Poor are the Africans. For the last 500 years they were victimised, oppressed, enslaved and exploited by European colonisers and still are today.
Shut your mouth and enjoy your freedom. After 500 years you would think you could fight back.
The gentleman who wrote this article is not a Zimbabwean. I doubt if he has ever been in Zimbabwe. Despite what Mugabe stands for or stood for in Africa we as Zimbabweans want him to step down and rest. He distributed land to blacks only as a political tactic to survive an MDC challenge after spending the better part of 24 years using British money to buy farms and resettle his cronies. It is amazing how even educated people like this proffessor can be gullible to the Mugabe rhetoric. The bottom line Proffessor is that you don't do the right thing the wrong way. Mubabe's approach to things is like that of a mad man. A mad man will gain the street from the fifth floor of a building by jumping off the roof instead of taking the stairs. As Zimbabweans we want a normal life, with sane leaders and it is the foreigners like this proffessor who support this despote who are oppressing us. Mugabe should give us the chance to determine our own fate freely without raping and beating us.
Hey Black Jesus, you have many mdc Apostles .....how on earth can you get raped and beaten when ALL reports say that mdc has the vast majority?
You really have shown us your stupidity there Kube. Just because someone has the majority, doesnt mean they have the power. I'm really embarrased for you that I have to point this out to you. Look at the shiites in Iraq under the control of Saddam for a simple example. A dictator, like Mugabe, who intimidated voters, had bogus elections and was happy to murder thousands of his own people to keep a grip on power. Why do you keep letting us laugh at your stupidity?
I'll raise a point here that is in full agreement with Awt for a change, but I'll bring it closer to home:
the Rhodesian regime was a white minority rule, so going by your logic, as the black population were a majority there could have been no atrocities committed by the whites as they were in the minority.
One or the other is true, you can't have it both ways. I find it incredible that you can be so selective with what you see as the truth ..... minorities CAN commit atrocities against a majority, and have done many times in the past.
Just because the motive for land distribution was political does not invalidate the exercise or unnecessarily point to it's failure or an absence of a socio-economic imperative for the exercise. Human beings are political creatures (Homo-Politicus)... The political need coincided with the social need. Of-course, it was done with political considerations...like everything else everywhere else from Russian gvnmnt decisions on Oil/Gas companies to such things as the debate in the USA on Iraq, health-care, and lobbying for or against legislations, etc... there are political considerations... In fact, the fact that political heavyweights were given land as well secures the land for the less powerfull (many more of whom got land)... Speaking as someone who is totally impartial and has been following the events at home dispassionately, I recognise the failures of the present gvnmnt but find that "the failure of leadership" that N.Mandela talked of was an aspersion to both sides of Zimbabwe's political class... One side failed to move us beyond our first few archievements after independence and the other has failed to be a partner in moving us forward. And this moving forward cannot happen under western tutelage as the one side would like it... One luv!
Just about the article I must say whatever has been said in it is absolutetly true. Much as Mugabe has other weaknesses it would be wise and helpful for the developed nations like America to step back and leave it to the Africans to sort it out their own problems. Otherwise then it always mean that Afica in this case Zimbabwe may have to undergo another war to gain independence.
the writer is a socail worker in Uganda
I just have a couple of points to raise here:
1: Prof. Elmasry is actually the leader of the Muslim community in Canada and a lecturer at the University of Waterloo in Canada ..... not a Social Worker in Uganda as stated by yourself.
2: It is interesting that he claims sanctions are to blame for the economical collapse, as there are no effective sanctions against Zimbabwe per se, they are all personal sanctions on ruling ZANU PF members. Unless these specific members' personal finances are internally tied to the economy (i.e. using the economy as their personal piggy banks, commonly called embezzlement) then it would be impossible to bring an economy down in this way.
The truth of the matter is that Mugabes system of land reforms was short sighted and needed to be implemented over a greater period of time, allowing the time for the exiting owners to train up their replacements, and even a system of cooperative ownerships to keep the experienced and knowledgable farmers (black and white) on the farms that would, had this been the case, still have been productive, hence there would have been food export to keep the economy going.
In the 1980s he put inexperienced ZANU PF faithful into industrial management positions as a reward, the result was a collapse of good sized portions of industry ..... another nail in the coffin of the economy.
So I still don't see how the 'evil' west is responsible for an economic collapse brought about by the decisions and policies of ZANU PF and RGM ..... unless you are saying RGM is in league with the west and they told him to sabotage the economy of Zimbabwe?
When I read this article, I thought - yah here we go again - one of the Herald stooges at work to prop uo Mugabe, but to see a professor writing such crap is mindboggling. God bless his students. Fair and well - Mugabe was a liberation hero and no one can ever deny that. But the emphasis is on WAS. I also agree with the professor that the West (and the East) are still determined as ever to undermine Africa's economic and social development through harsh economic policies, unfair trade agreements, weapons sales, corruption and exploitation. All this does not justify what Mugabe has done to his people and Zimbabwe in the last 15 years. He is a ruthless killer, dictator and exploiter. He and his cronies have millions of US$ stash away in bank accounts in the East, while his people are suffering. As Africans we would have supported him, if there was a real threat from the West, just like he supported us against apartheid. But no, his percieved struggle is not against Britian, but against his own people who are demanding justice, freedom and democracy.
No-one has money stashed anywhere. This is an aspect of afro-pessimism where everyone believes black leaders steal...
And your claim is that black leaders, alone among the races of the world, never steal?
President Mugabe might have some good qualities as pointed out in the above article, but that was the past. If he is who the country truly wanted to led them, then why did his supporters have to resort to volience to get people to vote for him! People were voting just so they could get an inked finger to avoid beatings, rape, & to protect their families from the same! We may have many flaws in the West (again, as pointed out in the above article), but this is not a black & white - East & West issue. This is a human issue. No one should have to live in fear of being raped or beaten for thinking for themselves! The volience that is going on over there is sickening! I usually stand on the opposite side of any issue President Bush has (not a big supporter), but on the issue of Zimbabwe, I'm very proud of him as our leader for one of the first times! We as humans need to stop you African culture from thinking it is okay to rape your own! Telling the men it is okay to rape an infant or "pure" woman because it will cure you from Aids/HIV! For God sake, educate yourselves! If you want to be left alone to govern yourselves, then take care of your own! Stop the rapes, then maybe some of us from the West will listen. Otherwise, I say "You go President Bush! Show them we won't tolerate "open" abuse to woman & children in ANY country!"
kgayler, how wonderful of you to comment on Zimbabwe when your Bush, backed by people like YOU killed thousands of innocent Iraq's and your army raped and tortured many too. You got no love for human life,you are just a bunch of trigger happy greedy RAMBOS!
Apparently "Bush invaded Iraq and killed people" has become the new "And you are lynching Negroes".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes
kuba...your constant use of the stupid invasion of Iraq to justify mugabe murdering his own people is beyond stupid. Its a bit like saying because gun crime if rife in the states zimbabwe must now do all it can to catch up. Are you really this thick????
To kgayler: ----- Just a little reminder. Many of us who hate Mugabe have to pounce on your supposedly moral authority. You are speaking for all Americans. Right? Talk to us about heinous crime in your own country as well. Can you speak with a straight face about crime in your own country? Did you know that Americans voted and elected in the white house a chimpanzee who shoots from the hip anything that moves? You have no moral authority to preach to other people. You should stop exploiting our emotions and our suffering for your own selfish interets.
This is typical of the poor, downtrodden drivel you find in the victimology of so much 'post-colonial' language. It is the language of losers who blame everyone else for their own ineptitude and their inability to join the modern world.
Look at the logic: Mugabe is being victimised BECAUSE HE IS BLACK. Absolute rubbish! Condleeze Rice is black. Barack Obama is black. So is the Tanzanian preident black (whom the G8 seemed to like (and to whose country I'm sure they will send massive investment).
Mugabe is being victimised because he is a CRIMINAL and a TYRANT who has no place in the modern world. Get it?
Why Zimbabwe, why now? Why so much attention from the Americans?
Because we don't much care for leaders who have their people beaten, raped, and mutilated so they can stay in power.
Just one suggestion.
Mugabe is doing the right thing. Let the 5000 white farmers and their cronies go elsewhere. The west certainly has harmed the Zimbabwean people with sanctions. It was done because 5000 white people lost their unjustified gains that the country's economy is so severe. Mugabe played by the rules and the west is trying to change the rules...again.
From a very logical point of view, I think the USA, and UK are testing the political strenth of Africa again. This is not about only Mugabe, but also the South African people as well, I pray that all the African leaders stand behind Mugabe. and get rid of this neo colonia rule
Ambuli, you are so right! I have always had the opinion that this crisis in Zimbabwe is bigger that Mugabe or Zanu pf - it is global. The west cannot accept the fact that the white man will lose land not only in Zimbabwe but everywhere and Mugabe has now become the most hated man on this planet because he has been encouraging other African leaders to start dealing with the East. I really hope Africa as a whole could stand up and back Mugabe because he is a visionary and has the guts to stand up against western domination.
The fact he is beating, murdering and torturing his own people is really irrelavent isnt it Kube.
Sure.Honestly, the debate is becoming less and less focused on Zimbwabwe and Pres R Mugabe. The author's expression shows that already. That is why I think eventually and for some years to come it will lead to a bigger debate about how we can protect, guard, love and make moves towards a united africa. I would be willing to be on that boat sooner or later.
Lets see ..... so the fact that the Mugabe regime placed people in those farms that simply didn't have the knowledge to farm them has nothing to do with the problems? The fact that he ran the Industrial base down the same route has nothing to do with it either?
Mugabe broke the rules when he started handing out farms to his cronies when they were supposed to be going to the general populace of Zimbabwe, regardless of party or 'connections'. He forfeited the financial assistance agreed under the Lancaster House Agreement when he did that, and yet he still laid the smokescreen that somehow the 'evil' west had caused it.
In his eyes he can do whatever he wants, but he refuses to accept any responsibility for his actions like a spoilt child who constantly says 'I didn't do it' every time they get caught doing wrong.
"Why there's so much attention in the United States on Zimbabwe when the average American does not know if Zimbabwe is a country or a river?"
Because human rights violations by ruling parties can only be addressed by international groups - especially when the ruling party controls the armed forces of the country. Wake up.
The author received a great training in the Communist "Pravda". As the result he's trying to sell his emotions as the facts. And this guy is ... a professor?
What a load of drivel. As an apparent intellectual you read from the same page as TIM (that idiot Mugabe), and that the west is to blame for all of Africa's woes. Absolute crap, and why are you not plying your trade in Pakistan / Afganistan instead of the comfort of law and order and a civilised society.
I care about Zimbabwe because I knew a Zimbabwean professor at my college in America who deeply loved his beautiful country, which is now in ruins because of a tolerance for tyranny which is not unique to Africans, but which all truly civilized people abhor. When other African nations tolerate this level of atrocity, indeed it will turn the West away. Still, it's sad to see a continent collaborate with one of the worst world leaders since Hitler.
whit, you all turned away when almost 1 million people died in Ruanda because you had nothing to gain! Now all your focus is on Zimbabwe because you have much to gain. Why don't you focus on the mess you've done in Iraq and Afganistan! And by the way thousands are dying in Somalia and Sudan as we speke but you do very little. Shame on you!
Do you seriously think the U.S. has anything to gain from Zimbabwe?
Also, the U.S. tried Somalia (in 1993). Remember "Black Hawk Down"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_%281993%29
Apparently, no one paid attention to Rwanda as the genocide took place. The reason why historic genocides have become the target of media campaigns is because the awareness of genocide was expanded as a result of Rwanda, or at least because genocide has, ever since, become a popular catch-all buzzword that is being applied to a wide variety of historic events which were previously listed as "accidents" of the state (Leopold II's Congo Free State, the Holodomor in Stalin's Ukraine, or the massacres of whole African-American residential areas during the Jim Crow era of U.S. history, for example).
Otherwise, Western media wouldn't have paid that much attention to the Armenian genocide and the ongoing war of words between Turkey and Armenia as it has in recent years (albeit over a century after the genocide took place).
And people are trying to stop Mugabe doing the same to Zimbabwe. He's killed 20,000 of his own people before, so whats to stop him doing it again?
you are so confused kuba..in one breath you berate the US for wanting to intervene in zim and in the next you are angry that they did NOT intervene in ruanda...I bet if they had done you would be on your high horse critisizing them for doing so. you need a career change...working in the zanupf press office..you will do them proud!!!!
Why am I not surprised that this so-called professor has the cheek to spin the events of miserable Zimbabwe into an anti-Western screed?
Oh yeah, those nasty Europeans. As if Africans hadn't carried on "oppression, slavery and exploitation" quite well before, during and after them. Now that the evil colonizers and imperialists are long gone, Africans are back to what they do best -- killing each other, midst unbridled corruption and incompetence. And, predictably, their storytellers invent myths and point fingers, to lay the blame for their miseries everywhere but upon in your own miserable cultures.
Mugabe is only the latest and most notorious of the "Big Men," the thugs and gangsters who replaced the "yoke" of the Europeans -- with their justice, stability and technology and, yes, their despotism -- with local plunder, rapine and murder. Ah, but at least you have freeeeeedom!
Oh, and let's not forget the "oppression, slavery and exploitation" of the dear professor's Islamic culture, whose slave trade in the Horn of Africa, whose genocide in Darfur, whose female circumcision, are still impposed on the unfortunate Africans. Oppressors indeed.
What's truly pitiable are the students who are indoctrinated by this academic huckster and demagogue, this professional liar.
Probably the most convenient truth article I have ever read. The real truth on Mugabe is the reason the world is reacting against the dear old comrade dictator. Voting the wrong way, harassment and worse, of the opposition, millions fleeing, phony war veterans, and all that like are not found in healthy democracies.
The writer should be ashamed.
The prof. states that the Europians oppressed, enslaved,and exploited the poor people for 500 hundred years. I wonder what is happening to them now....and since there is no more "Europians" left who is to be blamed now? As for the so called "war veterans"...in which war did the 20-30 year old "veteran's" fight?
It would have been much more helpful if Mugabe had really re-disributed the farm land among the people of the country. Instead, he granted it to his well-heeled buddies and his family. They aren't farmers. The land is overgrown with weeds. I've seen it. It no longer grows crops. He didn't do what he said he was doing. They need a leader who will govern on behalf of the people.
Americans are rightfully criticized from all over the world. Why then should Mugabe and his ruling party not be criticized from the outside? We are supposed to close our eyes to Mugabe's brutality for fear of being called racists or colonialists? Bull!
The author suggests that we leave the matter to Africans. Who? The other corrupt, ruthless leaders who rose to power through rigged elections? The intellectuals who end up beaten or murdered just for speaking out? The poor who are too hungry to fight back?
I too have said that the West should stay out of Africa's business, but I can no longer keep my eyes closed. I know and love many Africans. As a human being on this planet earth, I will continue to oppose those who perpetuate human suffering.
Unbelievable! Only a mad person can write this type of rubbish.
The basic fact is that Zimbabweans are being denied their human rights to express their political opinion. As a result, the monster blodd-stained illegitimate president Mugabe is actively encouraging his supporters to kill, maim, rape and terrorise his opponents.
He must be tried by the International Court for human Rights for genecide.
People like the author, originally from Algeria I assume, ran away from the repression led by the Army to a safe country. Why does not he go to Zimbabwe to experience the brutal repression of the innocent citizens?
The current "powers that be" know they must act now because they will face the Terrible Judge very shortly. Their sources of power (money, religion, and politics) are failing rapidly and very soon they know that they will be held to account by the billions of peoples of the entire world who finally know their deepest, darkest, secrets.
Why now you ask?
The news for all of humanity will only get worse until we collectively decide enough is enough... or Only arrogant fools knowingly bet against a proven prophet...
Now you can better understand the many strange events of the last several years. The Vatican and Bush administration have been actively fighting against the Messiah (and all others who speak truth to power). Their efforts to kill Truth and Justice have failed and now they know that their end is nigh !!! Read the following...
http://www.geocities.com/sevenstarhand/twospirits.html http://forgingnewparadigms.blogspot.com/ http://sevenstarhand.blogspot.com/
Here is Wisdom !!
Peace Now !! or else...
Zimbabwe at War http://gowans.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/zimbabwe-at-war/ Filed under: Civil Society, Color Revolutions, Imperialism, NGOs, Zimbabwe — gowans at 2:39 pm By Stephen Gowans
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 is 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, and have answered in theirs.
The American revolutionaries, Thomas Jefferson among them, answered similar questions through harsh repression of the monarchists who threatened to reverse the gains of the American Revolution. There were 600,000 to 700,000 Tories, loyal to the king and hostile to the revolutionaries, who stood as a threat to the revolution. To neutralize the threat, the new government denied the Tories any platform from which to organize a counter-revolution. They were forbidden to own a press, to teach, to mount a pulpit. The professions were closed to them. They were denied the right to vote and hold political office. The property of wealthy Tories was confiscated. Many loyalists were beaten, others jailed without trial. Some were summarily executed. And 100,000 were driven into exile. Hundreds of thousands of people were denied advocacy rights, rights to property, and suffrage rights, in order to enlarge the liberties of a larger number of people who had been oppressed. [1]
Zimbabwe, too, is a revolutionary society. Through armed struggle, Zimbabweans, like Americans before them, had thrown off the yoke of British colonialism. Rhodesian apartheid was smashed. Patterns of land ownership were democratized. Over 300,000 previously landless families were given land once owned by a mere 4,000 farmers, mainly of British stock, mostly descendents of settlers who had taken the land by force. In other African countries, land reform has been promised, but little has been achieved. In Namibia, the government began expropriating a handful of white owned farms in 2004 under pressure from landless peasants, but progress has been glacially slow. In South Africa, blacks own just four percent of the farmland. The ANC government promised that almost one-third of arable land would be redistributed by 2000, but the target has been pushed back to 2015, and no one believes it will be reached. The problem is, African countries, impoverished by colonialism, and held down by neo-colonialism, haven’t the money to buy the land needed for redistribution. And the European countries that once colonized Africa, are unwilling to help out, except on terms that will see democratization of land ownership pushed off into a misty future, and only on terms that will guarantee the continued domination of Africa by the West. Britain promised to fund Zimbabwe’s land redistribution program, if liberation fighters laid down their arms and accepted a political settlement. Britain, under Tony Blair, reneged, finding excuses to wriggle out of commitments made by the Thatcher government. And so Zimbabwe’s government acted to reverse the legacy of colonialism, expropriating land without compensation (but for improvements made by the former owner.) Compensation, Zimbabwe’s government declared with unassailable justification, would have to be paid by Britain.
In recent years, the government has taken steps to democratize the country further. Legislation has been formulated to mandate that majority ownership of the country’s mines and enterprises be placed in the hands of the indigenous black majority. The goal is to have Zimbabweans achieve real independence, not simply the independence of having their own flag, but of owning their land and resources. As a Canadian prime minister once said of his own country, once you lose control of the economic levers, you lose sovereignty. Zimbabwe isn’t trying to hang onto control of its economic levers, but to gain control of them for the first time. Jabulani Sibanda, the leader of the association of former guerrillas who fought for the country’s liberation, explains:
“Our country was taken away in 1890. We fought a protracted struggle to recover it and the process is still on. We gained political independence in 1980, got our land after 2000, but we have not yet reclaimed our minerals and natural resources. The fight for freedom is still on until everything is recovered for the people.” [2]
The revolutionary government’s program has met with fierce opposition – from the tiny elite of land owners who had monopolized the country’s best land; from former colonial oppressor Britain, whose capitalists largely controlled the economy; from the United States, whose demand that it be granted an open door everywhere has been defied by Zimbabwe’s tariff restrictions, investment performance requirements, government ownership of business enterprises and economic indigenization policies; and from countries that don’t want Zimbabwe’s land democratization serving as an inspiration to oppressed indigenous peoples under their control. The tiny former land-owning elite wants its former privileges restored; British capital wants its investments in Zimbabwe protected; US capital wants Zimbabwe’s doors flung open to investment and exports; and Germany seeks to torpedo Zimbabwe’s land reforms to guard against inspiring “other states in Southern Africa, including Namibia, where the heirs of German colonialists would be affected.” [3]
The Mugabe government’s rejecting the IMF’s program of neo-liberal restructuring in the late 1990s, after complying initially and discovering the economy was being ruined; its dispatch of troops to the Democratic Republic of Congo to help the young government of Laurent Kabila defend itself against a US and British-backed invasion by Uganda and Rwanda; and its refusal to safeguard property rights in its pursuit of land democratization and economic independence, have made it anathema to the former Rhodesian agrarian elite, and in the West, to the corporate lawyers, investment bankers and hereditary capitalist families who dominate the foreign policies of the US, Britain and their allies. Mugabe’s status as persona non grata in the West (and anti-imperialist hero in Africa) can be understood in an anecdote. When Mugabe became prime minister in 1980, former leader of the Rhodesian state, Ian Smith, offered to help the tyro leader. “Mugabe was delighted to accept his help and the two men worked happily together for some time, until one day Mugabe announced plans for sweeping nationalization.” From that point forward, Smith never talked to Mugabe. [4]
Overthrowing the Revolution
The British, the US and the former Rhodesians have used two instruments to try to overthrow Zimbabwe’s revolution: The opposition party Movement for Democratic Change, and civil society. The MDC was founded in September 1999 in response to Harare announcing it would expropriate Rhodesian farms for redistribution to landless black families. The party was initially bankrolled by the British government’s Westminster Foundation for Democracy and other European governments, including Germany, through the Social Democratic Party’s Friedrich Ebert Foundation (Ebert having been the party leader who conspired with German police officials to have Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht murdered, to smother an emerging socialist revolution in Germany in 1918.) Party leader Morgan Tsvangirai, who had been elevated from his position as secretary-general of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions to champion the West’s counter-revolutionary agenda within Zimbabwe, acknowledged in February 2002 that the MDC was financed by European governments and corporations, which funneled money through British political consultants, BSMG. [5] Today, the government of Zimbabwe charges NGOs with acting as conduits through which Western governments pass money to the opposition party.
The MDC’s orientation is decidedly toward people and forces of European origin. British journalist Peta Thornycroft, hardly a Mugabe supporter, lamented in an interview on Western government-sponsored short wave radio SW Africa that:
‘When the MDC started in 2000, what a pity that they were addressing people in Sandton, mostly white people in Sandton north of Johannesburg instead of being in Dar es Salaam or Ghana or Abuja. They failed to make contact with Africa for so long. They were in London, we’ve just seen it again, Morgan Tsvangirai’s just been in America. Why isn’t he in Cairo? Maybe he needs financial support and he can’t get it outside of America or the UK and the same would go for (leader of an alternative MDC faction, Arthur) Mutambara. They have not done enough in Africa. [6]
A look at the MDC’s program quickly reveals why the party’s leaders spend most of their time traipsing to Western capitals calling for sanctions and gathering advice on how to overthrow the Mugabe government. First, the MDC is opposed to Zimbabwe’s land democratization program. Defeating the government’s plans to expropriate the land of the former Rhodesian elite was one of the main impetuses for the party’s formation. Right through to the 2002 election campaign the party insisted on returning farms to the expropriated Rhodesian settlers. [7]
The MDC and Land Reform
These days Tsvangirai equivocates on land reform, recognizing that speaking too openly about reversing the land democratization program, or taxing black Zimbabweans to compensate expropriated Rhodesian settlers for land the Rhodesians and other British settlers took by force, is detrimental to his party’s success. But there’s no mistaking that the land redistribution program’s life would be cut short by a MDC victory. “The government of Zimbabwe,” wrote Tsvangirai, in a March 23, 2008 Wall Street Journal editorial, “must be committed to protecting persons and property rights.” This means “compensation for those who lost their possessions in an unjust way,” i.e., compensation for the expropriated Rhodesians. Zimbabwe’s program of expropriating land without compensation, he concluded, is just not on: it “scares away investors, domestic and international.” [8] This is the same reasoning the main backer of Tsvangirai’s party, the British government, used to justify backing out of its commitment to fund land redistribution. The British government was reneging on its earlier promise, said then secretary of state for international development Claire Short in a letter to Zimbabwe’s minister of agriculture and lands, Kumbirai Kangai, because of the damage Zimbabwe’s fast-track land reform proposals would do to investor confidence. Lurking none too deftly behind Tsvangirai’s and London’s solicitude over impaired investor confidence are the interests of foreign investors themselves. The Mugabe government’s program is to wrest control of the country’s land, resources and economy from the hands of foreign investors and Rhodesian settlers; the program of the MDC and its backers is to put it back. That’s no surprise, considering the MDC was founded by Europe, backed by the Rhodesians, and bankrolled by capitalist governments and enterprises that have an interest in protecting their existing investments in the country and opening up opportunities for new ones.
Civil Society
There is a countless number of Western NGOs that either operate in Zimbabwe or operate outside the country with a focus on Zimbabwe. While the Western media invariably refer to them as independent, they are anything but. Almost all are funded by Western governments, wealthy individuals, and corporations. Some NGOs say that while they take money from Western sources, they’re not influenced by them. This is probably true, to a point. Funders don’t dangle funding as a bribe, so much as select organizations that can be counted on to behave in useful ways of their own volition. Of course, it may be true that some organizations recognize that handsome grants are available for organizations with certain orientations, and adapt accordingly. But for the most part, civil society groups that advance the overseas agendas of Western governments and corporations, whether they know it or not, and not necessarily in a direct fashion, find that funding finds them.
Western governments fund dozens of NGOs to discredit the government in Harare, alienate it of popular support, and mobilize mass resistance under the guise of promoting democracy and human rights. Their real purpose is to bring down the government and its nationalist policies. The idea that Britain, which, as colonial oppressor, denied blacks suffrage and dispossessed them of their land, is promoting rights and democracy in Zimbabwe is laughable. The same can be said of Canada. The Canadian government doles out grants to NGOs through an organization called Rights and Democracy. Rights and Democracy is currently funding the anti-Zanu-PF Media Institute of Southern Africa, along with the US government and a CIA-linked right wing US think tank. While sanctimoniously parading about on the world stage as a champion of rights and democracy, Canada denied its own aboriginal people suffrage up to 1960. For a century, it enforced an assimilation policy that tore 150,000 aboriginal children from their homes and placed them in residential schools where their language and culture were banned. Canadian citizens like to think their own country is a model of moral rectitude, but are blind to the country’s deplorable record in the treatment of its own aboriginal people; it’s denial of the liberty and property rights of Canadian citizens of Japanese heritage during WWII; and in recent years, its complicity in overthrowing the Haitian government of Jean-Bertrand Aristide and participation in the occupation of Afghanistan. As for the United States, its violations of the rights of people throughout the world have become so frequent and far-reaching that only the deaf, dumb or insane would believe the US government has the slightest interest in promoting democracy and human rights anywhere.
Consider, then, the record of the West’s self-proclaimed promoters of democracy and human rights against this: the reason there’s universal suffrage in Zimbabwe and equality rights for blacks, is because the same forces that are being routinely decried by Western governments and their NGO extensions fought for, bled for, and died for the principle of universal suffrage. “We taught them the principle of one man, one vote which did not exist” under the British, Zimbabwe’s president points out. “Democracy,” he adds, “also means self-rule, not rule by outsiders.” [9]
Regime Change Agenda
The charge that the West is supporting civil society groups in Zimbabwe to bring down the government isn’t paranoid speculation or the demagogic raving of a government trying to cling to power by mobilizing anti-imperialist sentiment. It’s a matter of public record. The US government has admitted that “it wants to see President Robert Mugabe removed from power and that it is working with the Zimbabwean opposition…trade unions, pro-democracy groups and human rights organizations…to bring about a change of administration.” [10] Additionally, 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. [12] 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. It would be truly naïve to believe, for example, that the International Center for Nonviolent Conflict and Freedom House, both headed by Peter Ackerman, member of the US ruling class Council on Foreign Relations, a New York investment banker and former right hand man to Michael Milken of junk bond fame, is lavishing money and training on civil society groups in Zimbabwe out of humanitarian concern. According to Noam Chomksy and Edward Herman, Freedom House has ties to the CIA, “and has long served as a virtual propaganda arm of the (US) government and international right wing.” [16]
Political lucre doesn’t come from Western sources alone. The Mo Ibrahim Foundation awards a prize yearly for “achievement in African leadership” to a sub-Saharan African leader who has left office in the previous three years. The prize is worth $500,000 per year for the first 10 years and $200,000 per year thereafter – in other words, cash for life. Ibrahim, a Sudanese billionaire who founded Celtel International, a cellphone service that operates in 15 African countries, established the award to “encourage African leaders to govern well,” something, apparently, Ibrahim believes African leaders don’t do now and need to be encouraged to do. What Ibrahim means by govern well is clear in who was selected as the first (and so far only) winner: Mozambique’s former president Joaquim Chissano. He received the prize for overseeing Mozambique’s “transition from Marxism to a free market economy.” [17] While there may seem to be nothing particularly amiss in this, imagine billionaire speculator George Soros establishing a foundation to bribe US and British politicians with cash for life to “govern well.” It wouldn’t elude many of us that Soros’ definition of “govern well” would almost certainly align to a tee with his own interests, and that any politician eager to live a comfortable life after politics would be keen to keep Soros’ interests in mind. Under these conditions there would be no question of democracy prevailing; we would be living in a plutocracy, in which those with great wealth could dangle the carrot of a cash award for life to get their way. As it happens, this kind of thing is happening now in Western democracies (that is, plutocracies.) Handsomely paid positions as corporate lobbyists, corporate executives and members of corporate boards await Western politicians who play their cards right. There are Mo Ibrahims all over, who go by the names Ford, GM, Exxon, General Electric, Lockheed-Martin, Microsoft, IBM and so on.
Threat to US Foreign policy
Why does the government of the US consider Zimbabwe to pose “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States”? The answer says as much about the foreign policy of the United States as it does about Zimbabwe. The goal of US foreign policy is to provide profit-making opportunities to US investors and corporations. This is accomplished by pressuring, cajoling, bribing, blackmailing, threatening, subverting, destabilizing and where possible, using violence, to get foreign countries to lower or remove tariff barriers, lift restrictions on foreign investment, deny preferential treatment to domestic investors, allow repatriation of profits, and provide the US military access to the country. The right of the US military to operate on foreign soil is necessary to provide Washington with local muscle to protect US investments, ensure unimpeded access to strategic raw materials (oil, importantly), and to keep doors open to continued US economic penetration. It is also necessary to have forward operating bases from which to threaten countries whose governments aren’t open to US exports and investments.
The Zanu-PF government’s policies have run afoul of US foreign policy goals in a number of ways. In 1998, “Zimbabwe – along with Angola and Namibia – was mandated by the (Southern African Development Community, a regional grouping of countries) to intervene in Congo to save a fellow SADC member country from an invasion by Uganda and Rwanda,” which were acting as proxies of the United States and Britain. [18] Both countries wanted to bring down the young government of Laurent Kabila, fearing Kabila was turning into another Patrice Lumumba, the nationalist Congolese leader whose assassination the CIA had arranged in the 1960s. Zimbabwe’s intervention, as part of the SADC contingent, foiled the Anglo-American’s plans, and earned Mugabe the enmity of ruling circles in the West.
The Zanu-PF government’s record with the IMF also threatened US foreign policy goals. From 1991 to 1995, Mugabe’s government implemented a program of structural adjustment prescribed by the IMF as a condition of receiving balance of payment support and the restructuring of its international loans. The program required the government to cut its spending deeply, fire tens of thousands of civil servants, and slash social programs. Zimbabwe’s efforts to nurture infant industries were to be abandoned. Instead, the country’s doors were to be opened to foreign investment. Harare would radically reduce taxes and forbear from any measure designed to give domestic investors a leg up on foreign competitors. The US, Germany, Japan and South Korea had become capitalist powerhouses by adopting the protectionist and import substitution policies the IMF was forbidding. The effect of the IMF program was devastating. Manufacturing employment tumbled nine percent between 1991 and 1996, while wages dropped 26 percent. Public sector employment plunged 23 percent and public sector wages plummeted 40 percent. [19] In contrast to the frequent news stories today on Zimbabwe’s fragile economy, attributed disingenuously to “Mugabe’s disastrous land policies”, the Western press barely noticed the devastation the IMF’s disastrous economic policies brought to Zimbabwe in the 1990s. By 1996, the Mugabe government was starting to back away from the IMF prescriptions. By 1998, it was in open revolt, imposing new tariffs to protect infant industries and providing incentives to black Zimbabwean investors as part of an affirmative action program to encourage African ownership of the economy. These policies were diametrically opposed, not only to the IMF’s program of structural adjustment, but to the goals of US foreign policy. By 1999, the break was complete. The IMF refused to extend loans to Zimbabwe. By February, 2001, Zimbabwe was in arrears to the Bretton Woods institution. Ten months later, the US introduced the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery, a dagger through the heart of Zimbabwe’s economy. “Zimbabwe,” says Mugabe, “is not a friend of the IMF and is unlikely to be its friend in the future.” [20]
Zanu-PF’s willingness to ignore the hallowed status of private property by expropriating the land of the former Rhodesians to democratize the country’s pattern of land ownership also ran afoul of US foreign policy goals. Because US foreign policy seeks to protect US ownership abroad, any program that promotes expropriation as a means of advancing democratic goals must be considered hostile. Kenyan author Mukoma Wa Nguyi invites us to think of Zimbabwe “as Africa’s Cuba. Like Cuba, Zimbabwe is not a… military threat to the US and Britain. Like Cuba, in Latin America, Zimbabwe’s crime is leading by example to show that land can be redistributed - an independence with content. If Zimbabwe succeeds, it becomes an example to African people that indeed freedom and independence can have the content of national liberation. Like Cuba, Zimbabwe is to be isolated, and if possible, a new government that is friendly to the agenda of the West is to be installed.” [21]
The Comprador Party
If Zanu-PF is willing to offend Western corporate and Rhodesian settler interests to advance the welfare of the majority of Zimbabweans, the MDC is its perfect foil. Rather than offending Western interests, the MDC seeks to accommodate them, treating the interests of foreign investors and imperialist governments as synonymous with those of the Zimbabwean majority. A MDC government would never tolerate the pursuit in Zimbabwe of the protectionist and nationalist economic programs the US used to build its own industry. The MDC’s goals, in the words of its leader, are to “encourage foreign investment” and “bring (Zimbabwe’s) abundant farmland back into health.” [22] “It is up to each of us,” Tsvangirai told a gathering of newly elected MDC parliamentarians, “to say Zimbabwe is open for business.” [23]
Encouraging foreign investment means going along with Western demands for neo-liberal restructuring. “The key to turning around Zimbabwe’s economy…is the political will needed to implement the market reforms, the IMF and others, including the United States, have been recommending for the past few years,” lectured the former US ambassador to Zimbabwe, Christopher Dell. This means “a free-market economy and security of property to investment and economic growth.” [24]
Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown has developed an economic program for Zimbabwe to be rolled out if Western regime change efforts succeed. Brown says his recovery package will include measures to:
(1) help Zimbabwe restart and stabilize its economy; (2) restructure and reduce its debt; (3) support fair land reform. [25]
What Brown is really saying is that:
(1) Sanctions will be lifted, and the resultant economic recovery will be attributed to the MDC’s neo-liberal policies. (2) Zimbabwe will resume the structural adjustment program Mugabe’s government rejected in the late 90s. (3) Either land reform will be reversed or black Zimbabweans will be forced to compensate white farmers whose land was expropriated.
The reality that Brown has developed an economic program for Zimbabwe speaks volumes about who will be in charge if the MDC comes to power — not Zimbabweans, not the MDC, and not Tsvangirai, but London and Washington.
Not surprisingly, MDC economic policy is perfectly simpatico with the prescriptions of its masters. Eddie Cross, formerly vice-chairman of the Confederation of Zimbabwe Industries, who became a MDC spokesman, explained the party’s economic plans for Zimbabwe, in advance of 2000 elections.
“We are going to fast track privatization. All 50 government parastatals will be privatized within a two-year time-frame, but we are going to go beyond that. We are going to privatize many of the functions of government. We are going to privatize the central statistical office. We are going to privatize virtually the entire school delivery system. And you know, we have looked at the numbers and we think we can get government employment down from about 300,000 at the present time to about 75,000 in five years.” [26]
Of course, the intended beneficiaries of such a program aren’t Zimbabweans, but foreign investors.
The MDC’s role as agent of Western influence in Zimbabwe doesn’t stop at promoting economic policies that cater to foreign investors. The MDC has also been active in turning the screws on Zimbabwe to undermine the economy and create disaffection and misery in order to alienate Zanu-PF of its popular support. Arguing that foreign firms are propping up the government, the MDC has actively discouraged investment. For example, Tsvangirai tried to discourage a deal between Chinese investors and the South African company Implats, that would see a US$100 million platinum refinery set up in Zimbabwe, warning that a MDC government might not honor the deal. [27] The MDC leader, true to form, was following in the footsteps of his political masters in Washington. The United States has pressed China and other countries to refrain from investing in Zimbabwe “at a time when the international community (is) trying to isolate the African state.” [28] Washington complains that “China’s growing political and commercial influence in resource-rich African nations” [29] is sabotaging its efforts to ruin Zimbabwe’s economy. More damning is the MDC’s participation in the drafting of the principal piece of US legislation aimed at torpedoing the Zimbabwean economy: The Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act. Passed in 2001, the act instructs “the United States executive director to each international financial institution to oppose and vote against–
(1) any extension by the respective institution of any loan, credit, or guarantee to the Government of Zimbabwe; or
(2) any cancellation or reduction of indebtedness owed by the Government of Zimbabwe to the United States or any international financial institution.” [30]
The effect of the act is to cut off all development assistance to Zimbabwe, disable lines of credit, and prevent the World Bank and International Monetary Fund from providing development assistance and balance of payment support. [31] Any African country subjected to this punishment would very soon find itself in straitened circumstances. When the legislation was ratified, US president George W. Bush said, “I hope the provisions of this important legislation will support the people of Zimbabwe in their struggle to effect peaceful democratic change, achieve economic growth, and restore the rule of law.” [32] Since effecting peaceful democratic change means, in Washington’s parlance, ousting the Zanu-PF government, and since restoring the rule of law equates, in Washingtonian terms, to forbidding the expropriation of white farm land without compensation, what Bush was really saying was that he hoped the legislation would help overthrow the government and put an end to fast-track land reform. The legislation “was co-drafted by one of the opposition MDC’s white parliamentarians in Zimbabwe, which was then introduced as a Bill in the US Congress on 8 March 2001 by the Republican senator, William Frist. The Bill was co-sponsored by the Republican rightwing senator, Jesse Helms, and the Democratic senators Hilary Clinton, Joseph Biden and Russell Feingold.” Helms, a notorious racist, had a penchant for legislation aimed at undermining countries seeking to achieve substantive democracy. “He co-authored the Helms-Burton Act of 1996, which tightened the blockade on Cuba.” [33]
The Distorting Lens of the Western Media
Western reporting on Zimbabwe occurs within a framework of implicit assumptions. The assumptions act as a lens through which facts are organized, understood and distorted. Columnist and associate editor for the British newspaper The Guardian, Seamus Milne, points out that British journalists see Zimbabwe through a lens that casts the president as a barbarous despot. “The British media,” he writes, “have long since largely abandoned any attempt at impartiality in its reporting of Zimbabwe, the common assumption being that Mugabe is a murderous dictator at the head of a uniquely wicked regime.” [34] If you began with these assumptions, ordinary events are interpreted within the framework the assumptions define. An egregious example is offered in how a perfectly legitimate exercise was construed and presented by Western reporters as a diabolical exercise. Zanu-PF held campaign workshops to explain what the government had achieved since independence and what it was doing to address the country’s economic crisis. The intention, according to Zimbabwe’s Information and Publicity Minister Sikhanyiso Ndlovu, was to “educate the people on the illegal sanctions as some of them were duped to vote for the MDC in the March elections.” [35] But that’s not how the British newspaper, The Independent, saw it. “The Zimbabwean army and police,” its reporter wrote, “have been accused of setting up torture camps and organizing ‘re-education meetings’ involving unspeakable cruelty where voters are beaten and mutilated in the hope of achieving victory for President Robert Mugabe in the second round of the presidential election.” [36] Begin with the assumption that Mugabe is a murderous dictator at the head of a uniquely wicked regime and campaign workshops become re-education meetings and torture camps. Note that The Independent’s reporter relied on an accusation, not on corroborated facts, and that the identity of the accuser was never revealed. The story has absolute no evidentiary value, but considerable propaganda value. The chances of many people reading the story with a skeptical eye and picking out its weaknesses are slim. What’s more likely to happen is that readers will regard the accusation as plausible because it fits with the preconceived model of Mugabe as a murderous dictator and his government as uniquely wicked. How do we know the accuser wasn’t a fellow journalist repeating gossip overheard on the street, or at MDC headquarters? How do we know the accusation wasn’t made by the US ambassador to Zimbabwe, James McGee, or any one of scores of representatives of Western-funded NGOs, whose role is to discredit the Zimbabwe government? McGee is a veritable treasure trove of half-truths, innuendo, and misinformation. And yet the Western media, particularly those based in the US, have a habit of treating McGee as an impeccable source, seemingly blind to the reality that the US government is hostile to Zimbabwe’s land democratization and economic indigenization programs, that it has an interest in spinning news to discredit Harare, and that its officials have an extensive track record in lying to justify the plunder of other people’s countries. To paraphrase Caesar Zvayi, if George Bush can lie hundreds of times about Iraq, what’s to stop him (or McGee or the NGOs on the US payroll) from lying about Zimbabwe? That the Western media pass on accusations made by interested parties without so much as revealing the interest can either be regarded as shocking naiveté or a sign of the propaganda role Western media play on behalf of the corporate class that owns them. If the US and British governments and Western media are against the democratization and economic indigenization programs of Zanu-PF, it’s because they’re dominated by a capitalist ruling class whose interests are against those of the Zimbabwean majority.
It is typical of Western reporting to attribute the actions of the Zanu-PF government to the personal characteristics of its leader: his alleged hunger for power for power’s-sake; demagogy; incompetence in matters related to economic management; and brutality. The government’s actions, by contrast, are never attributed to the circumstances, the conditions in which the government is forced to maneuver, or to the demands of survival in the face of the West’s predatory pressures. This isn’t unique to Zimbabwe; every leader the West wants to overthrow is vilified as a “strongman,” “dictator,” “thug,” “war criminal,” “murderer,” or “warlord” and sometimes all of these things. All of the leader’s actions are to be understood as originating in the leader’s deeply flawed character. If Iran is building a uranium enrichment capability, it’s not because it seeks an independent source of fuel for a budding civilian nuclear energy program, but because the country’s president is to be understood as a raving anti-Semite who seeks to acquire nuclear weapons to carry out Hitler’s final solution by wiping Israel off the face of the map. The same reduction of international affairs to a moral struggle between the West and what always turns out to be a nationalist, socialist or communist country headed by a leader whose actions are invariably traced by Western reporters to the leader’s evil psychology applies equally to Zimbabwe. If the Mugabe government has banned political rallies, it is not because the rallies have been used by the opposition as an occasion to firebomb police stations, but because the president has an unquenchable thirst for power and will brook no opposition. If opposition activists have been arrested, it’s not because they’ve committed crimes, but because the leader is repressive and dictatorial. If Morgan Tsvangirai is beaten by police, it’s not because he tried to break through police lines, but because the leader is a brutal dictator and ordered Tsvangirai’s beating because that’s what brutal dictators do. If an opposition leader is arrested and charged with treason, it’s not because there is evidence of treason, but because the president is gagging the opposition to cling to power because it is in the nature of dictators to do so. If the economy falls into crisis, it’s not because the West has cut off the country’s access to credit, but because of the leader’s incompetence. If agricultural production drops, it’s not due to the drought, electricity shortages and rising fuel costs that have bedeviled other countries in the region, but because the leader is too stupid to recognize his land reform policies are disastrous.
A New York Times story published three days before the March 29 elections shows how Western governments and mass media cooperate with civil society agents on the ground to shape public opinion. The aim of the March 26, 2008 article, titled “Hope and Fear for Zimbabwe Vote,” was to discredit the elections that Zanu-PF seemed at the time likely to win.
Harare had barred election monitors from the US and EU, but allowed observers from Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, South Africa and the SADC to monitor the vote. The Western media pointed to the decision to bar Western observers as indirect evidence of vote rigging. After all, if Zimbabwe had nothing to hide, why wouldn’t it admit observers from Europe and the US? At the same time, Western reporters suggested that Zimbabwe was only allowing observers from friendly countries because they could be counted on to bless the election results. By the same logic, one would have expected that a negative evaluation from observers representing unfriendly countries would be just as automatic and foreordained, especially considering the official policy of the US and EU is to replace the current government with one friendly to Western business interests. Indeed, it is this fear that had led Harare to ban Western monitors.
With Western observers unable to monitor the elections directly, governments in North America and Europe found themselves on the horns of a dilemma. How could they declare the vote fraudulent, if they hadn’t observed it? To get around this difficulty, the US, Britain and other Western countries provided grants to Zimbabweans on the ground to monitor the vote. These Zimbabweans, part of civil society, declared themselves to be independent “non-governmental” observers, and prepared to render a foreordained verdict that the election was rigged. Cooperating in the deception, the Western media amplified their voices as “independent” experts on the ground. The US Congress’s National Endowment for Democracy — an organization that does overtly what the CIA used to do covertly — provided grants to the Zimbabwe Election Support Network “to train and organize 240 long-term elections observers throughout Zimbabwe.” The NED is also connected to the Media Monitoring Project through the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition, which it funds, and the Media Institute of Southern Africa, which is funded by Britain’s NED equivalent, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and Canada’s Rights and Democracy. The Media Monitoring Project calls itself independent, but is connected to the US and British governments, and to billionaire speculator George Soros’ Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa.
When the New York Times needed Zimbabweans to comment on the upcoming election, its reporters turned to representatives of these two NGOs. Noel Kututwa, the chairman of the Zimbabwe Election Support Network, told the newspaper that his group would be using “sampling techniques to assess the accuracy of the results announced nationally.” Yet, Mr. Kututwa also told the newspaper that, “We will not have a free and fair election.” If Kututwa had already decided the election would be unfair and coerced, why was he bothering to assess its accuracy? Andrew Moyse, a regular commentator on Studio 7, an anti-Mugabe radio station sponsored by the US government’s propaganda arm, Voice of America, was quoted in the same article. “Even if Mugabe only gets one vote,” Mr. Moyse opined, “the tabulated results are in the box and he has won.”
Moyse, on top of acting as a US mouthpiece on Voice of America, heads up the Media Monitoring Project. While part of the NGO election observer team the US and EU were relying on to ostensibly assess the fairness of the vote, he had already decided the vote was rigged. Kutatwa and Moyse were the only experts the New York Times cited in its story on the upcoming elections. Yet both represented NGOs funded by hostile governments whose official policy is to replace Robert Mugabe and his government’s land reform and economic indigenization policies. Both presented themselves as independent, though they could hardly be independent of their sources of foreign government and foundation funding. Both declared in advance of the election that the vote would be coerced and unfair and that the tabulated results were already in the box. Their foreordained conclusions – which turned out to be wildly inaccurate — happened to be the same conclusions their sponsors in the US and Britain were looking for, to obtain the consent of a confused public to intervene vigorously in Zimbabwe’s affairs. This is emblematic of the symbiotic collaboration of media, Western governments, and NGOs on the ground. Western governments, corporations and wealthy individuals fund NGOs to discredit the Zanu-PF government, and the Western media present the same NGOs as independent actors, and provide them a platform to present their views. Meanwhile, the Western media marginalize the Zanu-PF government and its supporters on the ground, denying them a platform to present their side. To publics in the West, the only story heard is the story told by the MDC and its civil society allies, who reinforce, as a matter of strategy, the view that Mugabe is a murderous dictator at the head of a uniquely wicked regime. The MDC, civil society, the Western media, the British and US governments, and imperialist think tanks and foundations, are all interlocked. All of these sources, then, tell the same story.
Safeguarding the Revolution
After the revolutionary war, would the Americans who led and carried out the revolution have allowed loyalists to band together to seek public office in elections with a program of restoring the monarchy? We’ve already seen that the answer is no. When the Nazis were ousted in Germany, was the Nazi party allowed to reconstitute itself to seek the return of the Third Reich through electoral means? No. Countries that have gone through revolutionary change are careful, if the revolution is to survive, to deny those who have been overthrown an opportunity to recover their privileged positions. That often means denying former exploiters and their partisans opportunities to band together to contest elections, or constitutionally prescribing a desired form of government and prohibiting a return to the old. The US revolutionaries did both; they repressed the loyalists and declared a republic, which, as a corollary, forbade a return to monarchy. Even if every American voter decided that George Bush should become king, the US constitution forbids it, no matter what the majority wants. The gun (that is, the violence employed by the American revolutionaries to free themselves from the oppression of the British crown) is more powerful than the pen (Americans can’t vote the monarchy back in.)
In Zimbabwe, the former colonial oppressor, Britain, has been working with its allies to restore its former privileges through civil society and the MDC. Britain doesn’t seek a return to an overt colonialism, complete with a British viceroy and British troops garrisoned throughout the country, but to a neo-colonialism, in which the local government acts in the place of a viceroy, safeguarding and nurturing British investments and looking after Western interests under the rubric of managing the economy soundly. Britain, then, wants the MDC, for the MDC is British rule by proxy. Many Zimbabweans, however, are vehemently opposed to selling out their revolution to a party that was founded and is financed by a country to which they were once enslaved.
Western media propaganda presents Zimbabwe as a pyramidal society, in which an elite at the apex, comprising Mugabe, his ministers and the heads of the security services, brutally rule over the vast majority of Zimbabweans at the base who long for the MDC to deliver them from a dictatorship. A fairer description is that Zimbabwe is a society in which both sides command considerable popular support, but where Zanu-PF has an edge. This may sound incredible to anyone looking at Zimbabwe through the distorting lens of the Western media, but let Munyaradzi Gwisai, leader of the International Socialist Organization in Zimbabwe, a fierce opponent of the Mugabe government, set matters straight.
“There is no doubt about it - the regime is rooted among the population with a solid social base. Despite the catastrophic economic collapse, Zanu-PF still won more popular votes in parliament than the MDC in the March 29 parliamentary elections. Mugabe might have lost on the streets, but if you count the actual votes, his party won more than the MDC in elections to the House of Assembly and Senate. Zanu-PF won an absolute majority of votes in five of the country’s 10 provinces, plus a simple majority in another province. By contrast, the MDC won two provinces with an absolute majority and two with a simple majority. But because we use first past the post, not proportional representation, Zanu-PF’s votes were not translated into a majority in parliament. It was only Mugabe himself, in the presidential election, who did worse in terms of the popular vote.” [37]
Those in the thrall of Western propaganda will dismiss strong support for Zanu-PF in the March 29 elections as a consequence of electoral fraud, not genuine popular backing. But it would be a very inept government that rigged the election and lost control of the assembly and had to face a run-off in the presidential race. No, Mugabe’s support runs deep.
“According to a poll of 1,200 Zimbabweans published in August (2004) by South African and American researchers, the level of public trust in Mr. Mugabe’s leadership” more than doubled from 1999, “to 46 percent – even as the economy” was severely weakened by Western sanctions. [38] Significantly, it was over this period that the government launched its fast track land reform program. Notwithstanding Western news reports that Mugabe’s supporters are limited to his “cronies”, Zimbabweans participated in a million man and woman march last December, where marchers “proclaimed that Washington, Downing Street and Wall Street (had) no right to remove Mugabe.” [39]
Elsewhere in Africa, Zimbabwe’s president is enormously popular. As recently as August 2004, Mugabe was voted at number three in the New Africa magazine’s poll of 100 Greatest Africans, behind Nelson Mandela and Kwame Nkrumah. [40] The Los Angeles Times, no fan of the Zimbabwean president, acknowledges that “Mugabe is so popular on the continent…that he is feted and cheered wherever he goes.” [41] That was evident last summer when, much to the chagrin of Western reporters, who had been assuring their readers that Mugabe was being called to a meeting of SADC to be dressed down, that “Mr. Mugabe arrived at the meeting to a fusillade of cheers and applause from attendees that…overwhelmed the polite welcomes of the other heads of states.” [42] A European Union-African Union summit planned for 2003 was aborted after African leaders refused to show up in solidarity with a Mugabe who had been banned by the Europeans for promoting the interests of Zimbabweans, not Europeans. The summit went ahead in 2007, but only after African leaders threatened once again to boycott the meeting if Mugabe was barred. With China doing deals with African countries, the Europeans were reluctant to sacrifice trade and investment opportunities, and laid aside their misgivings about attending a meeting at which Mugabe would be present. That is, all except British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. He stayed home in protest. German leader Angela Merkel did attend, but thought it necessary to scold Mugabe to distance herself from him. Senegal’s president Abdoulaye Wade sprang to Mugabe’s defense, dismissing Merkel’s vituperative comments as untrue and accusing the German leader of being misinformed. [43]
Opposition’s Failed Attempts at Insurrection
Mugabe’s popularity, and that of the movement for Zimbabwean empowerment he leads, explains Zanu-PF’s strong showing in elections and why the opposition’s numerous efforts at seizing power by general strike and insurrection have failed. Civil society organizations and MDC leaders have called for insurrectionary activity many times. In 2000, Morgan Tsvangirai called on Mugabe to step down peacefully or face violence. “If you don’t want to go peacefully,” the new opposition leader warned, “we will remove you violently.” [44] Arthur Mutambara, a robotics professor and former consultant with McKinsey & Company and leader of an alternative wing of the MDC, declared in 2006 that he was “going to remove Robert Mugabe, I promise you, with every tool at my disposal.” Asked to clarify what he meant, he replied, “We’re not going to rule out or in anything – the sky’s the limit.” [45] Three days before the March 29 elections, Tendai Biti, secretary general of Tsvangirai’s MDC faction, warned of Kenya-style post electoral violence if Mugabe won. [46] In the US, where United States Code, Section 2385, “prohibits anyone from advocating abetting, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States by force or violence,” opposition leaders like Tsvangirai, Mutambara and Biti would be charged with treason (Biti has been.)
Leaders of civil society organizations which receive Western funding have been no less diffident about threatening to overthrow the government violently. Last summer, the then Archbishop of Bulawayo, Pius Ncube, said he thought it was “justified for Britain to raid Zimbabwe and remove Mugabe. We should do it ourselves but there’s too much fear. I’m ready to lead the people, guns blazing, but the people are not ready.” [47] Ncube complained bitterly that Zimbabweans were cowards, unwilling to take up arms against the government. This was a strange complaint to make against a people who waged a guerilla war for over a decade to achieve independence. Zimbabweans’ unwillingness to follow Ncube, guns blazing, had nothing to do with cowardice, and everything to do with the absence of popular support for Ncube’s position.
Recently, the International Socialist Organization, one of the founding members of the MDC along with the British government, argued in its newspaper that “the crisis was not going to be resolved through elections, but through mass action.” ISO - Zimbabwe leader Munyaradzi Gwisai “said that the way forward for the Movement for Democratic Change and civil society was to create a united front and mobilize against the regime.” [48] The ISO makes the curious argument that Zimbabweans should take to the streets to bring the MDC to power, recognizing the MDC to be a comprador party (one the ISO helped found). A comprador party, in the febrile reasoning of the ISO, is preferable to Zanu-PF. Gwisai’s offices were visited by the police, touching off howls of outrage over Mugabe’s “repressions” from the ISO’s Trotskyite brethren around the world. Followers of Trotsky are forever siding with reactionaries against revolutionaries, the revolutionaries invariably failing to live up to a Trotskyite ideal. If they can’t have their ideal, they’ll settle for imperialism. While Gwisai wasn’t arrested, Wellington Chibebe, general secretary of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions, was. He too had urged Zimbabweans to take to the streets to bring down the government.
Some opponents of Mugabe’s government go further. An organization called the Zimbabwe Resistance Movement promises to take up arms against the Zanu-PF government if “the poodles who run the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission,” fail to declare Tsvangirai the victor of the presidential run-off election. [49] The Western media have been silent on this form of oppositional intimidation and threats of violence.
The opposition has also tried other means to clear the way for its rise to power. In April, 2007 it called a general strike, as part of the Save Zimbabwe Campaign. The strike fizzled, accomplishing nothing more than showing the opposition’s program of seizing power extra-constitutionally had no popular support. The campaign “was a joint effort of the opposition, church groups and civil society… As a body…it (did) not…have widespread grassroots support,” reported the Toronto newspaper, The Globe and Mail. [50] While depicted in the Western media as a peaceful campaign of prayer meetings, the campaign was predicated on violence. MDC activists carried out a series of fire bombings of buses and police stations, events the Western press was slow to acknowledge. A May 2 2007 Human Rights Watch report finally acknowledged that there had been a series of gasoline bombings, but questioned whether the MDC was really responsible. By this point, as far as Western publics knew, peaceful protests had been brutally suppressed by a uniquely wicked government. To keep matters under control, the government banned political gatherings. The opposition defied the ban, calling their rallies “prayer meetings.” It was a result of this defiance that Arthur Mutambara was arrested, and Morgan Tsvangirai roughed up by police when he tried to force his way through police lines to demand Mutambara’s release. The MDC took full advantage of the event to play up to the Western media, claiming Tsvangirai had been beaten up as part of a program of political repression, rather than as a response to his tussling with the police. As the Cuban ambassador to Zimbabwe explained, “What happened in Zimbabwe of course is similar to what groups based in Florida have done in Cuba. They put many bombs in some hotels in Cuba. They were trying to…generate political instability in Cuba, so I see the same pattern in Zimbabwe.” [51]
Making the Economy Scream
While quislings work from within the country to make it ungovernable, pressure is applied from without. Western governments say they’ve imposed only targeted sanctions aimed at key members of the government, nothing to undermine the economy and hurt ordinary Zimbabweans, but as we’ve already seen, the US Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act has far-reaching economic implications. On top of this, other, informal, sanctions do their part to make the economy scream. As Robert Mugabe explains:
The British and their allies “influence other countries to cut their economic ties with us…the soft loans, grants and investments that were coming our way, started decreasing and in some cases practically petering out. Then the signals to the rest of the world that Zimbabwe is under sanctions, that rings bells and countries that would want to invest in Zimbabwe are being very cautious. And we are being dragged through the mud every day on CNN, BBC, Sky News, and they are saying to these potential investors ‘your investments will not be safe in Zimbabwe, the British farmers have lost their land, and your investments will go the same way.’” [52]
In March 2002, Canada withdrew all direct funding to the government of Zimbabwe. [53] In 2005, the IT department at Zimbabwe’s Africa University discovered that Microsoft had been instructed by the US Treasury Department to refrain from doing business with the university. [54] Western companies refuse to supply spare parts to Zimbabwe’s national railway company, even though there are no official trade sanctions in place. [55] Britain and its allies are now planning to escalate the pressure. Plans have been made to press South Africa to cut off electricity to Zimbabwe if the MDC doesn’t come to power. Pressure will also be applied on countries surrounding Zimbabwe to mount an economic blockade. [56] The point of sanctions is to starve the people of Zimbabwe into revolting against the government to clear the way for the rise of the MDC and control, by proxy, from London and Washington. Apply enough pressure and eventually the people will cry uncle (or so goes the theory.) You can’t say Zanu-PF wasn’t forewarned. Stanley Mudenge, the former foreign minister of Zimbabwe, said Robin Cook, then British foreign secretary, once pulled him aside at a meeting and said: “Stan, you must get rid of Bob (Mugabe)…If you don’t get rid of Bob, what will hit you will make your people stone you in the streets.” [57]
Harare’s Options
Those who condemn the actions of the Zanu-PF government in defending their revolution have an obligation to say what they would do. Usually, they skirt the issue, saying there is no revolution, or that there was one once, but that it was long ago corrupted by cronyism. Their simple answer is to dump Mugabe, and start over again – a course of action that would inevitably see a return to the neo-liberal restructuring of the 1990s, a dismantling of land reforms, and a neo-colonial tyranny. Not surprisingly, people who make this argument find favor with imperialist governments and ruling class foundations and are often rewarded by them for appearing to be radical while actually serving imperialist goals.
Throughout history, reformers and revolutionaries have been accused of being self-aggrandizing demagogues manipulating their followers with populist rhetoric to cling to power to enjoy its many perks. [58] But as one writer in the British anti-imperialist journal Lalkar pointed out, “The government of Zimbabwe could very easily abandon its militant policies aimed at protecting Zimbabwe’s independence and building its collective wealth – no doubt its ministers would be rewarded amply by the likes of the World Bank and the IMF.” [59] If Mugabe is really using all means at his disposable to hang on to power simply to enjoy its perks, he has chosen the least certain and most difficult way of going about it. Lay this argument aside as the specious drivel of those who want to bury their heads in the sand to avoid confronting tough questions. What would you do in these circumstances?
In retaliation for democratizing patterns of land ownership, distributing land previously owned by 4,000 farmers, mainly of British stock, to 300,000 previously landless families, Britain has “mobilized her friends and allies in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand to impose illegal economic sanctions against Zimbabwe. They have cut off all development assistance, disabled lines of credit, prevented the Bretton Woods institutions from providing financial assistance, and ordered private companies in the United States not to do business with Zimbabwe.” [60] They have done this to cripple Zimbabwe’s economy to alienate the revolutionary government of its popular support. For years, they have done this. Soni Rajan, employed by the British government to investigate land reform in Zimbabwe, told author Heidi Holland:
“It was absolutely clear…that Labour’s strategy was to accelerate Mugabe’s unpopularity by failing to provide him with funding for land redistribution. They thought if they didn’t give him the money for land reform, his people in the rural areas would start to turn against him. That was their position; they want him out and they were going to do whatever they could to hasten his demise.” [61]
The main political opposition party, the MDC, is the creation of the Rhodesian Commercial Farmers’ Union, the British government and the Zimbabwe Democracy Trust, whose patrons are former British foreign secretaries Douglas Hurd, Geoffrey Howe, Malcolm Rifkind and whose chair is Lord Renwick of Clifton, who has collected a string of board memberships in southern African corporations. The party’s funding comes from European governments and corporations, and its raison d’etre is to reverse every measure the Zanu-PF government has taken to invest Zimbabwean independence with real meaning. Civil society organizations are funded by governments whose official policy is one of regime change in Zimbabwe. The US, Britain and the Netherlands finance pirate radio stations and newspapers, which the Western media disingenuously call “independent”, to poison public opinion against the Mugabe government and its land democratization and economic indigenization programs. It’s impossible to hold free and fair elections, because the interference by Western powers is massive, a point acknowledge by Mugabe opponent Munyaradzi Gwisai. [62]
Guns Trump “Xs”
Zimbabweans who fought for the country’s independence and democratization of land ownership are not prepared to give up the gains of their revolution simply because a majority of Zimbabweans marked an “X” for a party of quislings. There are two reasons for their steadfastness in defense of their revolution: First, Americans can’t vote the monarchy back in, or return, through the ballot box, to the status quo ante of British colonial domination. The US revolutionaries recognized that some gains are senior to others, freedom from foreign domination being one of them. Americans would never allow a majority vote to place the country once again under British rule. Nor will Zimbabwe’s patriots allow the same to happen to their country. Second, no election in Zimbabwe can be free and fair, so long as the country is under sanctions and the main opposition party and civil society organizations are agents of hostile foreign governments. The Zimbabwe Lawyers for Justice has called on the government “to consider the possibility of declaring a state of emergency,” pointing out correctly that “Zimbabwe is at war with foreign elements using local puppets.” [63] Western governments would do – and have done – no less under similar circumstances. Patriots writing to the state-owned newspaper, The Herald, urge the government to take a stronger line. “The electoral environment is heavily tilted in favour of the (MDC) because of the economic sanctions,” wrote one Herald reader. “If it was up to me there should be no elections until the sanctions are scrapped. If we don’t defend our independence and sovereignty, then we are doomed to become hewers of wood and drawers of water. I stand ready to take up arms to defend my sovereignty if need be.” [64] The heads of the police and army have let it be known that they won’t “salute sell-outs and agents of the West” [65] – and nor should they. And veterans of the war for national liberation have told Mugabe that they can never accept that their country, won through the barrel of the gun, should be taken merely by an ‘X’ made by a ballpoint pen.” [66] Mugabe recounted that the war veterans had told him “if this country goes back into white hands just because we have used a pen, we will return to the bush to fight.” The former guerilla leader added, “I’m even prepared to join the fight. We can’t allow the British to dominate us through their puppets.” [67] Zimbabwe, as patriots have said many times, will never be a colony again. Even if it means returning to arms.
WTF is this crap???
hmmmm why wouldn't I take this previous post seriously? Oh yes because it's by stephen gowans *LOL*
Wow...what a mouth full! You should open your own webpade or even write a book....just make sure you get all your facts straight!
Cnngwa, this is a fabulous post. All of us interested in truth are grateful for your posting it.
I'm interested in truth, but think what was written was nonsence. Please dont speak for us all.
I love one line towards the end of that, reading it would have been a complete waste of 10 minutes of my life without it:
"If we don’t defend our independence and sovereignty, then we are doomed to become hewers of wood and drawers of water."
Unless Mugabe pulls his finger out and starts working for Zimbabwe instead of for Mugabe, thats what is going to come of Independence anyway ..... I wonder how many words per acre he had to write for the non productive farm he no-doubt got paid for that piece
"Zimbabwe, as patriots have said many times, will never be a colony again. Even if it means returning to arms."
I'm sorry; had ZANU put down its arms somewhere along the line? They're just focused on the MDC supporters now -- and since that encompasses so many people in the country, it's hardly a small target.
This is so LAME. Poor "Africa", victimized by the evil europeans again! It was Arican Kings and Chieftains who sold their own peoples and the captives of others into slavery because of greed. "Africa" is the most culpable today, as it is still a hotbed of slave traffic. "Africa" needs to stop blaming everyone else for it's problems, and start to address them; let the African Union step up and denounce Mugabe as the brute savage that he is; the sad fact is, I don't recall the evil European conlonials ever burning their enemies wives alive, hacking people to death with knives or beating them to death with clubs; that seems to be acceptable political activism in "Africa" today. Probably Europeans deisguised as "Africans".....
What nonsense! The professor should stick to electrical and computer engineering.
The suspension of reality continues. Why would anyone publish this error-filled rant? Who knows. It originally appeared in the Montreal Gazette.
This article appears to be a stalking horse for Mohamed Elmasry Harare's deeply-rooted dislike of the West highlighted by his willingness to rush to the defense of the dangerous clown Robert Mugabe, a man who has terrorized and impoverished his Zimbabwe with lunatic economic policies and brutality.
In short, this article is an anti-Western diatribe harking back to previous decades of European meddling in Africa that ignores the present-day reality of genuine internataionl concern over Mugabe's destruction of his own nation.
Africa has a lot of horrendous problems with undemocratic, inept and corrupt governments. Bad governance is the worst problem since these regimes -- often little more than criminal organizations -- thwart development and the resolution of the other problems.
The most rudimentary research reveals Elmasry is an apologist for a lot of anti-Western groups, although he apparently enjoys a career as an academic in Canada and as an Imam in the Muslim faith who has angered many with his incendiary and sometimes brutal views. After reading this article, one must wonder why Elmasry hasn't packed his bags and headed for Mugabe's "worker's paradise."
I predict we will find Elmasry in Canada in the future. And why not, it's certainly a far better place to live than Elmasry's home country of Egypt.
Elmasry's rush to defend Mugabe because Mugabe's no worse than the rest of the world's despots is horrific bit of logic. This article is a sickening repudiation of the humanity of the ordinary Zimbabwean unwilling to brutalize his neighbors for money made worthless by the rampant inflation fanned by Mugabe's incompetence.
Dear CommonSense,
COMMON SENSE IS THE WAY A SUBORDINATE CLASS LIVES ITS SUBORDINATION.
GEOFFREY NOWELL-SMITH
I was wondering how much was this "professor" paid to have his name used as "author" of this "political expose"
I have a feeling that the professor is totally out of touch with what is happening in Zimbabwe today,unless if he is a Zanu PF apologist then Im not surprised by such rhetoric.I grew up listening to Robert Mugabe preaching the liberation gospel in Zimbabwe.In most of his speeches he would mention that blacks were fighting for 'one man one vote'.If it was not for him I would'nt have really understood what that meant,because he was so unequivocal and eloquent in his speech.As of today I am really wondering if its the same Mugabe I heard because of the way he is denying his own people the very 'one man one vote' he claims to have fought for.This draws me to the conclusion that the liberation struggle of the Zimbabwean people has not yet been achieved because 28 years on Zimbabweans are still not able to choose their own leaders.Smith, 'the white man'thought blacks were not able to rule themselves and thus disenfranchised them.Mugabe,'the black man'still holds that mentality but in a different form,ie black people who did not fight in the bush will not rule Zimbabwe.Heroes are made by people, they dont make themselves.They command respect and dont demand it.Our dear professor should bear in mind that an oppressor remains an oppressor be they black or white. Chenhamo.
Mugabe campaigned under the banner of 'one man - one vote' as you rightly say, and he got it ..... what he failed to say was that he meant 'One Man (Robert Mugabe) - One Vote (No others count)'
I can't believe that Mr. Elmasry believes what he has written. How much longer will people like he choose to wallow in self-pity and blame Western sanctions for the devastating mess they have created? Other African countries have chosen to be fiscally responsible and racially tolerant, and they are thriving. You have brought disaster on yourselves. When Mugabe is gone, it will take a lot of Western help to keep Zimbabwe from imploding completely. I suggest that Mr. Elmasry figure out which side has the future. And he is wrong about Americans' knowledge of Zimbabwe. There is a great deal of interest in that country, coupled with concern, compassion and prayers -- which seems to be more than is coming from the country's leaders.
Why Zim? Why Now????
There are many ruthless dictators all around that are just as worthy world scorn and condemnation. But, Zim is different because the world could see a glimmer of hope that things may be getting on the right track.
The Mugabe regime is still fighting the wars of 30 years ago, at the detriment of its people. Mugabe's only refrain is to keep pointing to what he has done 25 to 35 years ago: Liberation from colonialism and promoting education. How about what he has done since then? Running his country to the ground, starving his people and terrorizing them, intimidation, killings, tyranny...
What is the world to do? Sit idle while 1/3rd of the population has fled the country, and the rest are dying from hunger. This in a country that was the breadbasket of Africa. In his zeal to re-distribute the wealth to HIS CRONIES, it is now a basket case. Let's get this straight, this has nothing to do with social justice. It is plain run-of-the-mill co
Notice this, an important part of the article: from The Herald - "Published by the government of Zimbabwe."
Just thought I might point that out...