Once in a while you have a bunch of politicians who come out and comment that the inclusive Government is not functioning well, yet they have spent the last three years that government, meeting weekly in Cabinet and working together across the political divide, enjoying the niceties of incumbency.
The Zimbabwe Guardian
By Tendai Midzi
As 2012 creeped in, I could not help flash back to the past three years. The process of growth is an inevitable one and certain truths unfold as each day passes. For me it was sort of an epiphany.
I have had time to travel the length and breadth of Zimbabwe to see “the situation on the ground” as many would say.
There is a particular tragedy in our politics.
While the leadership has changed – an oft abused term – and started working together for better or worse in the inclusive Government, their followers have become more divided, the media outlets more unreasonable and the political commentators sound more ridiculous as they misfire on almost every issue.
The reason is that many of these outlets and commentators do not know what is taking place in the political offices. They do not know what I would call the “poisoned politics” of Zimbabwe.
Once in a while you have a bunch of politicians who come out and comment that the inclusive Government is not functioning well, yet they have spent the last three years that government, meeting weekly in Cabinet and working together across the political divide, enjoying the niceties of incumbency.
Anyone who endures something that is dysfunctional for three years, must be dysfunctional themselves.
They pay lip service and fool the people once in a while that “change is coming”, that elections will be held “next year”.
Change is inevitable. It happens daily. It cannot be a policy agenda. No one day is the same as the other, so this change mantra is outdated and outmoded.
This is a slow-burn process aimed at managing the chaos they (politicians) created in the first place.
They give people false hope that things will change “next year” and elections are coming. Its been “next year since 2008.
In the meantime, they get hefty perks and luxuries brought by their offices.
The ever-so-gullible public is told many never-ending stories, and they still believe them.
The Zanu-PF – MDC-T and MDC divide is now just an illusion. There’s one government led by President Mugabe with everyone else coming next in whatever power order.
There are politicians who make up that government and peddle many stories about divisions – divisions that exist only in the media and in commentators’ heads, not in the hotels, restaurants and beer-drinking places that politicians meet away from the glare of the public.
I refer to politicians from all political parties that make the inclusive Government.
One would ask what unelected Arthur Mutambara and his MDC-M are doing in office today. Nelson Chamisa frets about iPads and national security issues. The iPad is the most insecure gadget as it backs up on iTunes anyway and it is a tragedy that he does not know this – as minister of information technology.
The promised Zanu-PF indigenisation has become a mirage and a tool that is often dangled to either shut critics up about the direction the country is taking. It has become Zanu-PF’s major embarrassment now – not knowing whether to go forward with it, or abandon it.
I met one mining investor in Zimbabwe who told me that a “certain minister from Zanu-PF” had told him that “we have to proceed with indigenisation because we have legislated for it”. What a tragedy!
Meanwhile, prime minister Morgan Tsvangirai has been wielding his manhood at various young women in the country and not owning up, has become confused about which policies to support or not support within government and spends time managing personal problems.
No-one really understands what he does on a daily basis, or what the MDC-T stands for anymore, besides opposing government policies of which it is part of.
Finance Minister Biti pays legislators $2 million, but fails to bail out Air Zimbabwe. He now seems deflated and has lost his mojo and is not the fiery idealist we saw in 2000-8.
Unelected Welshman Ncube and his MDC-N no longer speak directly to the people, except for flash appearances by Priscilla Misihairabwi-Mushonga once in a while, refuting media stories.
The elusive and illusive Job Sikhala of the so-called MDC99 is in the media for the wrong reasons accused of immigration-related money-making scams.
Various politicians in Zanu-PF who are on Western sanctions are worried about their future and would rather maintain the status quo than make major changes that would move the country forward.
In the meantime, media organisations and political commentators still think they have the clue.
How can you have an answer for such chaos? Commentators and media organisations can only have an answer if they are being paid to push a particular line of thinking, otherwise who would maintain sanity in this political chaos?
The only people who are making Zimbabwe function are those hard-working people who have created the informal economy that keeps that country afloat.
The government has failed to create an enabling environment for anything sensible to function.
The politicians on each political divide know what the score is. Politics is business in Zimbabwe. It is a money-making scheme and politicians worry about which next scheme they can pull using their power and which car they can buy this year.
Those who defend them stand to lose ultimately, like the thousands who died in vain during the 2008 elections defending various politicians’ beliefs.
This is the tragedy of Zimbabwe and politics has become the opium of the masses.
The country needs a “complete overhaul”, a complete change of leadership, if it is to survive in the 21st century, otherwise it will just remain as that country that had a lot of potential and learned people, that all came to naught at the end.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Zimbabwe's anti-violence crusade
The MDC-T seems afraid of having President Mugabe and PM Tsvangirai under one roof because it impales the myth of President Mugabe being a perpetrator of violence, principally against PM Tsvangirai.
The likes of Mwonzora would rather President Mugabe and PM Tsvangirai drink tea privately, out of the view of the majority, so that propaganda around them holds and washes.
By Tichaona Zindoga
A few years ago, it was hard to imagine President Mugabe and MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai under one roof.
On the one hand was a revolutionary par excellence who fought colonialism for the benefit of the majority black people of Zimbabwe while on the other was a man perceived to be on a mission to reverse the gains of the liberation struggle.
Yet despite these differences, or because of them, the two protagonists came together to form what is now known as the inclusive Government which also includes the other MDC faction.
The inclusive Government has given rise to interaction and tea-drinking moments among the principals, which many a wannabe national leader would die for.
This state of affairs has been a huge paradox: while the leaders drink tea and perhaps discuss their personal matters, their supporters have not found such a common ground.
There have been numerous incidents of inter-party violence countrywide, although the incidents have not been as bad as sometimes portrayed by some parties and the media.
It is said some sections within political parties have been supportive, funding even, violent elements and activities.
This is despite principals’ call for an end to violence.
For the specific reason of inculcating within top party officials the spirit of shunning violence, the parties last November convened an anti-violence indaba.
The historic indaba brought the three parties’ national executives (MDCs) and Zanu-PF’s central committee.
President Mugabe, Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and MDC leader Professor Welshman Ncube addressed the indaba.
For some reason, one could conclude that this was but an extended version of principals drinking tea in their official moments.
This is because no plebian of the village and ghetto were present.
That the parties have decided to broaden the table to include the grassroots is something as commendable and marvelous – if it comes to pass.
It has been confirmed that the three parties will hold joint rallies and educate citizens on the need to tolerate each other.
The fantastic idea here is to see people of different persuasions agreeing to disagree and disagreeing without being disagreeable.
This is very utopian.
Will we see this in the praxis of Zimbabwe’s polarized politics?
This is a brave new world.
It is a mature world: a world in which political parties sell ideas on whose strength they should access or retain office.
In turn, recipients thereof, for onward transmission have to bank on the ideas’ cogency to win converts to their side or strengthen existing belief in their cause.
President Mugabe said as much at the November indaba.
Did he not as well say something about turning swords into ploughshares reminding one of the great reconciliation at Independence?
In fact, he said, if he could let Rhodesian strongman Ian Smith, who was responsible for the deaths of about 50 000 blacks of this country, he surely could coexist with the Tsvangirais of this world.
What is now important is to see these meetings come to fruition.
It is on this one point that one gets worried, especially if you read the statements attributed to MDC-T spokesperson, Douglas Mwonzora.
Mwonzora was concerned about “what capacity the principals will be addressing the people”, “what order they will speak”, and “the message and how it is going to be communicated” during the rallies.
"However,” said Mwonzora, “the substance of the principals' proposed campaign must address the question of selective application of the law by law enforcement agents."
It is not unjustified for one to get the feeling that Mr Mwonzora and the MDC-T are already trying to throw the spanners into the envisaged joint rallies by trying to set the agenda of the meetings.
The history of the parties has shown that negotiations among parties over a minor thing like the agenda can take long, sometimes unduly.
If the parties and principals did it in November, what will be the difference?
Do the statements by Mr Mwonzora not qualify for the genus of positions held by the so-called hardliners?
If the conditions set by Mwonzora are not met it follows that the meetings will not take place or MDC-T will boycott the meetings.
MDC-T is not new to boycotts.
One gets the feeling that the party is not really interested in the anti-violence interactions.
MDC-T is in the habit of playing victim of political violence.
Logically, a party that wants to see a poisoned atmosphere bettered would jump at the very opportunity to help the situation.
This is perhaps less to do with showing the victim status than to show genuine commitment to ending the acrimony.
If the super victim develops cold feet at the moment of reckoning, it raises more questions than answers.
Granted, the joint rallies are not going to be mass trials but a platform for building mutual respect so that senseless violence will not occur in the future.
A party that ostensibly abhors violence as to make it a precondition for a “free and fair” poll should naturally be unequivocal about the prospect of anti-violence rallies.
There are observations that flow from Mwonzora’s arguments.
First, the MDC-T seems afraid of having President Mugabe and PM Tsvangirai under one roof because it impales the myth of President Mugabe being a perpetrator of violence, principally against PM Tsvangirai.
The likes of Mwonzora would rather President Mugabe and PM Tsvangirai drink tea privately, out of the view of the majority, so that propaganda around them holds and washes.
Secondly, it can be deciphered from Mwonzora’s conditions that he wants his boss to speak last and and carry the word of the day.
Thirdly, and connected with the second, Mwonzora seems to want the messages delivered his party’s way – the accusatory way.
All this indicates that the MDC-T is likely to approach the matter with an open mouth and shut mind, a well-worn accusation against the party.
The party will try to seek political mileage out of a matter of national interest, that is, which transcends party lines.
We saw it November, as Tsvangirai took it to the podium on his blame horse, only for a mature President Mugabe to pour water on the needless high temperature.
After all is said and done, it is to be hoped that interactions will continue and spread to live television and let leaders argue over policy and what future they want for Zimbabwe.
The voters will be so informed.
The likes of Mwonzora would rather President Mugabe and PM Tsvangirai drink tea privately, out of the view of the majority, so that propaganda around them holds and washes.
By Tichaona Zindoga
A few years ago, it was hard to imagine President Mugabe and MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai under one roof.
On the one hand was a revolutionary par excellence who fought colonialism for the benefit of the majority black people of Zimbabwe while on the other was a man perceived to be on a mission to reverse the gains of the liberation struggle.
Yet despite these differences, or because of them, the two protagonists came together to form what is now known as the inclusive Government which also includes the other MDC faction.
The inclusive Government has given rise to interaction and tea-drinking moments among the principals, which many a wannabe national leader would die for.
This state of affairs has been a huge paradox: while the leaders drink tea and perhaps discuss their personal matters, their supporters have not found such a common ground.
There have been numerous incidents of inter-party violence countrywide, although the incidents have not been as bad as sometimes portrayed by some parties and the media.
It is said some sections within political parties have been supportive, funding even, violent elements and activities.
This is despite principals’ call for an end to violence.
For the specific reason of inculcating within top party officials the spirit of shunning violence, the parties last November convened an anti-violence indaba.
The historic indaba brought the three parties’ national executives (MDCs) and Zanu-PF’s central committee.
President Mugabe, Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and MDC leader Professor Welshman Ncube addressed the indaba.
For some reason, one could conclude that this was but an extended version of principals drinking tea in their official moments.
This is because no plebian of the village and ghetto were present.
That the parties have decided to broaden the table to include the grassroots is something as commendable and marvelous – if it comes to pass.
It has been confirmed that the three parties will hold joint rallies and educate citizens on the need to tolerate each other.
The fantastic idea here is to see people of different persuasions agreeing to disagree and disagreeing without being disagreeable.
This is very utopian.
Will we see this in the praxis of Zimbabwe’s polarized politics?
This is a brave new world.
It is a mature world: a world in which political parties sell ideas on whose strength they should access or retain office.
In turn, recipients thereof, for onward transmission have to bank on the ideas’ cogency to win converts to their side or strengthen existing belief in their cause.
President Mugabe said as much at the November indaba.
Did he not as well say something about turning swords into ploughshares reminding one of the great reconciliation at Independence?
In fact, he said, if he could let Rhodesian strongman Ian Smith, who was responsible for the deaths of about 50 000 blacks of this country, he surely could coexist with the Tsvangirais of this world.
What is now important is to see these meetings come to fruition.
It is on this one point that one gets worried, especially if you read the statements attributed to MDC-T spokesperson, Douglas Mwonzora.
Mwonzora was concerned about “what capacity the principals will be addressing the people”, “what order they will speak”, and “the message and how it is going to be communicated” during the rallies.
"However,” said Mwonzora, “the substance of the principals' proposed campaign must address the question of selective application of the law by law enforcement agents."
It is not unjustified for one to get the feeling that Mr Mwonzora and the MDC-T are already trying to throw the spanners into the envisaged joint rallies by trying to set the agenda of the meetings.
The history of the parties has shown that negotiations among parties over a minor thing like the agenda can take long, sometimes unduly.
If the parties and principals did it in November, what will be the difference?
Do the statements by Mr Mwonzora not qualify for the genus of positions held by the so-called hardliners?
If the conditions set by Mwonzora are not met it follows that the meetings will not take place or MDC-T will boycott the meetings.
MDC-T is not new to boycotts.
One gets the feeling that the party is not really interested in the anti-violence interactions.
MDC-T is in the habit of playing victim of political violence.
Logically, a party that wants to see a poisoned atmosphere bettered would jump at the very opportunity to help the situation.
This is perhaps less to do with showing the victim status than to show genuine commitment to ending the acrimony.
If the super victim develops cold feet at the moment of reckoning, it raises more questions than answers.
Granted, the joint rallies are not going to be mass trials but a platform for building mutual respect so that senseless violence will not occur in the future.
A party that ostensibly abhors violence as to make it a precondition for a “free and fair” poll should naturally be unequivocal about the prospect of anti-violence rallies.
There are observations that flow from Mwonzora’s arguments.
First, the MDC-T seems afraid of having President Mugabe and PM Tsvangirai under one roof because it impales the myth of President Mugabe being a perpetrator of violence, principally against PM Tsvangirai.
The likes of Mwonzora would rather President Mugabe and PM Tsvangirai drink tea privately, out of the view of the majority, so that propaganda around them holds and washes.
Secondly, it can be deciphered from Mwonzora’s conditions that he wants his boss to speak last and and carry the word of the day.
Thirdly, and connected with the second, Mwonzora seems to want the messages delivered his party’s way – the accusatory way.
All this indicates that the MDC-T is likely to approach the matter with an open mouth and shut mind, a well-worn accusation against the party.
The party will try to seek political mileage out of a matter of national interest, that is, which transcends party lines.
We saw it November, as Tsvangirai took it to the podium on his blame horse, only for a mature President Mugabe to pour water on the needless high temperature.
After all is said and done, it is to be hoped that interactions will continue and spread to live television and let leaders argue over policy and what future they want for Zimbabwe.
The voters will be so informed.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Zimbabwe: Beware of the Google types
Now, we have this Charles Ray busy cultivating a false consciousness within our youth, a consciousness that repudiates preceding generations in the name of a better-to-build-young-people false credo. A false consciousness that attaches heroism to a foreigner who has killed kindred spirits, who seems white and American in spite of himself, a privileged exception to an oppressed clan, to an oppressed colour, an exception to an oppressed and repudiated history, a black man conscripted to fight abroad America’s wars of aggression against Third World peoples.
Our youth call that type a hero? Our youth are instigated to repudiate their forebears by such?
Our youth call that type a hero? Our youth are instigated to repudiate their forebears by such?
The Herald
By Nathaniel Manheru
Picture this: Charles Ray Honoured by Zimbabwe Organisation for Youth in Politics (ZOYP), a “human rights” organisation working with youth at the grassroots. The award, 2011 Diplomatic Human Rights Defender, was given to the American ambassador for, in the words of ZOYP’s national coordinator, one Nkosilathi Moyo, “critical helping hand that Ambassador Ray gave” ZOYP, for which ZOYP notes “with bounteous gratitude”. What that help was, we are not told. And Moyo goes further, rather rhapsodically: “Here is a man (Ambassador Ray) who on countless occasions removed his ambassadorial resplendence to the level of the ordinary man in the streets all in the name of meeting the Zimbabwean youths at their point of need.”
Not to be outdone, a ZOYP board member, one Patson Dzamara intoned: “It is better to build young people than to repair old men.” By the way, the youthful duo went to the US Embassy to present this mighty award to the Ambassador. They came all the way from KweKwe.
Bawling heroism
Of course the good Ambassador requited the felicitations: “Receiving an award is always a special occasion, but this is made even more special by the true admiration and respect I have for this particular group, ZOYP”. And in a dash of mock-modesty: “The award carries the word “hero”.
But, I am not a hero. The heroes in a struggle for democracy, human rights, equity, or any attempt to remind government of who it serves, are the people and organisations on the ground. The real heroes today are the leaders at ZOYP and other organisations in Zimbabwe and throughout the world, those who work tirelessly to create a space for young voices. The work you are doing is truly heroic and I am pleased to stand with you today.
Stay put, dear youth!
Ambassador Ray urged the youth to press on in their cause: “As leaders, you know the importance of getting involved. Yet, even more important than this, is staying involved. The causes you have taken up will not be accomplished easily or overnight. This is not a sprint, but a marathon, and victory goes to those who continue to run no matter the obstacles or challenges.
My encouragement to you now is this: be ready to hold fast and stay involved. Obstacles will come, challenges are a guarantee. But if you, as young people, persist in making yourselves heard in a voice that is strong and united, if you remain firm in your commitment to living lives of excellence and value, you will persevere.”
From the heart of the land
For the benefit of those who might not have some background on ZOYP, this is a Kwekwe-based youth organisation created by the American Embassy here through MDC-T structures. It is funded by the American Embassy, and has been used by the American Ambassador to test out the responsiveness of Zimbabwean youth to IT-based tools of mobilisation for social action, akin to what happened in North Africa.
This operation began in May and has been on and off, its most dramatic failure being in Kwekwe where the American Ambassador sought to use this group to try out this same experiment outside of Harare. The intended town hall meeting collapsed after Zanu-PF youths who saw through this mobilisation ruse, disrupted it. Nkosilathi Moyo hit the press headlines, rueful, mournfully.
British Ambassador, Father Nigel and licences
I am sure a picture is beginning to emerge. A little more detail. Western commissioned studies have noted that demographically, the youth are the epicentre of the vote for 2012. Apart from tipping provinces which are already earmarked, the other plank is an all-out drive to get the youth registered, indeed to mobilise them initially to vote for MDC-T and, where this fails to secure victory for the MDC, to mobilise them for action.
The American Ambassador, alongside other western ambassadors, are behind this project which is beginning to be paralysed both by a combination of youth indifference and by more aggressive mobilisation of the youth by Zanu- PF. The going has been quite tough, which is why the American Ambassador is urging perseverance.
The whole project badly needs mutual encouragement, which is why this award is important. What is worse, it is beginning to levy huge outlays on the West’s broken economies. But the stakes are high. That is not my story.
I am sure those responsible for handling such foreign-inspired mischief are hard at work, including checkmating Britain’s “excellent” lady here who has been working through Father Nigel Johnson to rig the next round of radio licences. She promises all applicants full financial cover, including start-up capital for such stations. We shall see.
Sex smitten candidate is all we got
My real objective is to reveal the absurd side of American structures here, and how desperate they become once wrong-footed, and thrust into overdrive prematurely. Obviously the Americans are not too sure when elections are coming.
They are working in remarkable panic, more so when they see their protege here fumbling, dramatically tripping on inane, amorous matters in the season of critical choices. Far from seeing a presidential candidate, they find forlorn character, sex-battered.
Theatre of the absurd
Does it not get a bit absurd when a whole American ambassador asks for an award from an organisation which he himself set up, which his own Government funds to achieve the very same objectives for which he was deployed, namely to cause regime change here?
And to have all that gigantic diplomatic award exertion covered by a paper which his Government again set up, which his mission funds to carry his messages, including this speech?
And Ray and his politically henpecked youth parley for heroic greatness, each calling the other “the real hero”? It gets a bit incestuous, does it not?
Much worse, these little politically empty vessels had called Charles Ray their “hero”? My goodness? I suppose Ambassador Ray liberated the Vietnamese? Is here to liberate Zimbabweans? And you cannot miss the quality of that liberation by the consciousness coming through these two youths.
One superlatively thanks Ray for “the critical helping hand”. Hand helping the youth in which critical direction? Or has America widened its hand-holding beyond the MDC-T leader, to include MDC-T youths? Cry the beloved generation then! The other sees in Ray a figure who “builds young people” rather than “repair old men”. Goodness me!
What age is Ray? Why is it only in America that old men are young? Only from America that we get old Ambassadors with the gift of building young African people, while dismantling “old men”, presumably African ones? Whose old men are these who should not be repaired?
The lesson we cannot learn
Certainly not America’s white old men. Otherwise why would America bother to reissue Ronald Reagan after a double death: of the brain while still in office; of body well after office? Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter trudges on, undiminished in America’s estimate. Each year, America splashes new glory on him, adorns him with fresh plumes of resplendent glory. It is always like that for America, a country at peace with its history, and the personages who presided over that history.
That even-handed view of history extols even those men of staggering foibles and handicaps, all redeemed by the national role thrust upon them, however undeservedly. And America knows that after their foibles comes a great narrative, free of human errors, human frailties, human warts, for the sake of her undiminished greatness.
In its timeless narrative, America knows no low points in its national life. In its narrative, America knows no scoundrels, only men of high honour and higher calling. It fought no inglorious wars, invaded no country, assassinated no leaders, oppressed no blacks, stole no country, massacred no one, committed no genocides, pillaged no oil, infected no Guatemalans with STDs, created no germs, unleashed no imperialism. It is all glory, glory, glory and higher glory as America panegyrizes itself, its history and its leadership, indeed as America scales to dizzy heights, all against a mesmerised human crowd.
Repudiating ourselves
Now, we have this Charles Ray busy cultivating a false consciousness within our youth, a consciousness that repudiates preceding generations in the name of a better-to-build-young-people false credo. A false consciousness that attaches heroism to a foreigner who has killed kindred spirits, who seems white and American in spite of himself, a privileged exception to an oppressed clan, to an oppressed colour, an exception to an oppressed and repudiated history, a black man conscripted to fight abroad America’s wars of aggression against Third World peoples.
Our youth call that type a hero? Our youth are instigated to repudiate their forebears by such? And now that it happens that those “old men” who should not be repaired belong to the generation that created a free Zimbabwe, what now Sir Ray and your depraved youths?
This is a repudiation of history, of our origins, of one’s very being, all to transfer identity and reverence to America? Aaaah? You see it from that angle and you realise why this false award has such grave implications for all of us.
A heresy that stinks all the way to heaven
This is the kind of a-historicity which America preaches abroad, often using mouths that bear our colour. A repudiation of parentage, an overwriting of your history for an American one, indeed a joyous soiling of the heroes of your people, your struggles, your history, all for another sense of history, one so deeply Americanised.
You are incited against that history, sponsored to fight it, to organise against it, all in the name of democracy, human rights, equity. And all those values which are yours by heroic struggles, by huge sacrifices of your own people, you are made to believe you gratefully owe to America which invented them for lesser mankind, indeed you are made to believe you owe them to Ambassador Ray, even though he only came to this country a few days ago, long after Zimbabwe had become free, freed by black Zimbabweans now fashionably referred to as “old men” in disrepair.
How many died? How man perished before Que Que could become Kwekwe? Do these youths know that? And against whom were they fighting? Against white interests, American interests which saw continued white rule as the only guarantee to continued exploitation of chrome over which America repudiated sanctions against Rhodesia. How does a country with such a shameful history vis-a-vis our struggles here, ever produce a representative we can call a hero? For those filthy trinkets? I am disgusted.
Resplendence and sanctions
Lest I get overworked, I need to make a larger point. While these two youths were busy decorating Ray and his country, America was busy de-listing two strategic Zimbabwean companies from trade by adding them on its sanctions list. Ignorant America would never know Mbada, would never know Marange Resources, small companies located in some little, great country called Zimbabwe.
It is America’s mission here — headed by one Charles Ray — who tells America that there is Mbada, that there is Marange Resources, both trading in KPCS-certified diamonds which belong solely to some small but sovereign African country called Zimbabwe. It is America’s mission here — again headed by one Charles Ray — which tells the spiteful American government that unlike Chrome under white Rhodesia, those diamonds are benefiting an African government for an African people under some man called Robert Mugabe: old, black, African and consummately anti-imperialist.
It is Ray, in other words, who counsels the American Government to include our companies on their sanctions, all to disable Zimbabwe. Then you hear some strange youth, drunk by a dollar or two from the American ambassador, radiantly asserting that the same evil ambassador “removes his ambassadorial resplendence . . . to meet the Zimbabwean youths at their point of need”? My goodness. You reward a man who has robbed your country, you, of a prosperous future?
What even Newsday could not support
Not even Newsday, another American funded project here, could agree. Here is their editorial comment only yesterday: “The recent addition of Mbada Diamonds and Marange Resources to the United States sanctions list is the clearest indication yet that Zimbabwe’s erstwhile enemies in the West will do anything to make sure they suffocate the nation’s attempts to extricate itself from the effects of sanctions.
“The latest development, coming barely two months after the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS) approved the sale of the country’s gems, is an indication of the double standards that have become the hallmark of countries of the West.” As if to help it’s cousins (ZOYP) in American sponsorship, Newsday adds: “The government anticipates $600m in additional revenue from diamond sales in 2012, which is earmarked to go towards social services that benefit the masses directly. What will become of these programmes if the funds do not come through? Is this not punishing the ordinary people who have been hopeful that their basic needs will be met and their meager salaries improved?”
The editorial clearly questions US’ fatuous assertion to have “the interests of the ordinary people of Zimbabwe at heart as they claim”. Is it not instructive that even this American sponsored organ found American sanctions just too repugnant?
Indeed, could this be the beginning of an awareness that Zimbabwean citizens, corporate ones included, stand to get better rewards from a thriving and therefore advertising Mbada and economy, than from small rolls of newsprint, spasmodic salaries, little T&S from USAID, apart from the vast thought control from USAID and Charles Ray personally? If that is so, then the days of illegal sanctions are clearly numbered.
The day the Pharaohs rebelled
Whichever way, I take great heart from Egypt, the land of the African pyramids. Two days ago, the Supreme Council of the Military, Egypt’s usually pro-American ruling military junta, decided it has had enough of gross American interference, all done in the name of promoting human rights, democracy and all. One morning, the army was mobilized to freeze operations of 17 NGOs, principally National Democratic Institute (NDI), International Republican Institute (IRI) and Freedom House from America. The rest were little Egyptian pretexts Americans had created, pretexts like ZOYP, created and locally staffed and American funded to create an illusion of a national civic society movement through which to influence national politics towards the preservation of America's global interests. All those 17 NGOs were severely quartered, to great American diplomatic howl. But the stubborn generals are unmoved. However wrong they may be politically, on this one matter the generals are correct, and have opened a new chapter in Africa-US relations on the continent. When America's pernicious instruments of intrusion and influence get rejected even in her client states, what more elsewhere? An all those institutes of deadly intrusion have been at work here, playing cat and mouse with the authorities in Zimbabwe.
Buffeting Africa
What is the grand plan? Well, simply to fashion the world after American and western values. To make it quiescent to western interests and whims. To make the world safe for western and American interests and dominance. It is not any human right, any democracy, any equity which America seeks to give us willy nilly, through organizations like ZOYP. Rather, it is America's democracy. Human rights and equity the American way. And today Africa is a battle ground for competing models. America has her own definition, her own models. Europe has hers. Africa has to content with both, willy nilly.
Enter the Google generation
Here is Tony Blair only a few days back, reflecting on the fate of the lesser peoples from the lesser world. Remonstrating with the West for showing reticence in supporting what he termed "liberal and democratic elements" in the Middle East and North Africa, Blair depicted the lesser world as split between two contending forces: "One is what I would call liberal democratic elements, what I would call the sort of Google types who were initially out in Tahrir Square, the up and coming, aspiring kind of middle class people who want the same type of things we want, the freedoms we want. Then you have got this Islamist movement, in the Muslim Brotherhood, which is very well organized, and where frankly, it is not clear that they want the same things as us and it is not clear that the type of democracy they would create would be genuine democracy." And for him, the tragedy was that "the more religious and extreme elements are very well organized and the liberal and democratic types basically aren't". He then called on the West to support the liberal type, the Google type. Like ZOYP? Clearly the democratic touchstone is "the same type of things we [the West] want", the "freedoms we want". Needless to say it cannot be that type of freedom or democracy which allows Robert Mugabe, Tony Blair and George Bush to coexist as equal Presidents of their respective different but equally sovereign nations. This is what the West and rest of us means, the kind of values which Ray is here to promote, here to inculcate in our youth. And he is right: this cannot be a sprint, but a marathon requiring lots of perseverance.
Exit the Google type, enter new history
Yet all is not lost, as Blair' s lamentation clear show. The native is about to return, smashing the Google type. After all the West, having long lost the moral high ground, has since lost its soft power hold over us. And it being an era of resources, a Third World era in other words, these backward Google types shall soon join the terraces as Africa marches forward - unstopped, unstoppable - its old men in tow, well repaired through a new history, through new times. Icho!
nathaniel.manheru@zimpapers.co.zw
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)