By Amengeo Amengeo
July 03, 2008
The African Executive
When sharks smell blood, they go into a feeding frenzy and attack relentlessly. There is feeding frenzy about Zimbabwe that preceded the June 27 run-off elections.
Thwarted in their bid to install their man Morgan Tsvangirai in power, the forces of Western neo-colonialism continue to ratchet up media pressure. Some African leaders seem to have bought into this propaganda campaign.
Stories in the Western Press about “Government-sanctioned violence” in Zimbabwe focus on lurid details quoting one-sided and opinionated anonymous sources without much verifiable data.
Remember the gory reports about Saddam’s troops in Kuwait during the first Gulf War bayoneting babies in their incubators? Many of these stories later turned out to be fabrications. The same type of campaign is operating in Zimbabwe now.
Could the violence have been orchestrated by external forces attempting to force a crisis of chaos, thereby justifying intervention? Mugabe’s suspension of aid agencies’ involvement was a matter of national survival. The outspoken comments of the US ambassador went beyond his purview as a resident diplomat and entered the restricted area of direct interference in a sovereign country’s internal affairs.
The struggle for control of Zimbabwe has never been about democracy. We need to be absolutely clear about that. The struggle for control of Zimbabwe is about, and has always been about whether Africans will rule themselves or be subordinated to the dictates and whims of Western powers.
When one considers there are at least half a dozen African leaders who actually brutalise their people and have ruled their respective countries without any pretensions about democracy for longer than Mugabe, the question must be asked: why, then Mugabe?
There is a trend across Africa among certain sectors, to dismiss and devalue the ideology and values of the liberation struggle, values which encompassed the quest for freedom from foreign rule (which was a thousand times worse than anything any African dictator could dream up today. King Leopold of Belgium, for example, butchered 10 million Congolese during the scramble for Africa at the turn of the last century), the search for an African identity and ultimately, continental unification.
The implication of that struggle has never been lost on Western strategic planners – for a unified Africa, in control of vast human and natural resources, land space three times the size of the United States of America, could evolve into a military and economic giant as has China in recent years.
The implications of this vision, with the psychological consequences for Africans the world over living on the margins of societies they inhabit on sufferance in Europe and America, are world-changing. Thus, buds that sprout must be torn up like weeds before their roots can anchor and spread. Zimbabwe is such a bud.
Whatever his shortcomings, Mugabe has consistently and unequivocally stood for African independence and has demonstrated his pan-African convictions by intervening on behalf of the government of the late Laurent Kabila in the Democratic Republic of Congo when it was attacked by forces backed by Western economic interests.
Mugabe’s stance vis-à-vis the West has its justification based on sound historical reasons. When the European nations scrambled for Africa’s resources at the turn of the last century, Cecil Rhodes, the quintessential British imperialist (who presumptuously stamped his name on an African country) sent in his mercenaries and freebooters, butchered the Ndebele and Shona, the original owners of the land.
The Africans resisted fiercely inspired by Nehanda, a divine woman (later hung by the whites for daring to inspire and resist) but were decimated by the maxim machine gun, a new weapon against which they had no defence. African lands were then apportioned to the invaders and Africans were dispossessed of and driven off their lands.
When Mugabe took back the lands from the whites in 2000, he was acting legitimately and righting a century-old wrong. Talk about the “rule of law” and that he should have followed legal protocol is absolute nonsense – for when Rhodes’ thieves and mercenaries invaded, they exercised no legalities, but simply killed and stole the land just as their contemporaries had done with the indigenous people of America and Australia.
As the so-called Rhodesians, faced defeat by Mugabe’s guerrilla armies, Britain, which had previously refused to intervene on behalf of the Africans against their “kith and kin”, scrambled to arrange a peace deal before suffering a humiliating defeat. The warring parties were invited to Lancaster House in London where the British bugged the hotel rooms of the Africans and thus checkmated their best moves. The British promised to fund the land reform, which was the casus belli for the war, but typically had no intentions of so doing. In 2000, faced with a rising demand for land reform, Mugabe acted.
This was unforgiveable.
As Cuba remains unforgiveable for manifesting independence, so does Zimbabwe remain unforgivable for exercising her right to reclaim land that rightfully belongs to Africans. Behind all the high-flown talk about “property rights” and the “rule of law” lies white racism, a sense of white entitlement, and that Africans have no right to redress the wrongs perpetrated against them so brutally and for so long.
The West, especially Britain, the US, Australia and other Europeans have no right to lecture Africans about rights and the “rule of law” given the history of their depredations – slavery, theft of lands, extermination of the Tasmanians by the Australians and genocide by the Germans against the Herero.
As African heads of state and government resolved at the recently held African Uni0n summit in Egypt, Zimbabwe’s problems are African problems and must be solved by Africans. Tsvangirai’s running to Western capitals like a petulant schoolchild complaining about Mugabe is giving the West an excuse to intervene in Zimbabwe’s affairs or perhaps he is truly their puppet and has to report to his masters. It is very curious that the West announced his victory ahead of even exit polls.
Frustrated by the failure of their man to win an outright victory, the West has ratcheted up the pressure in the hopes of precipitating a crisis which would allow them to intervene more directly. Mugabe’s pre-emptive move against the aid agencies [which have the perfect cover for espionage] has taken critical pieces off the board. Africans need to understand that is a test of their sovereignty and independence. If Mugabe’s independent voice can be stilled by Western intervention, propaganda and the collusion of local puppets, then Africa’s independence becomes meaningless.
Africa can solve its own problems and it needs to assertively tell the West this. Mbeki’s quiet diplomacy is an attempt to find African solutions and avoid violence and chaos, for the people of Zimbabwe refused to ride off into the sunset and give the country to a man who cavorts about Western capitals calling for sanctions and intervention against his own country and seems to speak from a script that echoes the detractors of the Government.
Zimbabwe’s problems are not intractable and they can be solved by Africans working together, but the region’s leaders need to speak with one voice as they did at the just-ended AU Summit, and unequivocally told the West to leave Africa alone to resolve the Zimbabwean situation, whether by a unity government or some cession of power.
Unfortunately, Tsvangirai continues to compromise his credibility by appearing as the West’s man. We need not to be befuddled by talk of “democracy” which the West insists on when it meets their interests.
Zimbabwe, we must never, never forget, is really about one defiant black man taking back what was stolen from his people as was his right to do. Africans have no reason to be ashamed of this.
Amengeo Amengeo is a specialist in Spanish, Latin American, Caribbean as well as African history. He has also been a journalist, civil servant and graphic artist.
Reproduced from: The African Executive
Zimbabwe election valid – Says President Jammeh
by Pa Malick Faye
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Daily Observer Gambia
President Alhaji Dr Yahya Jammeh, has given the June 27 Presidential election run-off in Zimbabwe a clean bill of health, saying “Zimbabwe’s election is valid”. The president, in addition, branded the leader of the main opposition MDC, Morgan Tchangarai, as a “blue-eyed boy” and “puppet” of the West, emphasising that Zimbabwe will never be colonised again.
The plain speaking Gambian leader made these remarks in an interview with newsmen at the airport, upon his arrival from the 11th AU summit in the Egyptian Red Sea Resort of Sharm El-Sheikh, which lasted for two days.
According to Dr Jammeh, the summit was not diversion on the Zimbabwe issue but rather showed African leaders working for the continent’s interest and those who are for West. He added: “The pronouncements of major Western media before the summit was what those representing Western interests came with, but they have regretted it”.
The Gambian leader made comparison to an election recently held in an Eastern African country, which was described as not free and fair by all institutions involved in the process, yet the West decided to be mute about it. The aftermath of that election was marred by violence during which many were killed, thousands displaced and the end result was a unity government.
To him, Africans accept Mugabe’s re-election, because it was lawful as the country’s laws do not ban elections if a party decides to boycott.
Hypocrisy
Dr Jammeh again made reference to an event in a country in the Horn of Africa, where opposition protesters were shot and killed with impunity. He added that the government went to the extent of refusing to release the dead bodies unless the relatives paid for the bullets, but yet still the West made no noise, because that government was serving their interests.
“Why Zimbabwe?” he asked. “Because the whites are involved,” he said, answering his rhetorical question. He observed that the suffering of the people of Zimbabwe was not Mugabe’s making, but the West’s just because they want to effect a change of government, which will be ruled by their puppet.
Dr Jammeh wondered why the West during the first round of the election decreed the process foul only to endorse it when the MDC emerged as the winner.
He agreed with President Museveni of Uganda that elections cannot be free and fair, when the opposition is backed by external forces to destabilize a country by launching attacks on ruling party supporters and use NGOs to induce the electorate.
Inclusive Government
To Dr Jammeh, President Mugabe can accommodate “nationalists” and “patriots” who have divergent views with him but have the country’s interest at heart. But the decision for that mechanism to be in place lies with the government and people of Zimbabwe.
Prosecuting Mugabe
The Gambian leader called the Western ploy to prosecute President Mugabe on the pretext of misrule as “free, fair and fine”. But questioned why they are not calling for the prosecution of the then white minority government in Zimbabwe and South Africa, where they carried out mass killings of Blacks, which was stopped by Mugabe and his fellow nationalists.
He added that today, the perpetrators of those crimes are living freely and no one is calling for their prosecution.
“We Africans should learn a lesson from this. They (the West) think they can dictate to us (Africans) and this is not acceptable. Africans should stand for Zimbabwe. After all what did the West did for Africa?” he rhetorically asked.
The Theme
Commenting on the theme of the summit, which was “Meeting the Millennium Development Goals in Water and Sanitation,” Dr Jammeh said sanitation is the problem in Africa and not water. “Leaders have realised that collective approach at continental level will enable the continent to meet the MDGs in 2015,” he added.
Reproduced from: The Daily Observer (Gambia)
So what’s your take on the world’s glorified Mandela? Was the price of simple Cuban folks not too much to pay for the benefit of Raul and his brother to prove their independence? It is the people of Zimbabwe that are victims in similar fashion to Argentinians, Chilians, and others that had to suffer under dictatorial undemocratic elite rule for so long.
“It is the people of Zimbabwe that are victims in similar fashion to Argentinians, Chilians, and others that had to suffer under dictatorial undemocratic elite rule for so long.”
The whole Zimbabwe debate rages around liability of Mr. Mugabe versus the West, but we frequently tend to forget about the poor, vulnerable citizenry.
Discussions tend to treat with the issue from two general standpoints: historical and political. Historically slanted pieces usually give Mr. Mugabe the moral upper hand and view him as the heroic liberator of his people (and a powerful symbol of black freedom everywhere), while looking the other way where the political and financial stewardship of his country are concerned; Political reviews on the other hand ignore history for the most part, and paint him as an tyrant, thug and dictator-for-life whose reign is solely responsible for wreaking havoc on the country’s economy and lives of his countrymen. The thing is, one really can’t debate Zimbabwe without being open to both standpoints, so the question therefore begs – could Mr. Mugabe be both victim and villain?
Based on the responses posted on these blogs, I have observed that opinions tend to be coloured by passion and sympathies for the Zimbabwe’s rich history and the moral injustices heaped upon it, and by personal views of the politics and media machines of the rich and powerful white countries. But what about the way that the country is being managed, or the issue of human rights…..doesn’t that count for anything? Agricultural Planning and Management – yes the Government may have been morally correct and legally careful when they retrieved the land from the oppressor, but to whom was it given, and what was done with it?
In whose hands did the regulation of the Agricultural Industry lie? The fact that the country was once the breadbasket of Southern Africa, but is now largely a dustbowl must speak to something…but what? Who is culpable for this…the West, the white man, the opposition? Regardless of where the blame is placed, who is the ultimate loser? The people….
I have also noticed that several articles label the political opposition as corrupt puppets of the west, vilifying them and in the process tacitly implying that this makes it OK for Mr. Mugabe to govern indefinitely, inefficiently or illegally. In these articles, corruption in Mr. Mugabe’s 30 yr reign is never explored, and if mentioned is usually glossed over as an “African problem to be dealt with by Africans”. If this is the case, then so is the issue of the opposition being an American puppet! The other thing here is that few seem to have taken any note that the opposition won the elections last month and should be the legitimate government of the country. Someone once said that “politics has a morality of its own”, but again, who turns out to be the ultimate loser? The people…
So the long and short of it all is that Mugabe is both a victim and a villain…it just depends on who you are, and where you live. Those of us who are not Zimbabwean, have no family (or friends) there, or who do not face life there on a daily basis, like myself, have the luxury of ideological discussion, but it would be interesting to hear what the average Zimbabwean thinks and feels about the whole situation in his / her country.
Doubts raised over haunting image from Zimbabwe
Last week’s Sunday Times carried a prominent report about an 11-month-old baby whose mother said his legs had been broken when he was dashed to the ground by Zanu-PF thugs.
The story, supplied by two freelance journalists, prompted readers to offer money for medical treatment and the newspaper decided to help.
However, doubts about the mother’s account arose when our reporter tried to arrange an operation. An orthopaedic surgeon said an x-ray of the child’s legs showed no sign of fractures. Doctors in Harare and London said he had club feet.
The mother, whose husband is an opposition councillor, repeatedly insisted that the child had been maimed when he was picked up from a bed and hurled to the floor.
Full Article…
Mugabe May Not, After All, Be Insane!
By Abraham Tangwe
July 09, 2008
postnewsline.com
The recent avalanche of insults and negative publicity directed towards Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe cannot leave any keen African observer indifferent.
The idea is not to exonerate him from any wrongdoing per se. This is so because he is guilty of some, but hardly enough for us to be so hard on him. It is even more pathetic and frightful when an authoritative and respected iconic figure like Mandela decides to join in this dance of the Vampires.
Our gullible natures have pushed us blindly into the waiting trap of western propaganda through the snares of their media entanglements, which is always tele-guided by their government policies.
We are so happy, and sadly so, to sit back and take for gospel truth what somebody sits in a cozy office in Europe or America and tells us about something happening in our backyard. Otherwise, all these talk of insensitivity to the aspirations of the people, election rigger, dictator, insane old man, power drunk, failed leadership etc would not arise.
Why is the case of Zimbabwe so peculiar? Is Mugabe the worst leader on the continent? What has happened that somebody whose country was one of the best managed, socially, is witnessing such a dramatic down turn? Why would a Knight suddenly turn round to be mad, as claimed?
You may recall that independence, as granted to African States, was simply cosmetic. It was arranged so that the white faces in all public places were simply replaced with black faces. In all fairness, the white men went through the door and came back through the window.
This has given rise to the new phenomenon called Neo-colonialism, where the Europeans have taken the back seats but with a stranglehold on African economies.If you wanted to guarantee your stay in power, as a leader, it was prudent not to challenge the established order or you were simply booted out.
When you accepted it then your mouth was always oiled while your people languished in poverty. If you doubt what I say, then meet the former President of the Congo Republic, Pascal Lissuba, to explain to you why he was booted out by a pro-French leader like Denis Sassou Nguesso.
We have leaders in Africa who are more vicious and have stayed in power than Mugabe. Why are they not being mentioned? Check round their States and see whether the people are any better.
Mugabe’s only woe is that, so far, he is the only one who is taking the liberation struggle of the African people from a political realm to an economic realm! This is a no go area and it is tickling the bile of the British. The land issue is very thorny but the former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, knows the truth.
Mugabe had negotiated with John Major, another former British PM. Major was warm towards compensating the British landowners for the land to be given back to the blacks but Blair called off the deal. This irked Mugabe, and what followed is now history.
Have you bothered to find out what gave Mugabe his knighthood which has been hurriedly withdrawn by the Queen? It is true the Zimbabweans might not have had the necessary technical know-how to manage the farms but that cannot be responsible for the collapse of the economy.
The answer is that there is a conspiracy by the west to foster regime change using economic sanctions.That is the more reason why it is difficult for east and southern African leaders to condemn him outright for it would be foolhardy. Staying in power this long is out of place for him, like all others, and so for Mugabe to be kicked out, all others should be pursued equally with vim and alacrity.
He is not the worst human being. All the others are left at bay because they are allowing the whites to have their way economically, but Mugabe who dared to challenge such an order is the devil incarnate and must be discarded!
Mugabe is not mad but doing things that we do not have the courage to do. The west is insisting that African leaders in the ongoing AU summit must condemn Mugabe but this is not working as they have chosen to embrace and do business with him. Instead of condemning him, they have rather called for a national uni0n government, which means the leaders accept his leadership. Is that not an indicator that there is something wrong with the Western campaign?
Let us try to wear our thinking caps and stop being led by the nose and told what to do in the 21st century courtesy the BBC and CNN. These cable connections in our homes may be more destructive to us and is acting as a preventive mechanism for the decolonisation of our current neo-colonialist ethos.
It is high time we created our own BBC and CNN to counter such negative portrayal of happenings of the continent.
Reproduced from: postnewsline.com
I guess Mr. Ryan voted Villain.
Stay up, Zimbabwe!
Selwyn Ryan
Brother Valentino, the Mighty Duke, Bob Marley (if he were alive), and others who sang their hearts out in support of Zimbabwe and the anti-colonial struggle in Southern Africa, must be wondering what ever happened to their dream. Why has the fulfillment of their dream been deferred? Is it merely that we are dealing with a mad or a power crazed man? Many African leaders have betrayed the African people on the continent and in the diaspora. There was much posturing and shouting about African unity and African socialism, but behind the rhetoric, there was a great deal of political fakery and fraud. Robert Gabriel Mugabe, who Amnesty International listed among the 10 most unsavoury political characters of our time, is the most recent of them.
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_opinion?id=161348764
“I guess Mr. Ryan voted Villain”.
I am not too sure where the writer was attempting to go with that statement. I would not try to decipher it , as the good doctor can do his own defense on that score. The main point of his article was that tribalism is the biggest impediment to peace, security and development in Zimbabwe. I would like to add all of Africa. The continent is not unique however in that regard; it is just that we choose to use a different less derogatory terms- such as ethnicity -to describe the issue. It affects Asia, Middle East, Latin America, Russia, Europe , and of course USA– in essence globally.
What is amazing to me as I look at some of the issues that are played out in T&T today is how the tribal behaviors have been transplanted to our country, and played our every day without us even recognizing it. We therefore speak in subtle condescensions, and feign concerns for others in their struggles especially in Africa, yet do everything in our power to stir up the pot of racial and ethnic dissention in our own every day. In essence we are no better off, and might just soon achieve similar results because of this tomfoolery. In the end we might not need the esteemed Political Scientist Dr Ryan to tell us that this is a problem.
Let me say this , I have been doing my own informal assessments among sections of the neglected , and pretty soon some major decisions would have to be made with respect to the stewardship of this ‘Twin Republic’, as business as usual cannot be allowed to continue. It’s utterly disgusting the levels of useless energies that are constantly wasted in trying to deal with this overblown non issue of race in the country, while pressing social, economic and political matters lie neglected.
The darker side of sanctions
By Selwyn Ryan
Sunday, July 13th 2008
The G8 countries at their recent meeting in Japan agreed to impose “closely targeted sanctions on Zimbabwe’s political leadership as punishment for engaging in unchecked state sponsored brutality and violence against its citizens.” Mugabe’s critics have told him that “his time is up,” and that they will hang him, just as Nixon , Kissinger and the CIA strangled Allende in Chile and Eisenhower, Dulles and others did to Patrick Lumumba in the Congo.
Full Article : trinidadexpress.com
It appears that Selwyn Ryan did some research after probably discovering the website http://www.zimbabwewatch.com.
There was a program on Gayelle, Wednesday 9th July, 2008, with Hotep from http://www.trinicenter.com discussing this issue. One of the foreign journalists who participated on the programme suggested that people visit http://www.zimbabwewatch.com to get better informed. It appears that Ryan may have taken this advice, given his more informed article this week.
Mr. Ryan gives too much credit to these Imperialistic nations.
http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/sc/2008/sc080711pm.rm
Taken from the Jamaica Observer, July 22, 2008:
“Prime Minister Bruce Golding may well argue that he’s more concerned with substance than symbols in order to justify his position that the current situation in Zimbabwe doesn’t warrant the Jamaican Government annulling the honorary Order of Jamaica (OJ) conferred on President Robert Mugabe 12 years ago.
However, we believe that the use of symbolic measures are important in registering opposition to tyranny, which is what Mr Mugabe and his goons are inflicting on their political opponents in Zimbabwe.
Mr Mugabe, as we reported in yesterday’s edition, was awarded an honorary OJ in 1996 by the Jamaican Government “in recognition of his outstanding contribution to the fight for liberation and the overthrow of apartheid in Southern Africa, and his distinct leadership in the pursuit of freedom and human development throughout the African continent”.
That chapter in Mr Mugabe’s life, when he stood up and fought for democracy, at great risk to his existence, cannot be erased. The principles which he and other Southern African freedom fighters upheld attracted international support, notably from Jamaica, so much so that our very own Reggae legend Mr Robert Nesta Marley was invited to perform at Zimbabwe’s independence celebrations in 1980.
That the Jamaican Government saw it fit to confer on Mr Mugabe the fourth highest national award in the Jamaican honours system, speaks to this country’s respect for his struggle and demonstrates our commitment to the preservation of democracy, justice and the ideal that all men are born equal.
Sadly, Mr Mugabe’s behaviour over the past five years represents a repulsive betrayal of those very ideals. And, as we have often commented in this space, his colleagues who gave their lives in the fight against the racist regime that was Rhodesia must now be turning in their graves.
For not only has Mr Mugabe trampled on the rights of his own people by rigging elections, muzzling the press, bulldozing the homes of opponents, using food as a weapon against supporters of the political opposition and turning a blind eye to the state’s violent crackdown on dissent, he has wrecked the Zimbabwean economy to the point where at least 80 per cent of Zimbabweans are now living below the poverty line.
Of course, Mr Mugabe blames the economic crisis in his country on outside forces, particularly, as he puts it, “the demons in Number 10 Downing Street” that “must be exorcised by someone”.
The fact, though, is that Mr Mugabe is guilty of what
Mr Nelson Mandela correctly described as a “tragic failure of leadership”.
While we have no reason to doubt that the Jamaican Government does not approve of what Mr Mugabe is doing, we cannot agree with Prime Minister Golding that to revoke the OJ would be an extreme measure.
For the award was conferred on Mr Mugabe for the very opposite of what he now represents.
We have no doubt that were Jamaica to revoke the honour, Mr Mugabe would simply laugh it off and probably try to paint us as stooges of his opponents. However, we believe it is important not to glorify leaders who are responsible for human rights violations and who have no respect for democracy.
Simply put, Mr Mugabe’s despotic actions have clearly demonstrated that he is not worthy to retain this honour.”