Zimbabwe And The Battle of Ideas by Netfa Freeman

[XXPANTHAXX]

To hear the American and European corporate media tell it, Zimbabwe's
President Robert Mugabe is the worst villain since Hitler. These same
corporate organs - and their governments and ruling classes - love the
opposition Movement for Democratic Change more than they ever did the
liberation movements that fought colonialism and imperialism on the
continent. The author methodically confronts the torrent of propaganda
that demonizes Mugabe while hailing Africans that are funded by and do
service to rich European and American corporations.

"The U.S. admits to actively engaging in efforts to\\for regime change."

Cuban revolutionaries often point out the significance of what they call
the “battle of ideas” and they explain how “ideas are worth more than
weapons.” It stands to reason then that the goal in such battles is to
win the hearts and minds of people. Because the so-called Western World
dominates the most sophisticated and pervasive methods of information
today, people should carefully scrutinize ideas pushed and popularized
by these sources. This means we should never take for granted anything
we read or hear and only half of what we see.

This year on September 11th Zimbabwe’s two rival parties, Zimbabwe
African National Union – Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) and Movement for
Democratic Change (MDC-T, representing a faction lead by presidential
hopeful Morgan Tsvangiria) signed a power sharing agreement that details
several critical points. Just a few of these points important to note
are:

-Reaffirm the principle of the United Nations Charter on
non-interference in the internal affairs of member (states/nations);

-Agree that no outsiders have a right to call or campaign for regime
change in Zimbabwe;

-Call upon the governments that are hosting and/or funding external
radio stations broadcasting into Zimbabwe to cease such hosting and
funding; (this is illegal under international law but something the US
sponsors and has sponsored in several places)

-Accept the irreversibility of the land acquisitions and redistribution;

-Agree to call upon the United Kingdom government to accept the primary
responsibility to pay compensation for land acquired from former
landowners for resettlement;

-Recognize that the consequent contribution of Western financial and
economic isolation to the further decline of the economy; and

-Agree that all forms of measures and sanctions against Zimbabwe be
lifted?

Those who do not read this agreement and only understand it through the
web of corrupt ideas spun around it by Western World sources and sources
supported by the West are sure to misunderstand Zimbabwe. They are sure
to misunderstand the contending elements in this particular battle of
ideas and what motivates them. Malcolm X called this being
“bamboozled.”

“US and British diplomats have confirmed to Business Day that their
advice to Tsvangirai has been to not sign the draft agreement."

Currently it is common to hear positions of reluctance and doubt cast
upon the unity agreement at a time when an eager confidence would be a
more constructive and conscientious position. This reluctance is mostly
attributed to the alleged inability to trust a “repressive ZANU-PF”
which is said to hold on to power pretty much for power’s sake. These
notions have not been asserted without a corresponding but no less
dubious backdrop.

Furthermore the historic agreement for national unity was not birthed
without the typical attempts of foreign interference. “US and British
diplomats have confirmed to Business Day that their advice to Tsvangirai
has been to not sign the draft agreement from the early hours of
yesterday and to negotiate for more power. Their governments — which are
preparing to provide aid to a new dispensation — would not bankroll any
deal in which Mugabe retained control, they said.” This explains why,
after signing 13 agreements with Zanu-PF and the Arthur Mutambara-led
MDC formation, Tsvangirai abruptly pulled out of the South
African-facilitated talks. He only returned after realizing his
stubborn could lead to his forfeiting any role in the new government.

The Backdrop

The idea that an authoritarian Mugabe assumed the Zimbabwe presidency in
an uncontested 2008 election dominates the thinking from conservatives
to liberals. “Uncontested” is to imply an undemocratic process where the
electorate had only one choice, Robert Gabriel Mugabe. We are also
bombarded with the idea that state sponsored violence, tantamount to
that following Kenya’s December ‘07 elections, preceded Zimbabwe’s
run-off date to so intimidate Zimbabweans that even the secrecy of the
ballot was not enough for people to express their will. These stories
are parroted by “leftist” policy analyst and activists respected for
their “progressive” and “democratic” ideals. The apparent aim of these
ideas is to popularize an acceptance of regime change in Zimbabwe.

When it comes to Zimbabwe, Imperialists governments, corporate and
liberal media, and so-called Africa advocacy organizations all reinforce
this same simple message. These narratives however, neglect the
intricate nature of events in Zimbabwe and the real backdrop in which
they take place. This article will deconstruct the essence and methods
of imperialist propaganda against Zimbabwe by dissecting misinformation
in two articles deemed as progressive sources/views: African
Dictatorships and Double Standards by Stephen Zunes and Ballots vs.
Bullets in Kenya and Zimbabwe by Briggs Bomba.

Crude Comparison

Bomba’s article crudely compares recent elections in Zimbabwe and Kenya.
First he fails to clarify that manipulated ethnic tensions between the
Kikuyu versus the Luo and other groups were at the center of the Kenya
situation. No such factor plays a part in Zimbabwe. The polarization
in Zimbabwe is of an ideological nature, two opposing political
tendencies.

Bomba, a Zimbabwean misleads readers about the situation in his country
by implying that there was “a victorious opposition” in the March 29th
presidential election even though the country’s constitution requires a
candidate to gain over 50% of the vote to be victorious and neither
MDC-T's Morgan Tsvangirai nor ZANU PF's Robert Mugabe did so. Even
though a picture is always painted of Mugabe as a widely unpopular
leader he did receive 43% of the March 29 vote, only 4% less than
Tsvangirai. Furthermore, the candidate receiving the most votes in the
required June 27th run-off was Robert Mugabe; 2,150,269 votes to 233,000
(85.5% to 9.3% of the vote). Yes, the author is counting on his readers
to accept the false but commonly repeated premise that the run-off was
uncontested due to Tsvangirai announcing to the media one week before
voting day that he was pulling out of the election. However, Tsvangirai
never followed established procedures for
rescinding his candidacy, which requires candidates to notify the
Election Commission (ZEC) in writing no later than 21 days before
Election Day. Even the opposition leader’s grandstanding announcement
to the media was after the mandatory deadline, which is probably
designed to prevent candidates from sabotaging an election in progress
in that very manner. Accordingly, Tsvangirai was still on the ballot as
an option for the electorate. Not to mention that the June 27 run off
also included elections for three vacant seats in the House, in which
Tsgangirai’s MDC-T continued participating and accepted victory for one
of the seats. So contrary to the consistent media spin this was not an
uncontested election. The whole business of pulling-out was clearly a
charade by a candidate (on the instructions of his Western masters) who
wasn't confident he'd succeed in the run-off.

Electorate Turn Around

Allow me to digress from Bomba’s article for a moment. Because it makes
sense to ask, what could have turned the electorate around for Mugabe to
receive 1,106,818 more votes in June than he did in March and for
Tsvangirai to receive 936,860 less? This is an important question.

First there was the fact that the MDC-T falsely announced victory over
the presidency, claiming that they’d received over 50% of the vote on
March 29th, even though their own figures showed otherwise. And they
kept changing their claims from figures like 58%, to 53% down to 50.3%
or something. These announcements were also a violation of the law
since the ZEC was the only entity permitted to make the official
announcement. MDC-T expressly agreed to this law in view of the
situation in Kenya. So people could take their breach of the law as
dishonest and an attempt to incite citizens into violence.

Then, there was how the MDC-T along with the Western countries treated
the delay of ZEC in disclosing the March 29th results. Gordon Brown of
Britain and Condeleeza Rice of the US were demanding the immediate
release of results instead of stressing the importance of accurate ones.
It was not made clear to the world what Zimbabweans already knew. This
was the first time the country was holding “harmonized elections”,
meaning elections for not just the Presidency but that also included its
House, Senate and many Municipalities for Mayors, etc. Of course this
would take longer to tally with unforeseen challenges arising and
because of what happened in Kenya, the ZEC was being especially careful
to make sure all the tallies were accurate. Instead of making this
clear the MDC kept up claims to the international media that the ZEC was
an extension of the ruling party ZANU-PF and the delay was an attempt to
rig the results. However, 50% of ZEC members
are actually appointed by the opposition party in accordance with the
election guidelines of the Southern African Development Community
(SADC), so it was dishonest to say they are an extension of ZANU-PF.

"The Zimbabwe Election Commission was being especially careful to make
sure all the tallies were accurate."

Another thing that held up the result and must have had an impact on how
the electorate voted in June was that some ZEC officials were caught
manipulating results in favor of the opposition. This caused requests
for recounts by ZANU-PF and some later by MDC. Complicit media frenzy
only made matter worse. How many of us heard of the story, which made
the front page of the New York Times, backed up by a photo of the
11-month old boy whose little legs were shattered by ZANU-PF brutes
looking to terrorize the opposition during the run-off period? Of those
who learned of the story, much less of them found out what most
Zimbabweans learned right away, that the story was a complete
fabrication.

There we so many attempts to discredit the elections one could easily
miss reports that youth who were really MDC-T deployed were posing in
ZANU-PF regalia while terrorizing their own people. This seems more
credible than, while denying to the world that they were using violence
and intimidation, that ZANU-PF would deploy people wearing anything that
would so obviously identify them. On the other hand, attacking its own
members is not out of character for the MDC, as Trudy Stevenson can
attest.

Leading up to the run-off there was also an extremely suspicious
incident when US embassy officials took Zimbabwe police on a high-speed
chase after being stopped in an area they were not authorized to be. It
was eventually discovered that the “diplomats” were on a mission meeting
with MDC-T members.

It was in the aforementioned context that ZANU-PF stepped up its
campaign efforts to win more support in the run-off. Their campaign was
also aided by Tsvangirai’s behavior, which was to call for more foreign
intervention. Tsvangirai went gallivanting the world on this mission
during the time he should have been campaigning inside country and none
of his stops were even in any African countries. If you were Zimbabwean
would you vote for him? Members of his own party were saying he should
return to Zimbabwe. It was even said that US ambassador to Zimbabwe,
James McGee had to instruct Tsvangirai to return to his country because
he was squandering his credibility.

Then to top things off, once in the country, in a dramatic attempt to
gain sympathy and discredit the run-off Tsvangirai pretended his life
was in danger and took “refuge” in the Dutch embassy in Zimbabwe, off
all places. Anyone who knows the history of the Dutch in Southern
Africa from which the Boers are descendants knows why that could have
lost Tsvangirai votes. But for some reason Bomba wants to insist that
the opposition was or even could be victorious under such circumstances.

More Missing Context

Back to Bomba’s comparison of Kenya and Zimbabwe, he rhetorically asks,
"In the battle of the ballot vs. the bullet, can there ever be a fair
match?" He ignores the fact that the MDC-T has the full weight of the
most powerfully sinister forces in the world on its side, imperialism
tipping political scales in its favor. Because Zimbabwe's situation is
completely dissimilar to Kenya, Bomba's rhetorical questions should be
more like the fact-based questions of columnist Stephen Gowans in his
well researched piece, Zimbabwe At War: "Should an election be carried
out when a country is under sanctions and it has been made clear to the
electorate that the sanctions will be lifted only if the opposition
party is elected?

"Should a political party which is the creation of, and is funded by,
hostile foreign forces, and whose program is to unlatch the door from
within to provide free entry to foreign powers to establish a
neo-colonial rule, be allowed to freely operate?

"Should the leaders of an opposition movement that takes money from
hostile foreign powers and who have made plain their intention to unseat
the government by any means available, be charged with treason"?

"MDC-T has the full weight of the most powerfully sinister forces in the
world on its side, imperialism tipping political scales in its favor."

Being Zimbabwean, maybe Bomba doesn't understand that such a situation
would never be even remotely tolerated in the US. Leaders of any party
in the US having the type of relationship with foreign governments that
the MDC has with the UK and US would be intensely vilified and
immediately imprisoned for treason.

Bomba also misleads his readers by first pointing out that "SADC adopted
'Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections' aimed at
'enhancing the transparency and credibility of elections and democratic
governance as well as ensuring the acceptance of election results by
contesting parties'". But then he fails to point out that Zimbabwe was
the first SADC member country to implement these guidelines in 2005 and
that observers from SADC and other missions have approved Zimbabwe
elections in compliance with them.

Sheep’s Clothing

Bomba tries to bolster faith in the development of "independent civil
society" in Africa, independent meaning organizations without loyalty to
African governments. On the surface this may seem appropriate but there
are ample reasons to be skeptical of this idea, particularly regarding
how "independent" this civil society can really be. For instance the
fact that for decades imperialist governments have used civil society
organizations in other countries to implement immoral foreign policy
objectives by funneling funds to them and directives they cloak as
“technical assistance”. One very revealing reference is a paper by
former CIA agent Philip Agee, called Terrorism and Civil Society As
Instruments of US Policy In Cuba. Agee points out that 1979 events in
several countries, including Zimbabwe, were the impetus for the US to
create the American Political Foundation to explore ways the US could
exploit civil society in other countries for their own
ends. Agee goes on to explain how this began setting the policy
agendas of the USAID and eventually led to the formation of the National
Endowment for Democracy in 1983. Now the NED directs funds to overt
activities that were once the covert operations of the CIA.

Bomba should think about the words of T.A. Raheem, Secretary General of
the Pan African Movement based in Uganda when he said: "Why is it
'appropriate' for African NGOs to be funded by non-African governments
and it is 'inappropriate' if they are funded by African governments. The
illusion being spread is that somehow European governments are more
interested in (good governance) than their African counterparts. Why
should our future be based on the (telescopic and hypocritical) goodwill
of European and American taxpayers?…Why are NGOs or civil society
organizations that relate well to our governments or even get some
support from them regarded as 'political' or 'puppets' yet those
dependent on Western governments are by that very fact 'independent'?
Who is fooling who?"

In so many words Bomba accuses the judiciary in Zimbabwe of being
dominated by "loyalists" but if this were true Tsvangirai would be in
jail right now for his plot to carry out a coup on the government and
assassinate Mugabe. And one could list a host of other judicial rulings
that have favored the opposition in ways that completely refute this
assertion.

"The illusion being spread is that somehow European governments are more
interested in (good governance) than their African counterparts."

Bomba's article is full of accusations against the Zimbabwe government
but he substantiates none of them. In one paragraph he clearly uses
incidents in Kenya to vilify Zimbabwe. He makes the unsupported
assertion that the Zimbabwe "army, the police and the secret services
merged seamlessly with the violent campaign machinery of the ruling
(ZANU PF)". Then he switches to mentioning actual incidents in Kenya
where the "the police stood in President Kibaki's corner and brutally
massacred hundreds of opposition activists in protests that followed the
disputed election." This is a slight of hand for readers to assume
incidents around the elections similar to those in Kenya also took place
in Zimbabwe when nothing of the sort was ever even reported. It is
instructive here to note that while the post-election death toll in
Kenya reached to around 1500, there haven't been more than 100
post-election deaths in Zimbabwe and the police there have publicly
challenged the opposition accusers to produce evidence that even all of
those killings took place. The opposition has to this day failed to do
so.

The only difference between Kenya and Zimbabwe the author bothers to
identify is also not exactly true. Bomba says in “Kenya, unlike
Zimbabwe, the opposition used mass mobilization and threats of total
economic paralysis to leverage its power…” But the opposition in
Zimbabwe did attempt a mobilization of this sort in April 2008, only to
fail in getting "mass" support. US imperialism's own propaganda
apparatus, Voice of America (VOA), which consistently favors the
opposition even admitted in an April 15 report that the strike “was
largely ignored by Zimbabweans, most of whom reported for work Tuesday.”
This is not the first time people ignored such calls. The opposition in
Zimbabwe, including the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions often call for
strikes that go “largely unheeded”.

There are too many contradictions in Bomba's article to address them
all. This happens when an ideological premise is so flawed. His is a
premise ignoring the nature of US-UK interests and policy in Africa, as
he makes bizarre references to the “access” and “diplomatic leverage”
Western saviors don’t have with Mugabe so they can help put things right
in Zimbabwe. He understates the “interference” by Western powers in
Zimbabwe saying it “is not always helpful,” and advocates for a
“balanced intervention” and is careful “not to say that the West has no
role to play.”

"The US and UK wanted the option of playing the fraudulence card when
the results didn’t suit them."

“In Kenya,” he says, “the United States, Britain, the AU, and other
players in the international community played a key role in brokering
the power-sharing deal…” He overlooks that in Kenya the US and UK are
not engaged in their regime change shenanigans and feel comfortable that
their Africa interests there are safe in the hands of either a Kibaki or
an Odinga in power. They had even extended premature congratulations to
Kibaki on his “electoral victory” having to rescind it two days later
once aware of discrepancies in the results and the erupting unrest. In
Zimbabwe on the other hand both the US and UK have been obsessed with
the outcome of elections since 2000. They've consistently condemned
them as marred even before they’d taken place. This has only been
because the prospect for victory of their favored MDC didn't look good
enough for them and they wanted the option of playing the fraudulence
card when the results didn’t suit
them.
Bomba says, “Mugabe's response to Britain's ‘school yard’ isolationist
diplomacy has been to throw his toys and act like he just does not
care.” I’m at a loss to see which actions by Mugabe fit this analogy
but more tellingly what diplomacy is he talking about? The UK and US
have made it perfectly clear that they want nothing short of regime
change in Zimbabwe. There is nothing diplomatic about that. This is
not some unfounded accusation by Mugabe. They are public pronouncements
by the US and UK themselves.

Liberating Ideas

A revolutionary African ideology recognizes it is now more important
than ever that we push Africa’s only solution, a continental war against
neo-colonialism. No matter how valiant the people of Zimbabwe resist
the imperialist, it is an intricate global system that cannot be
defeated by a single microstate, or even an alliance of microstates like
SADC, ECOWAS, COMESA, etc. To borrow a quote from a mentor, it is
either “Pan-Africanism or perish”. African people must help each other
recognize on a mass scale the vital need for the total integration of
the continent, under one socialist government. Nothing else will work
and is a complete waste of time.

Kwame Nkrumah understood this clearly when he emphasized the need for an
All-African Union government, All-African trade union, women's
federation and student union, All-African military and united front of
political organizations (i.e. All-African People’s Revolutionary Army,
All-African Committee for Political Coordination, and an All-African
People’s Revolutionary Party). Far too many of us pay lip service to
African unity while substituting it for alliances with so-called Africa
supporters, loose regional based associations of heads of government and
states, united fronts of Africans devoid of any serious revolutionary
principles and the like.

"Bomba completely excuses US, UK and EU destabilization efforts against
his own country."

With such a set up vitalized from the bottom up, Africa can establish a
Pan-African monetary banking system with uniform currency, unlike the
imperialist controlled African Development Bank. We need a Pan-African
telecommunications system that serves the continent much like Latin
America’s TeleSUR and a continental transportation system that helps to
facilitate commerce, economic development and social and cultural
exchanges that are first and foremost in the interest of all African
people. These things can be done but not so long as a defeatist
dependent ideology dominates the people.

Bomba sees the US' lack of international credibility undermined simply
by practices of the current administration instead of due to the history
and nature of imperialism proven also by its domestic policies. Does he
forget that, like Rhodesia the US is a settler-colony, which to this day
disenfranchises indigenous people? What about the fact that there is
police repression of African (Black) and Latino people and political
repression of social justice activists? There are no less then 70
political prisoners in the US, some imprisoned long before Zimbabwe got
its independence. The US' electoral process disenfranchises people of
color and the poor. Bomba also lessens criticism of US foreign policy
to “a discredited Iraq war” and its "embracing favored dictators," but
ignores the multitude of crimes beyond a Bush administration, such as
other military invasions, overthrowing democratically elected leaders
and fueling devastating wars. This list
includes Korea, Cuba, Congo, Ghana, Vietnam, Angola, Chile, Iran,
Grenada, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Panama, Afghanistan, and the list goes
on and on.

I cannot relate to why Bomba completely excuses US, UK and EU
destabilization efforts against his own country in the form of pervasive
economic sanctions designed to strangle his country into submission,
covert operations using political provocateurs, and sophisticated
propaganda that perpetuates misinformation, half-truths and outright
lies against Zimbabwe. None of these things apply to Kenya, nor is any
of it a secret given a little research.

Zunes’ Double Standards

Stephen Zunes tries to be more sophisticated in his article, African
Dictatorships and Double Standards. It is clear Zunes doesn’t want to
be associated with the common practice of demonizing Zimbabwe while
overlooking US neo-colonial governments in Africa. However, his
reduction of US foreign policy in Zimbabwe to mere condemnations has
equally dire repercussions. As pointed out earlier the US admits to
actively engaging in efforts for regime change. April 5, 2007 was
another occasion when the US State Department went on public record
saying that, among several measures, they are working to "discredit the
government of Mugabe." Facts both Zunes and Bomba ignore. No honest
focus on foreign policy can ignore such facts.

Zunes saying that the US government "has justifiably criticized the
Zimbabwe regime of liberator-turned-dictator Robert Mugabe" is to say
this same government that supported Ian Smith's racist apartheid regime
of Southern Rhodesia before it became Zimbabwe and this same government
that conspired to assassinate Patrice Lumumba, overthrew Kwame Nkrumah,
bombed Libya, orchestrated countless coups against legitimate
democratically elected governments in Africa and the world, and is now
responsible for the second largest refugee crisis in history between
Iraq and Afghanistan is being altruistic when it comes to Zimbabwe.
They also had a big hand in the largest refugee crisis of the
Palestinians that saw the creation of Israel at Palestine’s expense and
its occupation of adjacent territories.

"Zunes seems to downplay the nature of US sanctions against Zimbabwe."

Zunes commends the Bush administration for joining what he calls “a
unanimous UN Security Council resolution condemning the campaign of
violence unleashed upon pro-democracy activists and calling for
increased diplomatic sanctions...” A point of correction: The Bush
administration did not “join” anything. They collaborated with the UK
to get others to join them. In typical fashion Zunes' commentary also
fails to point out that the violence in the country has been determined
to be from “supporters” of “both sides” and aside from mere
unsubstantiated yet repeated accusations by the opposition, none of the
violence has ever been confirmed as being precipitated or instigated by
the Mugabe government. Zimbabwe police arrested supporters of both
parties for politically motivated violence. In fact Mugabe himself
publicly scolded supporters of ZANU-PF who perpetuated acts of violence
(Zimbabwe Sunday Mail, May 18, 2008), while presidential
hopeful Tsvangiria and his party's secretary general Tendai Biti are on
public record for doing the opposite (BBC, September 30, 2000 and
Washington Post, May 16, 2008)

Similar to Bomba’s “isolationist diplomacy”, Zunes seems to downplay the
nature of US sanctions against Zimbabwe when he refers to them as
“diplomatic sanctions.” I see no other reason to put those two words
together unless the author is trying to abet the regular falsehood that
sanctions against Zimbabwe are limited to the travel of certain Zimbabwe
government officials. US sanctions against Zimbabwe (in cahoots with
those of the UK and EU) explicitly outline stipulations designed to
damage the economy by denying any extension of credit to the government
or any balance of payment assistance by international financial
institutions. They also actively dissuade investments in, or trade with
the country. These moves have had devastating effects on the ordinary
citizens of Zimbabwe, a fact that Zunes and Bomba are consistent in
ignoring in their analyses. What usually happens is that the symptoms
of these sanctions are pinned on “Mugabe’s
economic mismanagement.”

Rarely does anyone ask scrutinizing questions like those of Ugandan
journalist, Timothy Kalyegira: “Before the Mugabe Government started
uprooting the white farmers in 2000, this Government kept inflation at 5
percent, 8 percent (or 11 percent in difficult years.) How, then, does a
country with all the same factors and leaders from 1980 to 2000 suddenly
(because the white commercial farmers have been uprooted) see inflation
soar to world record levels in a space of just six years starting in
2000? And how is it that a stable Zimbabwe has an inflation rate 1500
times higher than Somalia, a country without a government since 1991?”

It’s important to note that this resolution to increase the sanctions,
which Zunes praises as unanimous, actually failed to pass in the UN
Security Council leaving the indisputably racist governments of the US,
UK and the EU to execute their own sanctions. So much for the so-called
unanimous character of the resolution.

Zunes distorts the essence of the US' double standard treatment between
Equatorial Guinea (EG) and Zimbabwe into the US only wanting the oil
reserves in EG, as if they want nothing in Zimbabwe besides democracy
and human rights. Imperialism’s recent aggression toward Zimbabwe
corresponds to the ZANU-PF government's confiscation of land from a
white-settler minority in the face of unrest by a disenfranchised
indigenous African majority. It also has to do with moves by Zimbabwe
to begin controlling its natural resources in the mines and disavowing
the Economic Structural Adjustment Programs (ESAPs) of the IMF/World
Bank. These are telling omissions for a foreign policy analyst to make.

Tactics Versus Principles

Now a little sidebar is in order here. Many of the so-called advocates
for Africa attempt to make confusion around the fact that Zimbabwe
abandoned the ESAPs by countering that the government is still repaying
the loan it received from the World Bank in 1990. While this is true,
the ESAPs and the actual loan attached to them are two distinct things.
This also smacks of dishonesty on their part because most of them never
call for African governments to refuse repaying these loans. Instead
their work in this area is merely to try convincing the World Bank and
IMF (imperialism) to “relieve” or “cancel” the debts of various
countries, except Zimbabwe. While Zimbabwe is the only African country
that has abandoned the actual immoral ESAPs, which make dealing with
these financial institutions so fatal, they never commend them for this.

There is another double standard related to this that also explains why
Zimbabwe is repaying the loan. A couple years ago when the Bolivarian
government in Venezuela finished repaying a loan to the World Bank that
they inherited from the previous government, many of these same civil
society advocates recognize it as economic prowess. Even though
Venezuela was able to finally rid itself of such an odious situation,
the country still remains a member of the World Bank. Why?

If these detractors of ZANU-PF and Mugabe were honest they would admit
the current capitalist world order puts underdeveloped or former
colonized countries between a rock and a hard place and refusal to repay
these loans would completely drive a country out of the global economy.
This is because the economies of the world don't operate in cash.
Everything is on credit and IMF and World Bank are the arbiters for
international credit standing. If a country pulls out of the World Bank
they are also effectively out of the world economy. Zimbabwe is already
facing heavy economic sanctions. Can one imagine what reprisals the
country would face if they compounded its jettisoning the ESAPs with a
default on the loan? These are strategic and tactical questions. So to
pretend it is a matter of principle just to suit an argument is
dishonest, particularly since these advocates for Africa spend much of
their efforts on this issue, deferring to the financial
institutions themselves and not the countries hamstrung by them.

The same thing goes for why the Oppenheimer assets in Zimbabwe currently
remain untouched for now. Some attempt to discredit the land
reclamation process in Zimbabwe by pointing out the enormous tracks of
land still held by the family of infamous settler Ian Smith, along with
that of the international conglomerate family of Oppenheimer. Without a
much stronger Pan-African movement Zimbabwe has little choice but to
tolerate this. It can, in essence be compared to Cuba tolerating the
occupation of Guantánamo by the US military, actually in violation of
international law. However, for Cuba to do anything about it would
invite a battle not in their presently calculated interest. When
journalist Jared Ball, on a visit to Zimbabwe asked the Minister of
Foreign Affairs why the Oppenheimer land had not been reallocated, he
was told that “due to the Oppenheimer power in a wide range of resources
from oil to sugar to copper to wheat they could, by either
flooding or withholding from the market any or all of these goods,
‘alone whisper the demise of our economy.’”

Again, no matter how valiant the people of Zimbabwe or our people in any
other part of Africa and the world resist imperialism; it is a global
system that can only be defeated by an internationalism that presupposes
a Pan-African vision the likes of Kwame Nkrumah and Ahmed Sekou Ture.
We must revitalize the march toward the United States of Africa that
once flourished in the hearts and minds of many politically
conscientious Black people.

Bed Fellows

Zunes points out that, on visits to the US Obiang of EG has been warmly
received by Condoleeza Rice and George W. Bush but has Mugabe ever had
such a cozy relationship with imperialism? When in history can one
point to an occasion when Mugabe sat down with US officials of the likes
of these? But it's common knowledge that the MDC-T does have such a
relationship with the US and UK, agents Zunes refers to as
“pro-democracy activists”. What does all this that Zunes conspicuously
neglects say about the situation in Zimbabwe? What does it say about
his analysis of Zimbabwe? In his article Zunes constantly reduces US
actions to condemnations, which are mere verbal or written
denunciations, implying that a motivating factor is for Americans to
"feel self-righteous". Frankly it seems like this article is to help
Zunes feel self-righteous while he aids the destabilization of Zimbabwe
through propaganda. That is, by supplementing it with a condemnation
of a real US backed dictator in Africa. Zunes even says the benevolent
US should not wait "until it first ends its support of Obiang and other
African dictatorships before joining the rest of the international
community in condemning repression in Zimbabwe". This is clearly
nothing but more White Man's Burden crap.

Conclusion

As this commentary goes public Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe will
be in New York to address the 63rd Session of the United Nations General
Assembly, again meeting face to face with not only his most powerful
enemies but also the enemies of Africa and all people of African descent
in general. Yes, the government of the United State of American and
many of those in Europe serve a role within the world order that makes
them enemies of African and all oppressed people. Our only recourse is
to create an “Africa with the labor, technical and productive capacity
to address all of the material, cultural and spiritual needs of African
People” and based on “collectivists, humanist, egalitarian and socialist
principles offer our labor, technology, skills and resources to the
world.” (Brochure #1, A-APRP, GC)

Let’s not go for the okey-doke. Given the lessons of history and some
lessons even implicit in Zunes' article, if Mugabe has really been bent
on holding power at all costs (a common accusation against him),
wouldn't it be easier and more effective for him to simply comply with
imperialism's interests and then get their assistance to quell any civil
unrest that may result in the process? That seems to work for Obiang
and other dictators. Why not in Zimbabwe?

Because the unscrupulous interests of the West, or should we say
beneficiaries of neo-colonialism in Zimbabwe have not disappeared, we
should expect maneuvers to derail and/or sabotage any positive outcomes
of this unity agreement. Maybe it will come in the form of ideas that
paint ZANU-PF and Mugabe as acting in bad faith and breaching the
agreement. In any event we should not sleep on our enemies. This
historic agreement is special in the sense that it was brokered without
non-African interference, despite all attempts. And is, in
anti-imperialist fashion, an example of how Africa leaders should
address contentions on the continent.

Netfa Freeman is the Director of IPS’ Social Action& Leadership School
for Activists and an activist in the internationalist and Pan-Africanist
movements. He can be reached at netfa@hotsalsa.org.This e-mail address
is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view
it The positions herein do not reflect the positions of IPS.