From: Biniam Haile \(SWE\) (eritrea.lave@comhem.se)
Date: Wed Jul 02 2008 - 17:49:52 EDT
Wednesday 2 July 2008
Is Zimbabwe a victim of western imperialism?
By Mutumwa D. Mawere
AS ZIMBABWE approaches its 27th birthday, I have no doubt that many
Zimbabweans like President Mugabe are looking into themselves, looking
at themselves, delving into the assumptions they had at the beginning of
the liberation struggle and at independence, and in so doing reflect on
the economic and political quagmire that the country finds itself today.
Judging by the disproportionate interest taken by the media and the
Western countries on the developments in Zimbabwe, one cannot help but
reflect on the kind of strategic issues that inform the interest and
what implications the spotlight has on the broader issues regarding the
deepening of democracy in Africa.
What began in limited measure as a drive to remove colonialism and naked
racism in Africa in the post-Second World War era and replace it with an
accountable and responsible democratic dispensation, has ended up in the
replacement of a race-based exclusive governance architecture with an
equally exclusive post-colonial governance system dominated by the
founding fathers in the mould of Kwame Nkrumah.
I do not think that even the most enthusiastic anti-colonial and
anti-imperialist advocates would agree in 2007 that the 1st revolution
of Zimbabwe has produced a positive outcome that is in line with the
expectations of all those Africans who have made the sacrifices to
eradicate the artificial man made colonial distortions.
The issues that seem to occupy many regarding the crisis in Zimbabwe are
no different from the kind of issues that occupied the pioneers of the
decolonisation struggle as is to suggest that the passage of time under
self rule was a non event during which no one should be accountable. In
the case of Zimbabwe, the architects of the independence project still
would want to argue that they were never in control of what President
Mwanawasa described as a "sinking Titanic" and choosing to rightly or
wrongly assign the blame on the machinations of relentless imperialist
forces.
In advancing this persuasive argument, they benefit from the global
atmosphere created by the conduct of Bush/Blair on global issues
including Iraq. A unipolar world in which western values are projected
as the only acceptable values to inform global opinion seems discredited
to an extent that even the most unacceptable dictators find sanctuary in
responding to criticisms about their own disastrous policies and
programs by claiming to be victims of an imperialist conspiracy.
Having watched the reporting by CNN and other western media about the
events in Zimbabwe during the last two weeks, it is important that a
platform for a new conversation be created in order to clearly
articulate a Zimbabwean agenda in any regime change discussion. It would
appear at face value that the regime change agenda is owned by
non-Zimbabweans and, for that matter, non-Africans given the reluctance
of African governments to join what they perceive to be a
Western-inspired conspiracy whose real motive is to reverse the gains of
independence and, in particular, the land reform initiative. Under this
construction, any critic of Mugabe is easily labeled as a puppet or
surrogate of imperialist forces and in so doing disable such persons
from contributing and participating in the any change process.
When the media is polluted with pictures of badly damaged faces and
bodies of those who choose to fight for a new dispensation, the debate
takes a new twist if such persons are then labeled as sell-outs and
agents of imperialism. It is then argued that any serious African
government should at best not respond to grievances of imperialists
disguising themselves as opposition players when in truth and fact such
persons are deemed to be devoid of any mind of their own but just
instruments of other people's agendas and at worst should inflict the
maximum bodily harm on them so that their masters can come to the fore
for a real engagement.
Last week, I had the privilege of visiting China and met with a number
of leading Chinese companies in the electronics and information
technology industries. What was striking is that all of these actors
whether they represented the state or non-state players, they all shared
an optimism about the future of the country in as much as they were
mindful of the threat of a unipolar world. I first visited China in 1982
as a student leader and I must confess that every time I visit the
country I am encouraged by the progress and the positive attitude to
life by the average Chinese.
The Chinese are the first to admit that they have benefited from the
West in terms of technology and access to markets. They also acknowledge
that the Cultural Revolution was a major set back. I was startled to
learn from a Chinese company that supplied goods and services to
Zimbabwe recently on the strength of an escrow account that was
established in Hong Kong and Mauritius to route Zimbabwe's pledged
tobacco exports for debt service. The representatives of this company
could not disguise their anger at the attitude of the RBZ when the
escrow account was closed and the security evaporated since June 2004.
Although the company is owned by the government of China, it did not
have pleasant words to say about Zimbabwe. After listening to the
Chinese horror story, I was comforted that after all no one is allergic
to good policies and even the Chinese are commercial in outlook. In
fact, they reminded our delegation that China is different country from
the China that was not informed by strategic and commercial interests.
If China can come of age, why is it that African countries never seem to
grow up and their leaders take responsibility for their actions?
As I watched the coverage on Zimbabwe by CNN, I could not help but
reflect what would have happened to China had Chairman Mao been still
alive and in power. Would he not have retreated to the easy corner of
blaming third parties for the country's problems? Can you imagine that
even Singapore with a population of only 4 million was formerly a colony
and it was only in 1965 that it gained independence with the same per
capita income as that of Ghana under Nkrumah? However, Singapore was
fortunate to have leaders who took responsibility for the country's
destiny and proceeded to put in place institutions and policies that
were friendly to the growth of the country. Even the rulers of Dubai
have managed to demonstrate that it is possible in one generation to
change the possibilities of a nation through good policies.
The world has now many examples of former colonial states that have
transformed themselves into developed states in a generation. What is
striking about these nations is that their leaders took charge and did
not dwell on what the colonial powers thought of them but what their
citizens deserved. Could it then be that bad leaders need imperialism to
sustain themselves in power? One can argue that even if Blair agreed to
help finance Zimbabwe's land reform program, the country would not be
any better off than it is. It is important for historians to critically
examine the condition of the Zimbabwean economy before the formation of
the MDC and the implementation of the land reform program and after the
alleged intrusion of an unpatriotic party into the sovereign affairs of
the country for and on behalf of imperialist forces.
While in China, I received an email commenting on my article on Kwame
Nkrumah that I thought I should share with you. The email read as
follows:
"It is better to misgovern ourselves that to be governed well by others"
Kwame Nkrumah once said. I found your article on Kwame very
enlightening. I have several colleagues that hail from Ghana and they
don't think very highly of Kwame because they are directly/indirectly
victims of his policies. They, however, think highly of Mugabe, they see
him as a hero of the common African, while I obviously don't agree with
this view because I am a victim of his policies. Are we as Africans so
ignorant that we accept anyone who criticizes the West as our saviour;
it would be interesting if you write an article debunking this myth.
It is true that there are many Africans who share Nkrumah's observation
that it is better for Africans to misgovern themselves than be governed
well by others (meaning white colonialists). The observation by Nkrumah
is shared by a number of African leaders who genuinely take the view
that Africa is for Africans in as much as Europe is for Europeans. Such
people are encouraged when they see white faces defending the rights of
black victims into believing that Africa is on the right path if it has
leaders who can defend sovereignty more than satisfying the appetites of
the governed. When Bush and Blair take their time to defend the rights
of a person like Tsvangirai, this is seen as a demonstration that the
purported injuries claimed are not genuine but a mere reflection of the
wishes of the masters who lack the courage and moral strength to come
out in the open.
In as much as Mugabe has critics, he has many admirers in an
increasingly complex world characterised by a value system that lacks
universal application. Many think rightly or wrongly that Mugabe is a
custodian of the values that informed the independence struggle and that
are at the epicenter of the unfinished economic revolution. As long as
victims of Mugabe are whites, the verdict is predictable. What is
problematic and rarely covered by the Western media is the victimisation
of blacks who do not subscribe to their agendas. When the primary focus
is regime change, then you are sure to get a combative Mugabe supported
by well meaning individuals who have problems with Eurocentric values
and the ideological framework within which the regime change is
propagated. In this context, many take the attitudes that better the
devil you know than a devil you fought against and are still in your
midst through alleged proxies.
Unless the opposition parties that seek to dethrone a leader like Mugabe
understand the context in which he is seemingly reluctant to relinquish
power, they are unlikely to succeed in any regime change. In fact, it is
ironic that even Mugabe's worst adversaries are praying for the
disintegration of Zanu PF as the only salvation for the country rather
than change coming out of the popular will of the governed. In such an
environment, it is incumbent upon not only the opposition forces to
rethink about the agenda for action but to critically develop an
ideology that captures the imagination of the governed.
Surely, the reincarnation of Ian Smith is not the desired outcome for
Zimbabwe notwithstanding the economic condition of the country. A
desired outcome should not appear to be dictated by the same forces that
a leader like Mugabe takes pride in defeating. Whether we like it or
not, Mugabe will always be remembered as the first post-colonial leader
of Zimbabwe irrespective of whether through his policies Zimbabwe was
turned into a Rhodesian ruins or not. Even in the best of times, a
leader who believes that he is the saviour of a nation and a people that
appear incapable of coherently expressing themselves will not
voluntarily varnish. In fact, the appearance of Western intrusion into
the domestic affairs of Zimbabwe, gives a leader like Mugabe another
lifeline.
In the face of what appears to Mugabe as Western inspired regime change
propaganda, the harmonisation project has been redefined now to mean
Presidential and Parliamentary elections in 2008. Given the fate of
Tsvangirai and his comrades, it is unthinkable that any rational Zanu PF
leader would dare stand in the way of Mugabe now more than ever before.
Such an idiot would face the same wrath as that which visited Tsvangirai
and any prospect of dissent among the Zanu PF comrades as has been
talked and written about is non-existent. Rather, what is expected is
that Mugabe who is in any event the only candidate of the party until
2009, will stand for the Presidential elections even if he is well aware
that winning such an election will not be in the national interest. When
confronted by a spirited and determined opposition, you can count on
Mugabe rising to the occasion no matter how many corpses he has to leave
behind.
Some cynics would argue that Mugabe who might have entertained the
prospect of retiring in 2010 has been given a new lifeline by the
opposition that seems to be misguided by wrong analytical constructions
by the likes of Prof Jonathan Moyo regarding the real climate within
Zanu PF. The apparent investment by the opposition in transforming Zanu
PF into a faction-ridden enterprise may backfire to the detriment of the
country that is in urgent need of salvation.
In as much as Zimbabweans are yearning for change, the historical
context of colonialism and the undying wounds it seems to have inflicted
on the country's leadership, the battle lines may have been
inadvertently drawn by parties that help to confuse the conversation
about change and criterion for selecting Mugabe's successor. The open
wounds of colonial injustice are evident in the psyche of many Africans
to allow change in Zimbabwe to be influenced by neighboring African
states. Even Chiluba and Kaunda may share the same sentiments with
Mugabe about the role of Western powers in removing them from the gravy
train and may find in Mugabe the courage they never mustered in
defending their regimes.
Even those who expect much from South Africa are setting themselves for
a big disappointment. The racial wounds have not even begun to heal to
allow President Mbeki to become an accomplice for any regime change
agenda inspired by forces that want to entrench white economic
supremacy. While they call on President Mbeki to intervene in the
seemingly ill-defined Zimbabwean crisis, no attempt is made to locate
such intervention in the context of international law. Where would
President Mbeki get the locus standi to intervene in as much as he may
find some of the policies of the government of Zimbabwe objectionable?
The South African government's position on regime change is well known
to give its critics a better perspective in terms of judging its actions
on the Zimbabwean question.
While the opposition parties may hold the view that the current
government of Zimbabwe is not legitimate, the South African government
has a different opinion that has informed its response on calls for a
new constitution and a transitional authority to supervise the next
Zimbabwean election. If President Mbeki is being encouraged to do what
would be unconstitutional under the Constitution of South Africa, then
it becomes difficult for him to establish the legal and political basis
within which he can intervene.
In conclusion, I think the question of whether Zimbabwe is a victim of
colonialism and imperialism will and should continue to occupy the minds
of Zimbabweans and Africans in general as they try to map out a strategy
to lift the sinking titanic whose captain is still to be convinced of
his culpability in helping kill the hope that ignited the struggle for
emancipation.
Zimbabwe will continue to be on autopilot, in a stalemate, and in deep
crisis unless its citizens find a better way of communicating with its
leaders that the world has changed and if change in the manner in which
the country is governed does not take place, then the blame must be
placed squarely at citizens for allowing themselves to be used as a
football by leaders whose interests may have little to do with their
future.
Africa's heritage must be owned by citizens and not monopolised by their
agents who in many cases end up abusing their rights while conveniently
blaming others for their obvious misguided policies and programs.
Mutumwa Mawere's weekly column appears on New Zimbabwe.com every Monday.
You can contact him at: mmawere@ahccouncil.com
NEW ZIMBABWE
----[This List to be used for Eritrea Related News Only]----