Zimbabwe at War
By Stephen Gowans
June 25, 2008
This is a war between revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries; between nationalists and quislings; between Zimbabwean patriots and the US and Britain.
Should an election be carried out when a country is under sanctions and it has been made clear to the electorate that the sanctions will be lifted only if the opposition party is elected? Should a political party which is the creation of, and is funded by, hostile foreign forces, and whose program is to unlatch the door from within to provide free entry to foreign powers to establish a neo-colonial rule, be allowed to freely operate? Should the leaders of an opposition movement that takes money from hostile foreign powers and who have made plain their intention to unseat the government by any means available, be charged with treason? These are the questions that now face (have long faced) the embattled government of Zimbabwe, and which it has answered in its own way, and which other governments, at other times, have answered in theirs.
Full Article...
|
Neal Noray
June 25, 2008 at 7:29 pm
This is a very comprehensive analysis of the problem facing this beautiful country. Africans got to get their acts together soon however. To have one European tribe rule you for 91 years and follow that with one African tribe 27 years. I am so happy we were spared that misery her in good old T&T. At least we have free and fair elections and our political leaders don't have to run for sanctuary in embassies. You know we have a saying that "when your neighbor's house is on fire, you should wet yours".
I hope that the people of South Africa are taking good notes on this. What a very steep price to pay for peace and reconciliation. Are you aware that there are black families living in the ghettos of Joburg and other areas in SA that can point out the house and lands that were confiscated from them during the barbaric system called Apartheid? In the meantime you have Euro and Asian/ Africans driving around in Benzes, and lamenting how the country has degenerated to the dogs. What a travesty. I still believe that 84 year olds have no business running a country, and no excuses can be made for tyrannical and undemocratic rule. I expect soon to see some US, EU, or better yet AU troops enter Harare and do the right thing. But then I can be dreaming.
|
Heru
June 25, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Neal Noray said:
"I still believe that 84 year olds have no business running a country, and no excuses can be made for tyrannical and undemocratic rule. I expect soon to see some US, EU, or better yet AU troops enter Harare and do the right thing. But then I can be dreaming."
You have not advanced any reason for someone being unsuitable for leadership at 84, so that aspect of your comment could simply be your anti-elderly prejudice. What diminished abilities has Mugabe shown to justify that comment?
Where is the tyrannical and undemocratic rule in Zimbabwe? Am I to assume that you are just repeating that line based on the volume of bogus European and US news reports that have been selling that very line? They have saturated the media with their demonizing campaign of Mugabe, so I am not surprised by that comment.
What is the right thing that can be achieved by the US and EU entering Harare to remove a leader because he returned lands to indigenous Africans that was illegally seized by White settlers? To me, your comment sounds like you are just a supporter of imperialism and colonialism.
|
T. Man
June 26, 2008 at 1:12 am
Heru, regarding Zimbabwe, take your head out of the sand and get real.
|
Kerry Mulchansingh
June 26, 2008 at 10:19 am
Besides being an undemocratic cry baby and all out thug, Mr. Mugabe has single-handedly presided over one of the worst instances of economic collapse and poverty escalation on recorded history.
Yes, initially he was a heralded hero, delivering his country from apartheid hell, but has long since wore off this hero status. He is now simply an outdated tyrant and despot!
His age shouldn't be a factor, but his other inefficiencies and negatives ring damned loud and clear, making him a clear liability!!
|
Patricia
June 26, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Imagine me this morning listening to the news and hearing that Mugabe's knighthood was revoked by the UK. Eh? So they gave him honours hoping that his behaviour would suit them and when he did not comply they took it back. Mugabe will be remembered for his courage to choose the interests of his people over the platitudes of the former massa. Is there a western leader who has the guts of Mugabe?
When will we realize that our history does not begin with the Colonials, will we ever shed the chains of European socializing propaganda.
In response to Kerry
So Mugabe is a Tyrant and a despot because he is attempting to correct some historical injustices. Who gave the Colonials the right to declare other people's land as theirs. Should we forget this very significant historical fact. If the deliverance from apartheid does not translate into the restoration of land and resources for the ordinary person of colour to live; then apartheid has ended only in word and not in the lived reality of those who were previously oppressed under apartheid. Perhaps, with the greatest possible respect Nelson Mandela might want to take a page from Mugabe's book.
|
Neal Noray
June 26, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Heru, good of you to respond. Let me make it absolutly clear that I have no problem with anyone of any age serving as the democratic leader of a country. My sole concerns however will be that he or she advance the interest of the country as a whole. Mr. Mugabe of course should be commended for his service to the country , and I, like many of my good Caribbean brothers and sisters looked with pride as both him and the esteemed Dr. Jushua Nkomo stood up the British and later Ian similar ways that we looked at the likes of Mandela a true liberator who stood up to evil systems.
|
Neal Noray
June 26, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Heru , my apologies . Let me to continue - but first put some blame on my computer for allowing my response to go out before I am ready - in essence it was a computer glitch. That is not too bad a trend to follow seeing that you , most African thinkers, and leaders have continually done the same - do the blame game perpetually. Rule the country for over four decades and still want to put full blame and responsibility on on our savage colonial masters. Of course while you are at it, blame every effort at meaningful discussion from a fellow brother within the Diaspora. View them as mere puppets that are incapable to understand the subtle issues that affect our continent.
To the issue at hand, let's face it, Mr . Mugabe's time has past him by. It was politically expedient for him perhaps to treat the respected Dr. Nkoma the way he did in the early post revolutionary days. His behavior today to hold on to power and treat the opposition leader and his party - as well as any dissent to his long rule-is reprehensible. Your argument about the land reform might be valid, but Mugabe is not the person to advance it after serving for this long and not making it a priority. What is most sad is the facts that not a single African leader can emerge that have the guts to stand up this thug, and we know why. Most are of similar ilk. Where are the likes of Julius Nyerere when you need them? Selfless, passionate statesmen, that cares about his country and reputation of his region. One cannot depend on cousin Mandela too much again as he did his part and is busy trying to protect whatever tenuous legacy he still have in SA.
I was being facetious when I made the comment about the EU for no one really cares about the African people in case you did not know. If they did then 800,000 Rwandans, and twice the amount in Congo and Sudan with not take place and no one do anything. A bit of history lesson for you Heru - Google the name George Padmore and while you are it throw in CLR James , these were the type of folks that started real consciousness via the Pan Africanist movement -among African leaders like your much admired Kwame Nkrumah that eventually served as an influence for Mugabe.
One of the biggest problems with Africans from the entire Diaspora is that we never like to get any type of advice from another outside our narrow 'tribal milieu' - [for want of a better word] The African American/ Stokley Carmichaels had to run to Guinea from criminals from within the Black Panther Movement, Africans and of course the good folks from the Caribbean ...? Well you know the rest. That stupid attitude perhaps worked for some during the dreary days of the Cold - War and ideological divide. Unfortunately today, we all need to establish new 21st century thinking as a mechanism for moving forward.
I have a simple rule; emulate success where ever it exists. An old teacher of mind had a good line- "something is good if it works." That old school tribal nonsense favored by the likes of borderline tyrants such as like Mugabe, Uganda's Yoweri Museveni, Kenya's Mwai Kibaki,and Sudan's Omar al-Bashir won't cut it any more. Asia can make efforts to get it right, and tribal Europe can definitely make it work after two world wars- so can Africa. Away with petty excuses! Europeans and Arabs must be held accountable for their past atrocities in Africa and made to pay for removing 'the brightest and best minds' from the continent via the barbaric system call slavery. Simultaneously, African leaders must step up to the plate and not allow modern day slavery, despotic rule, squalor, and economic degradation to flourish.
|
Linda Edwards
June 26, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Mugabe may have outstayed his time in the leadership role, but there must be concern too, for the sell out back into the arms of the western colonial powers, that it seems that the opposition favors.
No one is blaming Britain for their role in the history of Zimbabwe, beginning with the regime of Ian Smith. The imported settler class that began to arrive in the 1950's were given other people's land, African land, and opportunities to begin farming- favorable bank loans and so on.
Now, Mugabe is a pariah in Africa, but this does not need British intervention, or that of France Belgium or the USA. These colonialpowers do not have the interests of African sttes ta hert. A negotiated peace, monitored by the African Union, is the only way to go.
We can no longer sit back and watch those who failed to help in Ruwanda and Darfur, or even in South africa for more than eighty years, suddenly unleash their problem solving skills on Zimbabwe. The land resettlement program has to give both parties supporters land on which to feed their people.
The west has absolutely no moral authority in this case, including her Britannic Majesty's taking back her knighthood, while giving one to salman Rushdie.
|
Neal Noray
June 26, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Pat in response, that I was the precise point I was trying to make in reference to Mugabe. Perhaps he is not the one to try and take them over that Plateau. It calls for new leaderships. Guys like Mandela and Mugabe are revolutionaries and freedom fighters that like some of the Caribbean leaders took the country thus far and can do more. Mandela recognized his limitations especially as he was advancing in age and the question of his health became an issue. What his successor Mbeki failed to do is to begin a comprehensive plan to educate the young that were caught up n the early struggles, job creation became stagnant, no comprehensive housing plan was put in place and the people got disgruntled more and more by the day.
Now let us not be delusional and try to compare SA with Zimbabwe - South Africa is a extremely wealthy country that was created on the blood of black Africans. This Mugabe stunt will not be allowed to occur in that country - as you might know. I am not too sure if any might want to place a bet on that.
The trick is to convince white South Africans that it is in their own self interest to look out for the mass of people- and share some of that wealth- that have made the ultimate sacrifice in the name of peace and reconciliation.
That is why others outside of Africa - including Africans -got to put some pressure on powers- emulating the Jewish people methodologies. Bono, Madonna, Oprah and entertainers alone won't do the trick. Where were Ms. Condi Rice, Colin Powell, and Black Caucus over the past 12 years? They were busy trying to bring democracy to the Middle East. It is time for the ACP and Commonwealth body working in collaboration with the EU to be a real force of change and influence in Africa.
The Caricom is simply a small fish in a small pool and can only do so much. The world benefits when Africa rises, doubt that? Then ask any European or Asian what it means to have India, China and former Soviet Satellite countries thriving.
|
Neal Noray
June 26, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Linda, valid points on a Western Europe and former colonial powers sleeping at the wheel along with the US and a complicit UN. I notice no one puts much responsibility on the former USSR when the distorted ideology was partly the reason much of the problems existed as well. Now if Africa is irrelevant in the eyes of former colonial powers who is to be blamed for that? Let me see, we should have faith in the AU the Nigerians and their military elites are in control of. Now we know how enthusiastic they be to run into a Southern African state devoid of any tangible natural resource such as oil, gold or diamonds. Ah well, the Victoria Falls is worth saving and if everything fails one can break even with South Africa.
Nigerians and the EU as constituted lacks the moral authority to enter any other sovereign state to attempt to ensure democratic change and solve historical social problems , when they have their own tribal com religious / economic debacle in the delta and throughout the country. If ever there was a reason to never have any military ever run a country, look at Nigeria, followed closely by the West Points and Sand Hurst incompetent in Pakistan. I digress, and should quit while I am ahead.These are sensitive times.
|
Heru
June 26, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Neal Noray,
Ok. In my view you have not researched this issue and are running with some incorrect assumptions. I can easily show how some of your assumptions are based on you not knowing enough of the history behind the events in Zimbabwe. To help expedite a debate I would suggest that you read the original article carefully and show what you disagree with and why.
If you have some time also read the articles linked below which provide some extensive research and give a chronology of the events in Zimbabwe.
Neal Noray said:
"Rule the country for over four decades and still want to put full blame and responsibility on on our savage colonial masters."
Zimbabwe: White Lies, Black Victims by Rosemary Ekosso
"In 1930, the Land Apportionment Act restricted access of black people to land. In the years that followed, there was increased pressure on the land, and of course the Africans were blamed for what was inaccurately and condescendingly referred to as "slash and burn" cultivation. That this method of farming was entirely appropriate in situations where there was enough land for shifting cultivation must have escaped the notice of colonial observers.
The settlers kept coming in, rising to 140.000 in 1945. But there were 4 million Africans. The Europeans decided that Africans kept livestock for the wrong reasons: "status and prestige". So they decided to de-stock the land and herd the "natives" into more reserves to create more space for themselves. From 1946 to 1979, more than a million head of cattle were disposed of. By disposed of, I mean killed or stolen by white farmers.
Zimbabwe gained independence in 1980. Part of the talks/negotiations leading up to independence included the Lancaster House Agreement, which provided that from 1980 to 1990, a fund provided by Britain would be used to buy land from those white settlers who could not, in effect, stand being ruled by black Zimbabweans. Before that, less than 1% of the population, being the whites, owned 70% of the land. What the agreement actually did was protect white farm owners from redistribution of their land and put off possible nationalization for ten years. It was one of the conditions of Zimbabwe being granted (that's the right term) independence.
In 1981, the Brits pledged more that 630 million pounds in aid for the land reforms. London now claims to have contributed £44m, but Timothy Stamp, Zimbabwe's finance minister, says it was only £17m.
In 1985, the Land Acquisition Act was enacted, against staunch white opposition. The act gave the Zimbabwean government first refusal, as it were, over land to be ceded by whites, which it would then purchase for the landless. But the white farmers did not want to sell their land and the Zimbabwean government did not have the money to buy. So what happened to the promised British aid, eh?
According to Human Rights Watch and others, 4.500 large-scale commercial farmers still held 28 percent of the total land at the time the fast track program was instituted after 2000; meanwhile, more than one million black families eked out an existence in overcrowded, arid "communal areas". Native reserves, they mean."
www.africaspeaks.com/articles/2006/0308.html
and
'This time, Bob, it's personal' by Barrie Collins
"In the name of 'defending democracy', members of the international community have interfered extensively in Zimbabwe's affairs in recent years.
-- Since November 1998, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has implemented undeclared sanctions by warning off potential investors, freezing loans and refusing negotiations on debt.
-- In September 1999, the IMF suspended its support for economic adjustment and reform in Zimbabwe.
-- In October 1999, the International Development Association (IDA, a multilateral development bank) suspended all structural adjustment loans, credits, and guarantees to Zimbabwe's government.
-- In May 2000, the IDA suspended all other new lending to the government.
-- In September 2000, the IDA suspended disbursement of funds for ongoing projects under previously approved loans, credits, and guarantees.
-- In April 2000, the Zimbabwe Democracy Trust was established by mainly white Zimbabwean commercial figures, British ex-foreign ministers and former US assistant secretary of state for Africa, Chester Crocker. The trust's stated objectives are 'to help the democratic will of the people flourish' (1) - but several of its patrons have substantial commercial interests in Zimbabwe."
www.spiked-online.com/Printable/00000002D428.htm
Neal Noray said:
"Your argument about the land reform might be valid, but Mugabe is not the person to advance it after serving for this long and not making it a priority."
These quotes below should explain what transpired over the years that delayed the efforts to redress the land issue in Zimbabwe:
"When it was clear that the apartheid Rhodesian government could not long remain in power, the Lancaster House Conference was convened in 1979. Land was the core issue for the liberation struggle, and British and American negotiators ensured that independence would not be granted without the imposition of certain conditions. One provision stipulated that for a period of 10 years, land ownership in Zimbabwe could only be transferred on a "willing seller, willing buyer" basis, which effectively limited the extent of land reform. Whites were also allotted a parliamentary quota of 20 seats, far exceeding their actual percentage of the population."
"Passage of the Land Acquisition Act in 1992 finally permitted a more flexible approach to land reform, but progress continued to be constrained by outside pressure. Despite real progress, by the time the latest round of land reform was launched, 70 percent of the richest and most productive land still remained in the hands of a mere 4,500 white commercial farm owners."
(Zimbabwe Under Siege by Gregory Elich
www.swans.com/library/art8/elich004.html)
Zim land reform 'waited for SA'
"Johannesburg - The Zimbabwe government delayed its land-reform programme so that negotiations for South Africa's liberation succeeded, said President Thabo Mbeki on Thursday.
He said that when South Africa was negotiating its transition to democracy, around the time which Zimbabwe had started its land reform programme, the Organisation of African Unity had asked Zimbabwe to stop the programme as it would "frighten the apartheid government in South Africa".
To suggest that Zimbabwe's land-reform programme was marred by corruption was actually wrong, Mbeki said to loud applause from delegates."
www.news24.com
"Zimbabwe's government felt it could no longer continue haggling over land reform, and nearing the end of the 1990's, they started moving away from the Economic Structural Adjustment Program (ESAP), which was not adequately addressing the issues of land reform. In October 2001 Mugabe abandoned the ESAP.
The claim that Mugabe did nothing for 20 years is usually made without reference to the Independence agreement that placed restraints on what Mugabe and his government could have done for the first 10 years. It also neglects the years of trying to get the European powers to honor their agreement."
raceandhistory.com
Related Articles:
Zimbabwe: White Lies, Black Victims by Rosemary Ekosso
Zimbabwe's Fight For Justice by Gregory Elich
Zimbabwe Under Siege by Gregory Elich
One Zimbabwe or Another: An Interview with Greg Elich
by Mickey Z
U.S. and Britain are Fueling Violence in Zimbabwe
PS:
If you or anyone else do not want to discuss this issue dispassionately and are simply going to throw around insults or unfounded remarks like: "Of course while you are at it, blame every effort at meaningful discussion from a fellow brother within the Diaspora. View them as mere puppets that are incapable to understand the subtle issues that affect our continent." then I would simply allow you to share your views and leave it at that.
Please leave room for others to comment before responding repeatedly.
|
Neal Noray
June 26, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Heru , thanks for the informed rebuttal. I am in total agreement that Europeans especially are culpable for the delay in addressing the land issue. It's a policy they have utilized repeatedly for years. My prime concern is how we move forward in aiding not only Zimbabwe, but all of Africa. I hope you are not trying to say that Mugabe was justified in treating Mr. Morgan Tsvangirai and opposition members in such an inhumane manner. www.independent.co.uk
It is not enough to claim that Western interference are involved in bolstering him.
There is no need to preach to the choir here my friend as we all know the problems of Africa especially Zimbabwe and SA. The real issue is to formulate a comprehensive strategy that can work in the best interest of all. You lose credibility however when you ignore his treatment of people that holds a different viewpoint as to how to move the country forward. One cannot as a leader treat your fellow citizens like garbage and try to justify it, by pointing to Europeans treatment of the continent in the past.
I have this discussion frequently with an Nigerian ex Major friend of mine that try to convince me that the strong arm tactics Muslim Generals use against the poor and neglected Christian brothers and sisters in the south- the oil conglomerates are always blamed as well.
You got to bear with me however; I come from a part of the world that treasures our democracy. Guys can attempt coups and turn round and sue or later become state men. We believe in open and fair election, and allow our citizens to ridicule or leaders. People can also leave to country on scholarships, achieve fame, yet turn around and even tarnish the name of the country, by not giving any credit and return home to countless awards, not bullets. That's how we do it.
You are correct I should not clog up the discussion with pointless comments especially if I fail to support fully your arguments. Mr. Mugabe should continue to do his thing in defiance of international opinions because the world is a fair. There was a guy named Saddam who thought the same as well. Now his country is on the verge of being transformed to the Stone Age. Let's me jump off now and allow others to show support.
Regards.
|
Kerry Mulchansingh
June 26, 2008 at 9:58 pm
"So Mugabe is a Tyrant and a despot because he is attempting to correct some historical injustices." Because what? Where did I say or imply that?
One of course has to give jack his Jacket for his heroic stance and struggles against apartheid. He did play an illustrious, larger than life role in delivering Zimbabwe from the white masters of yesteryear. That can not be argued against, but it also can not be considered the sole judging point of his character and leadership!
30 years of Mr. Mugabe's rule have left Zimbabwe's black population with no future legacy! The whites are still largely affluent, having mostly fled (with their money) to South Africa and the UK. And the black majority..what do they have...sentimentality? That can not fill bellies, provide housing or educate children!
Mr. Mugabe's economic policies have clearly failed Zimbabwe, creating abject poverty and touching off unprecedented economic chaos for blacks. If that's not bad enough, he not only refuses to allow others a fair chance at steering the country out of this abyss, but he also promotes violence and thuggery as a means to keep himself in power! Can you imagine Mr. Manning or any other Caribbean leader behaving like this?
Mr. Mugabe's intentions and actions may have been stellar in the beginning,...but what someone tell me..what kind of person would forceably and intentionally heave such hardships on his people?
|
Linda Edwards
June 27, 2008 at 12:22 am
Commenting after watching two commentaries on Africa: Nightline, with Ben Afleck,in the Congo, and CNN harrying Mugabe agin. According to Afleck, more than one million people have died in the war in the Congo over the last fifteen years. The west does not gie a damn. Few white people live thee, and none of them had "good land" in the highlands, growing tobacco when Africans needed to grow food. All the passion about Zimbabwe has to do with the land, land which Mugabe took back from the Ian Smith group. The fact that he did not sem to redistribute the land equitably,his supporters gettin the most, is a problem; but according to informed Zimbabweans, freedom fighters got the land.
The western powers who are creaming intervention, really want to roll Zim back to pre-1980. The people are not having that, this is why there is still so much support for the old patriarch. He is a Castro figure, but without a Raul to hand over to. Meanwhile all bloggers are asked to ponder the difference between Congo and Zim. One is in the East African Highlands, above the tse-tse fly level, and one is a tropical rainforest, full of biting flies and mosquitoes. Western Europe is not interested in the people of Zimbabwe. they want revenge on Mugabe for having repeated Jomo Kenyatta's action of throwing out the "white settlers" of Ian Smith. It is alleged that many of them never saw a cow before they landed in Rhodesia as "farmers".
May I suggest tht readers also read my piece: The Troublig Question of Land Reform, written in 2000, but which I could get NO paper in TnT to publish, until 2005. Rosemary Okosso had it listed on her blog also. When I say could not get it published, it includes giving it to the Editor in chief of a major Tnt paper, who lost it, twice. I then gave up.African people do not control the western press, including the media in TnT.
|
Heru
June 27, 2008 at 6:35 am
Neal Noray,
About that beating of Tsvangirai: the mainstream media gave their own take on it while other Zimbabweans and the government gave their account. Because of the history of deceit from Tsvangirai and the mainstream press, I do not accept their version of events. Also, the government did not order the police to beat Tsvangirai. After the fact, Mugabe felt he deserved what he got given the circumstances. In my view, he was not innocent; he was inciting youths to use violence for the purpose of destabilizing the country.
Of the various accounts of that incident given, what seems quite plausible is that the beating came about as a result of the actions of Tsvangirai that prompted his youth groups to break the law. It has been reported the youths confronted a group of police officers who were monitoring their illegal protest which they disingenuously called a 'prayer meeting'. Members of one of the youth groups cornered and injured some police officers. The police officers called for support and in retaliation, they rained blows on Tsvangirai together with members of his 'youth group' whom they felt were responsible for injuring a few police officers. This type of incident is not exclusive to Zimbabwe and is not evidence of government's mandated brutality against the opposition.
Tsvangirai routinely calls on the US and Europe to invade Zimbabwe. It has been reported at one time he suggested that Mugabe be killed. He has enjoyed tremendous freedom, empowered by the US and Britain, to say more than would be tolerated in the US and Britain.
The fourteen nations that comprise the Southern African Developing Community (SADC) have been sending observers to elections in Zimbabwe and have found them to be free and fair. Personally, I find the majority of elections in the west to be unfair and I can also find similar faults with elections in Zimbabwe and Trinidad and Tobago, but Zimbabwe's elections are monitored and tallied in the presence of members from many African nations, and I will not accept the West's racist condemnations of elections in Zimbabwe as if they are the only ones to determine what is free and fair.
Here is another view:
"There's no question Mugabe reacted harshly to recent provocations by factions of the MDC, or that his government was deliberately provoked. But the germane question isn't whether beating Morgan Tsvangirai over the head was too much, but whether the ban on political rallies in Harare, which the opposition deliberately violated, is justified. That depends on whose side you're on, and whether you think Tsvangirai and his associates are simply earnest citizens trying to freely express their views or are proxies for imperialist governments bent on establishing (restoring in Britain's case) hegemony over Zimbabwe.
There's no question either that Mugabe's government is in a precarious position. The economy is in a shambles, due in part to drought, to the disruptions caused by land reform, and to sanctions.
White farmers want Mugabe gone (to slow land redistribution, or to stop it altogether), London and Washington want him gone (to ensure neo-liberal "reforms" are implemented), and it's likely that some members of his own party also want him to step down.
On top of acting to sabotage Zimbabwe economically through sanctions, London and Washington have been funneling financial, diplomatic and organizational assistance to groups and individuals who are committed to bringing about a color revolution (i.e., extra-constitutional regime change) in Zimbabwe. That includes Tsvangirai and the MDC factions, among others.
The timing of the MDC rally was suspicious (it coincided with the opening of the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council.) Its depiction as a prayer meeting is flagrantly disingenuous. Those of an unprejudiced mind will recognize it for what it was: a political rally, held in already volatile conditions, whose outcome would either be insurrection or a crackdown that could be used to call for tougher sanctions, even intervention."
raceandhistory.com
Tenth petrol bomb attack in Zimbabwe:
"Unknown attackers in Zimbabwe threw petrol bombs at a store belonging to a businessman with links to the ruling ZANU-PF party, reports said Monday.
The attack on Gumbas Wholesalers in downtown Harare on Saturday niht damaged office equipment worth 150 million Zimbabwe dollars (600,000 US dollars), state radio said."
news.monstersandcritics.com/africa
Police nab 35 MDC activists, confiscate arms, explosives:
"POLICE yesterday arrested 35 MDC activists and seized explosives and arms after the recent spate of terror bombings, hours after the ninth bombing, this time of two petrol tankers in Mutare yesterday morning.
The top two suspects were Ian Makone, the special advisor to faction leader Mr Morgan Tsvangirai, and last year's failed MDC candidate for Chikomba constituency, Piniel Denga, who was arrested after large quantities of explosives and detonators were reportedly found at his city flat.."
raceandhistory.com
UN blocks British, US attempts to halt run-off
"Zimbabwe's mission to the UN presented the Security Council with statistics indicating that the opposition was mostly behind the political violence in the country.
'The figures we have show that 400 MDC-T supporters have been arrested for political violence compared to 160 Zanu-PF supporters.
'We also demonstrated that there have been numerous cases of MDC-T supporters going around dressed in Zanu-PF regalia and beating up people."
raceandhistory.com
Mugabe accuses MDC of terror
Zimbabwe: Deal decisively with security threat
|
Riaz Ali
June 27, 2008 at 11:28 am
Mugabe was (some may argue still is) one of the greatest leaders in Africa and perhaps the world. However, in my opinion, people change with time. While his land reforms had all the best intentions, many citizens of Zimbabwe complain that it was not implemented properly i.e. the new land owners not given the training for large scale farming. The original owners were pushed off the land years ago and the farming techniques have changed since then so new training would have been needed. The worst part of the land reforms was that a lot of the original owners didn't get back their land. Mugabe gave large parcels of land to his supporters.
Before as onlookers we all (at least me and quite a few on this blog) though that Western countries were putting undue pressure on Zimbabwe, further contributing to economic downfall. But now with Zimbabwe citizens from all walks of life complaining and even close neighbours seeing what is really going on, many have come to the conclusion that Mugabe has become corrupt.
|
Ram
June 27, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Kerry Mulchansingh wrote:
"30 years of Mr. Mugabe's rule have left Zimbabwe's black population with no future legacy! The whites are still largely affluent, having mostly fled (with their money) to South Africa and the UK. And the black majority..what do they have...sentimentality? That can not fill bellies, provide housing or educate children!"
When did 'SIR' Robert Mugabe become such a misfit? Now LisaB wants back her "blessings". Is it because he dare to utter such dirty words as LAND REFORM? It's over 200 years since and Haiti is still paying, "They must not succeed, for they can inspire others to ...".
Anyway, time to go look at dem stock market... And they worried about Sir Robert Mugabe as if they don't have enough problems.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPyJMKoqHSM
|
Neal Noray
June 27, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Heru, Let me make something very clear. Multi ethnic and racially mixed societies can present huge and sometimes very difficult political challenges for some leaders. To be honest, it can be just as complex for societies that lack any major differences among its people to develop their countries. {The benefits however are tremendous when you can harness such differences into one socially cohesive unit with love for country as the glue.} It is for this reason, that not everyone is well suited for this profession. There are those that consider compromise as being a sign of weakness. However, that is the true essence of politics. I therefore have one single yardstick- assure me that you care about the country and its people and you'll get my support. This does not mean that any particular leaders should ignore personal interest that encouraged them to enter the political arena, but the nation's interest should always be paramount.
I am not going to use this forum to attempt to defend or justify what might be described by you as borderline terrorist tactics by the opposition leader's overzealous supporters as they try to stand up to the power that be. Let me just say that the Zimbabwe debacle as it stands now has transcends race, and colonialist exploitations. It is now about fairness, power sharing, and economic development to help a struggling people, and true respectability for a region and by extension a continent so that it can finally assume its rightful position in the world of economic and political relevance. Let me ask you something serious. If I have $400 million and want to come to Africa today and do some investments, is Zimbabwe high on my list? It is perhaps the instability and pervasive security breakdown that prevails. The fundamental question to you now is who holds that key? Never lose sight of that question when trying to analyze any troubling political or social issue.
I am not sure that I fully agree with you, that the land reform gene will necessarily return to the closed bottle simply because Mr. Mugabe steps aside or is out of the direct political picture. The message was delivered loud and clear, that business as usual cannot continue. Are the Eurocentric media exploiting the tenuous political situation between the several parties for their own advantage? It is possible, but to counteract that you have to create your own Afro centric independent media outlets willing to compete on a global level. It is logical that Mr. Tsvangirai would look outside for any help he can acquire in the struggles. The Mandela's and Mugabe's of the world utilized the same ploys in the past when they were dealing with white tyranny. Unfortunately, Black African lives are not treated with the seriousness it deserved sometimes by the outside, because of the manner that their own leaders justify genocide , similar mass killings, exploitations , neglect, and other forms of politically expedient persecutions.
So you believe that elections in Trinidad and Tobago are unfair like many in the West? I cannot argue with you on score, as there might be some merits in such an argument. There is no perfect system of course. One of the pertinent hallmarks of a Democratic Country is what it strives to do to address issues of justice for the aggrieved. My country has many shortcomings, but I dare you to find a more democratic, open and fair one in the world. What we lack at times are prudent, genuinely patriotic leaders, willing or able to work closely with progressives, so as to form sensible coalitions, alliances, and networks that might possibly help produce social, economic, and political policies that are beneficial to 'all citizens'.
The lessons here are similar for Zimbabwe or any other former exploited European colony. Hold on tightly to failed divisive cultural norms that pragmatic European masters thrust upon us, or tear up the old play book that inhibits us from transforming our respective nations and peoples into the 21st century- where peace, security, and economic security for all citizens are reachable ideals. Let's start scouting the history books for systems that can work, and not hold on rigidly to those that have proven to be irrelevant for today. Finally, a policy has failed when the hearts and minds of the intended beneficiary are lost. Generally people the world over are the same. They want to live in security, feed their families, and have the possibility of a bright and pleasant future. They could care less in the end who is the 'ruler of the roost'. Simply give them the assurances and make efforts to deliver. I wish you luck my friend.
|
Heru
June 27, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Riaz Ali said:
"The worst part of the land reforms was that a lot of the original owners didn't get back their land. Mugabe gave large parcels of land to his supporters."
I have heard much in the mainstream media about Mugabe giving the land to his cronies, but I am skeptical about those reports that do not give verifiable figures. They sound like the customary exaggerations.
Here are some other opinions on that:
This extract from the article "Zimbabwe: More Than Complicity of Silence" is part of a response by Netfa Freeman on May 01, 2008, to an article from Fletcher:
"Mr. Fletcher says: "And, we ignored the fact that the land was not being redistributed."
But some was. Although it represented only one third of a 162,000 household target, more than 50,000 households had been resettled by 1990. Why wasn't more land redistributed before the late 1990s? This is explained by constraints of the 1979 Lancaster House Agreement that brokered Zimbabwe's independence and it is critical to note that the liberation forces were encouraged to accept this agreement by fellow liberation forces in the other Front Line states. The constraints in this agreement were not the choice of Mugabe or ZANU.
Mr. Fletcher says: "And some of us closed our eyes to who was actually benefiting from land redistribution and who was not."
With all due respect this sounds like a version of the land going not to the landless but to Mugabe's cronies routine. I'm sorry but I can't believe Mugabe had 134,000 cronies to dole land out to in 2002. Land audits bear out the fact that land went mainly to the landless and had reached over 250,000 families by 2006. Furthermore, not only have there been eyewitness testimonies by others, such as that of Baffour Ankomah, editor of New African who has seen things for himself but I also personally know of a youth farming cooperative started with land from this exercise. Having been there and stayed at the home of the cooperative's chairman I attest that these youth are hardly cronies of Mugabe."
On August 03, 2006, Rosemary Ekosso in her article titled "Zimbabwe: White Lies, Black Victims" had this to say:
"No, what they care about is the expropriation of white farmers. They express indignation at Mugabe's cronies acquiring the land. That is a bad thing, of course. I myself come from an area where government or government-affiliated bigwigs are buying up all the prime sea-front locations because they can afford them. But in the case of Zimbabwe only 0.3% of people settled on land have acquired it through undue influence or corruption. So 99.7% of Zimbabweans got their land fair and square.
Mugabe has in fact, settled quite a few people on land. I am not saying his cronies have not got their fat, be-ringed fingers on some prime land. But so have at least 134.000 other people, who were settled between 2000 and 2002. So let's not exaggerate here. And no, they were not all from ZANU-PF, Mugabe's party. People from MDC, the opposition party, also got land."
|
L.Paul
June 27, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Firstly, anyone who thinks that Trinidad and Tobago is one of the most "democratic, open and fair" systems in the world, as Neal Noray purports, is unaware of the true nature of our politics and the true nature of democracy. Just because we have not degenerated to a situation of civil war does not mean that our political situation is an advanced one. Democracy in Venezuela is more advanced than ours. Voters in Venezuela have the right to recall their leaders and they have referendums unlike Trinidad and Tobago. In Trinidad and Tobago you have the right to vote once every five years and there is little you can do if you find the government is not performing adequately during that period.
Several recent developments have highlighted the shortcomings of our system which, by the way, is a mimicry, with minute alterations, of the British Westminster system: the same nasty, racist and corrupt values are applied here. Although people can vote for the persons and party of their choosing (although people usually vote for the persons who are aligned with a particular party regardless of their capabilities, political experience or integrity), they are still trapped by their colonialist mindsets that box them into voting for either the "lesser of two evils" (which is nonsensical, of course), or for (assumed) political favors, even if these leaders demonstrate corruption, which includes thievery and deceit. People do not have equal access to media, to funding and to the financial affairs of the country. It is for these and other reasons that we do not have a free and fair society and by extension, free and fair elections in the truest sense of the words.
Secondly, has "the Zimbabwe debacle ... [transcended] race, and colonialist exploitations"? Surely the very foundation of the Zimbabwe (African, Caribbean, Australian, American, World) struggle is based on racism and colonialism which is still a very stark reality there. To think that Zimbabwe has overcome these conditions is to think that Zimbabwe exists in a bubble. Such fantastical ideas fail to highlight the ongoing battles that Zimbabwe faces with the international community, namely the European and USA governments, along with the racism and corruption meted out by Whites living in Zimbabwe and throughout Africa. The hero of Zimbabwe in the West's eyes has suddenly become the pariah. Why? Simply because of his attempt to address one aspect of European colonialism: the problem of stolen land. Of course, this is already known. It is for this reason and because he was so adored by the West before this, that the ongoing demonizing campaign against President Mugabe is suspicious. And to think that people choose to favor the anti-African, pro-colonialist views propagated by the Western media without looking to alternative sources for other views or even reviewing history. Real pathetic!
Neal Noray said, "Let's start scouting the history books for systems that can work, and not hold on rigidly to those that have proven to be irrelevant for today." This idealistic view cannot work without addressing racism; not only racism against Zimbabwe (and other places) by the West, or racism that the Western media has demonstrated against Mugabe and supporters of Mugabe, but the racism that leads people to favour anti-Africanism without a whim to question.
|
Linda Edwards
June 28, 2008 at 1:30 am
Neal, Mugabe scouted the history books. It was a system of the Roman rulers/conquerrors, to give their soldiers land at the end of a tour of duty. Sometimes they were settled on conquerred land, to perpetuate the Pax Romana by forced colonialisation. Mugabe restored to his people, land that had been theirs for perhaps the two thousand years that the Shona people had lived there. Those who ran roughshod over East Africa during the last one hundred and fifty yers, had things their own way. It is easy to become a farmer if you take away my land, have subsidized seeds and equipment loans, and you grow a crop for shipment to Europe, while those forced off their land and into your labour camp subsist on mealie porrige.
It is to be hoped that these descendants of the people who built Great Zimbabwe would work out a settlement among themselves- something they are quite capable of, if the MArk Thatchers and their cohorts stay out of it. Were these European coup plotters not arrested in Zimbabwe? No wonder the west demonizes Mugabe. Now,no political leader is a saint, ecept peerhaps MAndela, but the image of the black east African devil has too much currency. I have often said that East Africa, to the European, is a beautiful place, but there are indigenous East Africans there, who believe that that is their land.
|
T. Man
June 28, 2008 at 11:51 am
Look, regardless of the history, the only voices capable of influencing Mugabe are those of his African neighbours who unfortunately are not standing shoulder-to-shoulder demanding that the "Old Man" run free and fair elections and stop murdering and terrorizing his own people.
It's clear that harsh words and expressions of outrage from the international community have no impact on Robert Mugabe and the half dozen henchmen who are pulling his string.
Mugabe has a visceral dislike of Britain for a host of colonial and post-colonial reasons, is deeply suspicious of the United states and takes no notice of the United Nations where he has powerful allies to snuff out any real threats to his rule.He has become a power hungry, murdering thug. Very Unfortunate!
|
Kerry Mulchansingh
June 28, 2008 at 12:52 pm
"He has become a power hungry, murdering thug. Very Unfortunate!" This is in a nutshell, what the great hero has been reduced to. All of his great acheivements, while recorded in the history books for posterity, are just that...HISTORY! He could have gone the route of Nelson Mandela...govern like a hero, then hand the reigns over to more competent. It's a shame
|
Linda Edwards
June 28, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Again, not sainthood for Mugabe here, but its true that CNN was not present when a german general marched the entire Herero nation of South West Africa, into the Otaheite desert and left them there, saying that a real people do not perish so easily. Nor was CNN there when Thomas Jefferson, the founding father of the Republic I now live in, spoke of eliminating ever First American, as Perpetual enemies of the American people. he meant of course, the American white people. Nor was CNN and the BBC present and reporting, when White Australians created the Black Linein tasmania-walked across the country in a line, killing every Aboriginal Tasmanian they could fine, and thus eliminated them all. Nor is CNN and the BBC asking what happened to the indigenous population of Uruguay- They all disappeared after WW11 when a number of Germans, fleeing the retribution of their actions in Europe, settled there. They were present when the Balkans erupted in to genocide, and the Hutus began murdering the Tsutsis in Rwandaa. This late holiness on their part is just hogwash.
We demonise Black Africans in every way, throwing mud in the hope that some would stick. This is why informed Africans are not taking the west overly seriously. they have more information than most westerners ever could.
now, supposing there was an agent of ethnic strife in TnT operating in New York, and every crime committed in the last year, was attributed to the MAnning government, as if ordered by him, and engineered by his people, then Hope Arismandez, Avita's kidnapping, arranged by her friend, the murder of a PNM councillor, the fake kidnapping of the thirteen year old found with her boyfriend in ah ouse and all the victims of slice and dice as happens daily in the country, would be blamed on the PNM. If the media bought that story lock stock and barrel, how could MAnning fight back?
Discussion opens people to many viewpoints, and the little shadowed recesses of bigoted minds need the light of day shining into them.
|
T. Man
June 28, 2008 at 6:26 pm
CNN was not there, Linda, but does that justify Mugabe's actions?
|
Ram
June 28, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Gosh Linda, The PNM is a victim of their own circumstances. If I were to search anything relating to the plight of African people on the World Wide Web, there is a 75% chance my search engine will point me to Trinicenter. That says a lot for the people who run these websites. Yet, (correct me if I am wrong) there is no Trinicenter Radio Station in T&T.. In this age of HD radio (3 stations broadcasting from one transmitter) and Digital TV (600+ stations over the airwaves), I hope they will find a place on the airwaves of T&T. But until then, our hearts goes out for Mr. Manning and the poor PNM, sush.
From 7yrs ago.
www.trinicenter.com/Cudjoe/2001/May/2052001.htm
Kerry, I hope this article brings some comfort to your soul.
SOUTH Africa's land reform programme is in dire straits and there is no chance of reaching a 2008 deadline to complete the restitution process, said a report released by a think tank.
The gloomy report issued by the Centre for Development and Enterprise (CDE) said the country's agriculture was under serious threat from the struggling land reform strategy.
"The future of South African commercial agriculture is now on the table," said CDE executive director Ann Bernstein in a statement.
"The economic viability of many rural regions of the country is under threat, which could lead to serious negative consequences for the broader economy and society."
At the onset of democracy in 1994, some 87 percent of agricultural land in the country was owned by whites, who make up less than 10 percent of the population.
Thirteen years later only four percent of land, or four million hectares (nearly 10 million acres), had been transferred to blacks, said the CDE.
Land reform was taking place "far too slowly" to reach the target of 30 percent – 25 million hectares – by 2014, it added.
The land restitution programme focuses on returning land to blacks that was seized by whites after 1913.
There is "absolutely no prospect" of meeting a 2008 deadline for completing all land restitution claims, the report said.
Land restitution was seriously bogged down in its last phase as the biggest rural claims – involving thousands of people – had led to "large swathes of productive land being placed under claim and therefore effectively frozen for years to come."
The sugar and timber industries were particularly under pressure.
At least 50 percent of land reform projects had been abject failures, with beneficiaries worse off after land reform due to a lack of post-settlement support from government, said the CDE.
It also warned that South Africa could go down the same path as its neighbour Zimbabwe, where white farmers were forced off their land, if land policy reform was based on racially tinged assumptions about what was holding the process back.
AFP
www.talkzimbabwe.com/news/119/ARTICLE/2348/2008-05-07.html
|
Linda Edwards
June 29, 2008 at 1:19 am
I hope Mugabe's people have enough sense not to let him attend that upcoming African Union summit. The western media+governments- sometimes they are the same, seem to be waiting for him to take off to declare him out of office. We are watching another Aristide situation unfolding here. Knowing that the EU will not attack the west, it would be easy to have him stripped of power in absentia, and have the opposition leader installed. Bush needs one last hurrah to boost his ratings and Mugabe would give him it if he leaves the country.( Interfering in African politics is right up there with Adopting African Babies by American celebrities, as the current cause to embrace for spotlight purposes.
A panel of Eminent Persons should be appointed instead to go to Zimbabwe and help sort things out. Recommended reading on tangential issue: A Yahoo piece on Black Farmers suing the US government about their land. The First American people would also like to have the US government treat them fairly on their land issue, but Africa is the current "media place" to be.
|
Ruel Daniels
June 29, 2008 at 11:43 am
The question asked by Stephen Gowans in the second paragraph of his piece impeaches any enunciations that Zimbabweans prefers the golly wog opposition leader to Mugabe. The people of Zimbabwe are being presented with coercive bread and butter ultimitaions to condition their electoral behaviour. This represent an example of moden day slavery and imperialism in the worse way, and would be intolerable in any other ethnic or political theatre but one where the drive is to restore that which what was stolen from Africans.
The US, the UK, and all of those nations and individuals who spent an eternity of tepid reaction to the apartheid structures in Southern Africa have no moral or ethical standing to wag fingers of indignation at Zimbabwe. Where else in this world, is it considered irrationale to reverse the unlawful distribution of land that had 4000 people in one group controlling 90 plus percent of the viable agricultural area in a nation where they represent less than ten percent of the population. Many who today cite these land reforms as the reason why Mugabe should go would be screaming blue murder if the disparities were closer to their cultural homes. "Do so no like so" is the most fashionable pursuit for those engaged in disingenuous analysis.
From Patrice Lumumba to Kwame Nkrumah, the trail of Western conspiracy to refuse Africans dominance over resources in lands they have inhabited since the dawn of man is as wide as the Atlantic and Pacific oceans combined. And the tool being used against Mugabe and Zimbabwe today is no different than that which was used againt NKrumah and Lumumba. To wit, an ambitious blackman prepared to sell his soul and nation for thirty pieces of silver. Nkrumah warned that quote, "A State in the grip of neo-colonialism is not master of its own destiny. It is this factor which makes neo-colonialism such a serious threat to world peace,". Zimbabwe's destiny has been hijacked by an assemblage of powers, avaricious and greedy as all get out, and obsessed with the thought that black people might be propelled into the position their and their kind was from by virtue of ownership and controll over resources these imperialistc mindsets had been covetting for centuries.
|
Cynthia Shearing
June 29, 2008 at 9:32 pm
The pressure to relinquish or reverse the indigenization program in Zimbabwe can only be resisted successfully if other surrounding African countries, particularly South Africa engage a program to realistically return the land to the indigenous folks over there. There seems to be a cowardice or fear to do so among the African folks. There needs to be regional solidarity on this issue. Of course, if the land is redistributed to the rightful heirs - the black African - and they are not monitored and supported in producing with it, that can be a problem, but it is still no excuse to return the land back to the minority European. After all, how long did the Europeans have the land and infrastructure support from the colonial powers to practice on the land and develop the commercial farming expertise. The indigenous people of southern Africa will need time to realign themselves to the land - after all, it was a colonial strategy to remove them from the land to work as servants for the white farmers on that very same land, but never as the owner. The indigenous people were purposely alienated and distanced from the land, oriented towards other types of careers in the towns or just as mindless workers. They need time to restructure their existence.
The problem is will the west leave them alone and let them do it. NO!! They want the resources and valuables over there.
|
Neal Noray
June 30, 2008 at 4:16 pm
A few of the posters are putting forward some very valid and logical points re the Zimbabwe issue. One is the need for regional actions and condemnations. At the same time, we can understand the reality that most of the close border leaders are confronted with themselves. Each African nation depended on neighbors during times of independent or other struggles. The refugee matter has always been an issue. In addition many of the leaders have dirty hands themselves and have utilized similar tactics over time. To give up power can mean removal of the protective umbrella and possible accountability for past wrongs.
Post conflict reconstruction Paradox I call it. How do you make an uncaring or rather busy world focus on all of Africa starting today with Zimbabwe?
The fact is that every respected political figureor thinker that attempted to return and do some thing is discouraged. Hopefully that would change soon. World recognized Nigerian economist and World bank pres- Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala have some excellent ideas that might shift the debate on Africa as to responsibility. She incidentally was unceremoniously kicked out of office by another of these Stone Age leaders because of her fervent stance on corruption.
So how do you therefore help the desperate Africans out of this quagmire? The AU cannot do it, European and the US cannot be trusted based on every account listed, Expat are discouraged, and non - tribal clans abused. No Peace & security, no development. It's that simple.
|
Heru
June 30, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Neal Noray said:
"A few of the posters are putting forward some very valid and logical points re the Zimbabwe issue. One is the need for regional actions and condemnations."
Yes the region should condemn the actions of the Western powers in bankrolling terrorism in Zimbabwe. They should stand firm behind Zimbabwe.
As Stephen Gowans said:
In an April 5, 2007 report, the US Department of State revealed that it had:
– "Sponsored public events that presented economic and social analyses discrediting the government's excuse for its failed policies" (i.e, absolving US and EU sanctions for undermining the country's economy);
– "Sponsored...and supported...several township newspapers" and worked to expand the listener base of Voice of America's Studio 7 radio station. (The State Department had been distributing short-wave radios to Zimbabweans to facilitate the project of Zimbabwean public opinion being shaped from abroad by Washington's propagandists).
Last year, the US State Department set aside US$30 million for these activities. [11] Earlier this year, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced that the UK had increased its funding for civil society organizations operating in Zimbabwe from US$5 million to US$6.5 million.
We have the US and other European governments sponsoring terrorism in Zimbabwe.
As Stephen further stated:
"Dozens of other governments, corporations and capitalist foundations shower civil society groups with money, training and support to set up and run "independent" media to attack the government, "independent" election monitoring groups to discredit the outcome of elections Zanu-PF wins, and underground groups which seek to make the country ungovernable through civil disobedience campaigns. One such group is Zvakwana, "an underground movement that aims to resist - and eventually undermine" the Zanu-PF government. "With a second, closely related group called Sokwanele, Zvakwana's members specialize in anonymous acts of civil disobedience." [13] Both groups, along with Zubr in Belarus and Ukraine's Pora, whose names, in English, mean 'enough', "take their inspiration from Otpor, the movement that played a major role in ousting Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia." [14] One Sokwanele member is "a white conservative businessman expressing a passion for freedom, tradition, polite manners and the British royals," [15] hardly a black-clad anarchist motivated by a philosophical opposition to "authoritarian rule," but revealing of what lies beneath the thin veneer of radicalism that characterizes so many civil society opposition groups in Zimbabwe. In the aforementioned April 5, 2007 US State Department report, Washington revealed that it had "supported workshops to develop youth leadership skills necessary to confront social injustice through non-violent strategies," the kinds of skills members of Zvakwana and Sokwanele are equipped with to destabilize Zimbabwe.
In addition to funding received from the US and Britain, Zimbabwe's civil society groups also receive money from the German, Australian and Canadian governments, the Ford Foundation, Freedom House, the Albert Einstein Institution, the International Center for Nonviolent Conflict, Liberal International, the Mott Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers, South African Breweries, and billionaire financier George Soros' Open Society Institute. All of these funding sources, including the governments, are dominated by Western capitalist ruling classes."
Neal Noray said:
"At the same time, we can understand the reality that most of the close border leaders are confronted with themselves. Each African nation depended on neighbors during times of independent or other struggles."
Why should they forget that? They are aware of the US and UK actions and the reasons for them. They know that they are trying to overthrow the government in Zimbabwe for having the courage to do what most of them are gutless to do.
Neal Noray said:
"In addition many of the leaders have dirty hands themselves and have utilized similar tactics over time. To give up power can mean removal of the protective umbrella and possible accountability for past wrongs."
What similar tactics are you speaking about here? You are commenting as if the US and European generated propaganda against the Zimbabwe government constitutes evidence. We do know that many considered the elections in Kenya to be rigged and thousands were killed until the US pushed for an accommodation between the government and the opposition that are both pro US agenda. We know that hundreds were killed in Nigeria's election that many also said was rigged, and worst of all Ethiopia where Meles stole the election, locked up many Opposition members, his troops killed over thirty unarmed protestors and invaded Somalia on behalf of London and Washington. The election violence and death toll were more than ten times that of Zimbabwe, but Meles still receives funding from the US and UK.
The US and Europe have exposed themselves, and their governments are terrorists who feel they can get away with their brutal actions because of a generally ignorant and racist population.
|
|
Email your comments to:
|
|
|
