to land ownership in countries such as Zimbabwe, to enable investment for the future so that productive capacity can be restored."
Fine words, but underlain with dishonesty.
First and foremost, is the fact that Britain DID undertake to fund land reform in Zimbabwe, which they duly did until Claire Short’s letter renouncing that obligation, saying that for her part, her country was once a British colony.
Her New Labour Government, where Bayley hails from, distanced itself from the previous administration’s undertakings.
The Lancaster House talks only succeeded when Britain and USA promised explicitly to fund land reform in Zimbabwe — under the so-called willing buyer/willing seller — cognisant of the fact that land was the primary cause for war of liberation.
That is reflected in the offshoot constitution and the resultant bona fide actions of the governments, only to be reversed by Labour.
As a matter of fact, what APPG did was just another Claire Short hypocritically seasoned with lies about concerns for farm workers and productivity.
We are also not lost to the central characters in the attempt at rewriting of history, the Royal African Society.
We know specifically that this group has been instrumental in Britain’s imperialist designs in Zimbabwe, among other things holding consultations for the removal of President Mugabe and their part in the launch of the MDC in 1999 for that purpose.
first appeared in: The Herald
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)