Zimbabwe: West Desperate to Unseat President
Posted: Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Printer friendly version
May 14, 2008
The Herald (Harare)
THERE comes a time when the truth, no matter how unsavoury, just cannot be repressed.
The Sunday Times, a South African weekly with a rabid anti-Zimbabwe slant this week carried an article - "The West is conspiring to unseat that valiant warrior, President Mugabe" - by its regular columnist, MOHAU PHEKO, exposing the West's hand in the problems in Zimbabwe and how President Mugabe's refusal to kow-tow to London and Washington has driven them to pursue his ouster at all costs. Read on.
I SUSPECT there is more to the Zimbabwean election than meets the eye. It's hard to decipher where the truth lies, what with MDC-aligned activists masquerading as "independent analysts".
In the meantime, President Thabo Mbeki gives Western powers the finger at the United Nations Security Council, signalling that Africa will handle its own problems.
In the cacophony of Mbeki's critics, we missed the pronouncement he made in a briefing to religious leaders that his mediation process was dogged by the interference of the US and the UK governments.
Is this plausible? Can we unapologetically begin to find some truth in his statement without the debate deteriorating to how Africans always blame the West?
Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair's longtime chief of staff, argued that Britain should not be afraid to intervene in Zimbabwe to defend "our interests" and promote "our values" because "intervening in another country no longer risks tipping the two superpowers into global war, because there is only one superpower".
On the other hand, the US government passed the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, which among other things decreed that President Robert Mugabe could restore relations with international financial institutions on condition that he restore Zimbabwe's rule of law, withdraw his troops from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and change the conduct of internal elections.
Why does this only apply to Zimbabwe?
Uganda, a far less open and democratic country, also had troops in the DRC and has successfully annihilated all opposition parties and freedom of the Press -- but has not been subjected to the same conditions because it's happy to do the US' bidding.
The Act authorised US President George W. Bush to fund opposition media and "democracy" and "governance" programmes in Zimbabwe aimed at "discrediting" President Mugabe.
It's instructive to note that the MDC vigorously lobbied for sanctions against its own country, prompting this US law to have the power to instruct all US members of international financial institutions to oppose and vote against any extension of loans, credits or guarantees to Zimbabwe.
According to Gregory Elich, author of Strange Liberators: Militarism, Mayhem and the Pursuit of Profit, "Western financial restrictions made it nearly impossible for Zimbabwe to participate in international trade".
President Mugabe, we are made to believe, unilaterally brought Zimbabwe's economy to its knees, bringing about widespread poverty, a reign of terror and despotism.
On the other hand, Morgan Tsvangirai is spoken of as the author of a noble "revolution" against President Mugabe and Zanu-PF.
This hides the fact that the MDC is in collusion with the US administration and the British government, who both acknowledge that they are working with the MDC to bring down the President Mugabe Government.
Neither the US nor Britain would tolerate outside interference in their internal politics.
The fairy tale that presents a clash between the "evil king" President Mugabe and the "heroic prince" Tsvangirai fails to recognise the geopolitical interests surrounding Zimbabwe and the Sadc region.
Allowing into our backyard the same coalition of countries (Britain and the US ) that brought destruction to Iraq -- under the guise of a UN Security Council resolution on Zimbabwe -- would plunge the Sadc region into a human disaster of enormous proportions.
The anatomy of falling out of favour always follows the same pattern: Elected officials who defy the White House and 10 Downing Street are denounced as dictators despite winning free and fair elections.
The credibility and legitimacy of the elections is deemed suspicious.
Then it is said these leaders govern in an anti-democratic way.
The opposition calls for Western countries to apply economic sanctions detrimental to their own people.
The US and Britain fund civil society, media and the opposition to begin the regime-change agenda and bring down the "dictator".
Election campaigning is used to force the "dictator" to step down.
The fact that the "dictator" is holding elections at all is considered a sham.
There is a declaration of victory by the opposition party even before the election results are announced, supported by local media mimicking the Western media and promoting a narrative of rigged elections.
Western media repeat this mantra in all their broadcasts just in case you are too dense to comprehend the message.
Predictably, official results contradict the opposition's claim and the elections are deemed fraudulent.
Forecasts from the opposition that blood will spill begin to do the rounds in the capitals of the world, and of course end up at the UN Security Council -- where regime change can mean bombs falling on the heads of the very people to whom democracy and "change" is being brought.
President Mugabe no doubt has made gross mistakes in governing, but this is not why he has been singled out as a "tyrant" and an "African Hitler".
Western governments detest President Mugabe's impertinence -- in particular, his audacity in daring to seize white farms; in meddling in the DRC without consent from the US; and his criticism of Western colonialism, which has gained him the reputation of valiant warrior against Western superiority in Africa.
Send page by E-Mail