West muddling Zimbabwean politics

[XXPANTHAXX]

By Baffour Ankomah

MANY things have happened in Zimbabwe since the March 29 elections, in fact since the land issue exploded in 2000. I spent six weeks in Zimbabwe between March 22 and July 13 covering the recent elections, and so on top of my eight years of intensive reporting of the country — I can say (if modesty should allow me) that I know a lot more than most "foreigners" do about Zimbabwe and what has gone on and still going on, in that beautiful but besieged country. And I use the word "besieged" very advisedly.



Now that we are seeing a chink of light at the end of the Zimbabwean tunnel (via the recent inter party dialogue), it is my turn to tell the world about some of the things we don’t see on our TV screens or in the newspapers.

But first, something on Mark Malloch-Brown, ex-journalist, ex-UNDP head, ex-right hand man of Kofi Annan, and now the UK’s minister for Africa. He said at the height of the recent media campaign against Zimbabwe: "We don’t want it to be Zimbabwe versus Britain, it’s Zimbabwe versus the world." Mark Malloch-Brown is an ex-Rhodie (or former Rhodesian) who has made it big under the British system. We don’t begrudge his steep rise, he deserves it even, but, for the life of him, he should stop creating the impression that he is a dispassionate commentator on Zimbabwean affairs. He is not! It’s time he declared his competing interests.

In fact, his antics remind me of the English explorer and scientist of yore, Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, who was said to have been a "distinguished African explorer" (poor Africa, anybody could be distinguished there). According to my dictionary, Galton was ‘‘noted for his researches in heredity, meteorology, and statistics," and he even "founded the study of eugenics and the theory of anticyclones."

Well, the archives show that on June 5, 1873, Galton wrote a letter to the British daily, The Times, about what he wanted the Empire to do to Africa. "My proposal," he wrote, "is to make the encouragement of Chinese settlements of Africa a part of our national policy, in the belief that the Chinese immigrants would not only maintain their position, but that they would multiply and their descendants supplant the inferior Negro race. I should expect that the African seaboard, now sparsely occupied by lazy, palavering savages, might in a few years be tenanted by industrious, order-loving Chinese, living either as a semi-detached dependency of China, or else in perfect freedom under their own law."

And yet, now that the Chinese are in Africa in full force and well ensconced in their comfortable villas and business houses all across the continent, the West is not happy. Recently, headlines such as the following have been appearing in the Western media: "How China is taking over Africa… And why we in the West should be Very worried" (Daily Mail, UK, July 18, 2008).

Incidentally, "why we in the West should be very worried" is at the very core of the Zimbabwe saga, and anybody who wants to understand what is happening there, should pay serious attention to the core issue — what Mark Malloch-Brown cleverly calls Zimbabwe versus the world (nay the West)".

In fact, the double veto by Russia and China at the UN Security Council on July 11 which effectively stopped what I call the nations of European stock from pushing Zimbabwe down a precipice, will, in the long run, be one of the best things to happen to the world this side of heaven. It is because of the double veto that Morgan Tsvangirai ever signed the MoU paving the way for talks with the Government, and even shook the hand of President Mugabe for the first time since the formation of the MDC in September 1999! The double veto has also given the power equation in the world a new vibrant colour — Anglo-Saxon United now knows that it cannot have its way all the time.

And here comes the rub: The core issue in Zimbabwe, despite what Western governments and their media say, is not a simple matter of democracy, good governance, human rights, hyperinflation and such like, but the land issue and the attempt by the western powers using local proxies, to stop a determined group of African people from asserting their inalienable rights over their country and resources (particularly the vexed land issue) because it sets a bad example for other nations in Africa and the developing world.

The fight, therefore, is for the soul of Zimbabwe and its resources, especially the land. And it is a direct fight between the western powers on the one hand (Britain and America at the fore), and resolute Zimbabwean nationalists led by President Mugabe on the other hand.

This is why Mark Malloch-Brown could say: "we don’t want it to be Zimbabwe versus Britain, its Zimbabwe versus the world." Since when did an African country become "versus the world"? And for what exactly? The British weekly, The Economist, admits in a leader comment (headlined, "How to get him out" — June 28, 2008) that despite all the recent hyperactive coverage of Zimbabwe, "the loss of life in such blighted places as Sudan’s Darfur province and Somalia is still many times higher than in Zimbabwe." And yet the magazine that prides itself as "The house journal of globalisation" still wants Mugabe kicked out until early July when the ICC issued arrest warrants against Sudan’s president, Omar Bashir, no one and I mean no one had said he should be kicked out because of Darfur where there has been far more loss of life than in Zimbabwe.

In reality, the truth they dare not tell is that Anglo-Saxon United believes that if they can crush Zimbabwe, it will send a deafening message right across Africa and the developing world, and more especially in neighbouring South Africa and Namibia which have similar land tenure systems skewed in favour of their white minority populations, that any developing nation that dares to do a Zimbabwe will be doing so at its very peril. It is part of the control mechanism.

And anybody who does not understand this will never understand what is happening in Zimbabwe, and why this small African nation of 13 million people exercises so much fascination for the West and its media. Sadly, the more the west interferes in Zimbabwe, the worse it becomes for the opposition MDC. If the west had been wise and distanced itself a bit from the MDC and allowed it to grow as an organic local opposition, Tsvangirai may well be president by now.

Even Mugabe would have stepped down as he panned to do when his 2002 presidential term ended in March 2008. For those who don’t know, Mugabe had decided way back in late 2006 not to run in the March 29 elections! But attempts by Britain and its allies to humiliate him by trying to impose a regime change meant to reverse the land issue (including plotting a coup d’etat last year), made him change his mind.

Even now if the west plays it wise, the 84-year-old President who wants to have time to write his books, might yet step down before his new five-year term ends in 2013. For those who can read between the lines, there are enough indications that Mugabe has prepared himself for this eventuality, even before the recent elections.

Take the new clause inserted in the Constitution last year which says if a president does not finish his or her term, through retirement or death, the two Houses of Parliament will sit as a collegiate and elect a new president from within their midst. This clause replaced the old provision, which said an election would be held within 90 days of a sitting president not finishing his or her term. The new clause is aimed at saving the country from the unnecessary pain of organising elections and the high costs associated with them.

The question is why does a sitting president agree to the insertion of such a clause in the Constitution if he has no intention to step down before his term ends? But as long as the west continues to treat Zimbabwe in the way it has done in the last eight years, by imposing economic sanctions aimed at inducing regime change or making the people suffer so they will rise against the Government, the nationalists in Zimbabwe will stiffen their resolve and stay put.

London, Washington, Paris, the EU and the rest of Anglo-Saxon United should therefore wise up and back off, and allow the Zimbabweans (both opposition and Government) to solve their own problems. If not, the west will find itself perpetually battling with nationalist steeliness in Zimbabwe to the detriment of the very same suffering people the west claims to want to help.

For a start, the west must lift the economic sanctions that they have imposed on Zimbabwe for the past eight years. The hypocritical antics of the same sanctions imposing countries wanting the world to know that they have only imposed, or now want to impose, "targeted sanctions", "travel bans" and "assets freeze", will not help bring a solution in Zimbabwe. Who are they deceiving anyway? Before I sign off, let me hit on one of the things you dint see on your TV screens or in your newspapers. The impression widely created by the western media that the political violence in Zimbabwe was perpetrated by only one side — Zanu-PF or Mugabe’s thugs is absolutely not true. The violence was perpetrated by sides, Zanu-PF and MDC.

There have been no saints in Zimbabwe. In fact, all independent analysts agree that it was the MDC that first started the violence, before Zanu-PF retaliated, and went on the offensive. Violence is violence, it is wrong, and should be condemned whoever perpetrates it.

Now that all three main parties have agreed to talk, let the world encourage them to go the full hog and find a lasting solution to the challenges facing the country. Anglo-Saxon United should stop trying to run the show by remote control and allow Tsvangirai to be (as he says) ‘‘the Zimbabwean who wants only what is best for our country and our citizens.’’ — New African.