Oh right now I get it, its OK to beat a man to within a inch of his life so long as they recive western funding?!

Got anymore justification for state sponsored brutality?

"Oh right now I get it, its OK to beat a man to within a inch of his life so long as they recive western funding?!"

Did the original post actually say that?

It would be a sad day indeed if Indymedia became a cheerleader for western sponsored coups, and it is indeed valid to suggest that people should be wary of the reports that are being put out in the mainstream media.

Remnants of empire? British media reporting on Zimbabwe

Target: Mugabe, victim: Mbeki?

Hey,

firstly, the uk and the us have no moral justification to preach to anyone. US and UK have power and wealth, and that is what people respect. Everybody knows the europeans only came to africa to rob, and that the Euro/american world is built on robbery and violence. That is the basis of western civilisation! let us hope more british troops get killed in Afghanistan and iraq!

- instead, you could try looking at the pictures.

And if you can read, try looking at the statistics - life expectancy, for example.

You don't have to be a cheer leader to realise that Mugabe is a despot, and one who will batter - literally - any opposition into submission.

"You don't have to be a cheer leader to realise that Mugabe is a despot, and one who will batter - literally - any opposition into submission."

And of course, he is not the only African leader who oppresses opposition.

So the question that needs to be asked is this:"Why is the western press singling him out?". The latest outcry is over the beatings of leaders of the pro-western neoliberal MDC, and a single death. When it was 20,000 deaths the outcry didn't happen. Why now?

The article I cited earlier shows how the depiction of the struggle in British papers of whites being attacked by blacks (while there was in fact much more black on black violence) allowed Mugabe to portray western intewrvention as neo-colonial interference, and make it much harder for the leaders of neighbouring states to take a stand against him. Furthermore, to see the statistics as the sole responsibility of Mugabe, and to ignore the context, such as the impact of IMF/WB programmes and ESAPs, produces a distorted picture where somehow the solution is to replace Mugabe with Tsvangerai and his unholy alliance with the dregs of the Rhodesian regime and his willingness to subject Zimbabweans through even greater hardship through the imposition of widespread 'liberalisation' of the economy.

Such a transition would not be in the interests of the Zimbabwean working class, and it is not, in any case as if there are easy ways to achieve it.

Today's Independent comment by Bruce Anderson outlines some of the difficulties:

"Forget fantasies about invading Zimbabwe. A sizeable force would be necessary to take over such a large country. Even if Zimbabwe's neighbours were prepared to co-operate, which they are not, this would require a build-up. What would Mugabe do during the interim? That is not a pleasant thought.

We would, of course, be justified in having him killed. Though a harder task than a film director would have us believe, it should not be impossible. But could we be sure that this would not be followed by even greater violence, as Mugabe's gangster associates sought insensate revenge.

There have been very few periods in very few countries' history when the inhabitants' circumstances could not have been even worse. Admittedly, the 20th century added significantly to their number, but is Zimbabwe as bad as Cambodia during the killing fields? Could we guarantee that Mugabe's assassination would not create a Zimbabwean killing fields?"

OK so Mugabe may not be very nice but what power freaks are, including ours? Hundreds die in police custody here in the UK, not merely beaten up, and our cops who gun down innocent people are obviously immune from prosecution. Ever heard of peole in glass houses? Its just that our managed media gives us a rosy view of our sham democracy and seldom the dark side and plenty of fools swallow it.

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/6450403.stm

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6441529.stm

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6447007.stm

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6419681.stm

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6357575.stm

How to fight for freedom in Zimbabwe? How to avoid another Mugabe coming into power? How to fight poverty, inequality, unemployment? How to create equality and decent lives for all? These are the burning questions we must face.

The key task in Zimbabwe is to overthrow Mugabe. This can only be done through struggle from below: through general strikes, struggles around food and housing, struggles against evictions, against cut-offs, against retrenchments.

Even an MDC government would be better than Mugabe’s regime: there must be no illusions that ZANU-PF can become a better, nicer, kinder party. We can work with any forces opposed to Mugabe, so long as we do not compromise our principles, or sacrifice our objectives.

Even so, we must be revolutionary watchdogs against the emergence of new elites in these struggles, elites that aim only to replace Mugabe’s regime, with their own. As Mugabe’s regime shows, the new bosses are as bad as the old bosses: the forms of oppression have changed, but the old evils – inequality, oppression, and suffering – remain.

So, the key tasks are to fight neoliberalism and dictatorship – but this is not enough. There must be a struggle for a new world: a world of solidarity, equality, grassroots democracy, a world freed of capitalism There are those who say there is no alternative to globalisation and neoliberalism: we say a “New World is Possible.” There are those who say the choice is between Mugabe and Blair: we say we don’t want either of them. The masses deserve better than an endless parade of tyrants. The African masses, like the masses elsewhere, want a better world, and they deserve it.

Xenophobia, Solidarity and the Struggle for Zimbabwe

How far Zimbabwe has come from the glory days of 1999! Repression played its role in the change, but other movements, in far more desperate circumstances, have achieved far more in far less time than the MDC and the ZCTU. Furthermore, the 2005 elections have been characterized by substantially less repression than the previous elections, yet the MDC has done even worse.

At the heart of the problem is the absolutely pitiful politics of the MDC. While it grew from the hard-fought struggles of the popular classes, the new party never offered much. Built by unions and students and township fighters, the MDC soon became a moderate party. Direct action, which had turned the tide against Mugabe, was now on the backburner: all efforts were to be concentrated on elections. Despite the obvious fact that ZANU-PF has manipulated the electoral process since first coming into office, elections are the be-all and end-all of the MDC leaders. Strikes and demonstrations in Zimbabwe have been replaced by international fund-raising, providing obvious ammunition for ZANU-PF's "big lie" that the MDC is the tool of Tony Blair.

The struggle against neo-liberalism, which had driven the popular movements, was replaced by an MDC commitment to privatisation and cost recovery policies: in power, the MDC-led Bulawayo town council soon began to implement hated cut-offs of basic services. The shift to neo-liberalism reflected the most basic structural problem of the MDC: it was not under the control of the popular movements, and was soon hijacked by moderates who hated criticism and tried to purge the small Trotskyist ISOZ group. As a party that called itself a "united front of Zimbabweans," the MDC was unable to develop a resolutely working class and peasant programme that went beyond simply criticizing repression to champion collectivisation of resources, self-management, equality and internationalism.

The confused leaders of the MDC are quite unable to tackle the hard-nosed Mugabe and ZANU-PF. They dealt with electoral abuses in 2000 and 2002 by appealing to the courts: even though the judiciary is routinely manipulated by ZANUPF. They backed off from an earlier decision to boycott the 2005 elections, allowing another Mugabe gamble: a temporary decrease in repression to win international legitimacy and, more importantly, renewed foreign aid. After the elections, Tsvangirai obviously scared of another treason trial made vague comments about renewed popular protest, but the tradition of ongoing protest has lain dormant for years, and the MDC has no real plans to re-awaken it. This political posing is simply irresponsible: it was followed by a military occupation of the Bulawayo townships.

It is time for reflection and reassessment, a period that must give rise to a new direction, or accept another 20 years of misery. Our opinion is that elections must be abandoned. It is necessary to go back to the streets in protest, both against repression and against poverty. The precise form of protests cannot be decided in advance, but the use of the general strike must be seriously considered. The protest movement must reject the political party model of organising, and centre, instead, on self-organisation, mandates and delegates, and self-activity and self-education. Only such a movement will have the resilience to tackle ZANU-PF, survive its inevitable retaliation, and create new and better relations between the people.

It is necessary, also, to have a programme that can inspire the masses. It must offer something more than an exchange of Mugabe's iron fist for Tsvangirai's bumbling hands. It must champion important demands - abolition of the chieftaincy, job security, social welfare, political freedoms, reindustrialisation - and foster a project of creating a post-capitalist, self-managed society, based on horizontal control of the communities and workplaces by those who live and work in them in place of just changing the faces at the top. It must link the fight against neo-liberalism and tyranny in Zimbabwe to similar fights in neighbouring countries. That is the basis for a united front of the oppressed classes, the water of struggle that will nourish the tree of freedom.

Zimbabwe: Time for an end to the electoral road

Its good to see some debate about the situation in Zimbabwe. So let me respond to some of the above comments:

1. 'Today's Independent comment by Bruce Anderson '

Is this the same Bruce Anderson who wrote the following:

'Brtain would, of course, be justified in having him killed.'
 http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=your%20say&subclass=general&story_id=567570&category=Opinion

Now here we have a white man who wants to kill a black leader...sound familiar? This fellow has the cheek to quote from Donne:
'IT IS heart-rending. "Any man's death diminishes me" may be carrying sensitivity to excess, but the death the murder of a country diminishes the human race'

The murder of a country! Would that be arefernce to the effect of the edconomic sanctions the UK, US and other white nations have levied on Zimbabwe?
It is heart rendering to see this sort of racist twaddle in the media...Calling for an assasination of a nation's leader is a crime.

You may recall that other official enemies are targets for other thuggish calls: Ahmadinejad (israels want him killed), Chavez, Castro( called a dictator and many attempts on his life), etc

2. 'And of course, he is not the only African leader who oppresses opposition. '

well, first up the 'opposition' meaning a US/UK backed MDC has been provoking violence, and has backed the brutal sanctions that have made Zimbabwes economy scream (to use Nixons infamous phrase).

(Mugabe) says the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) is a violent party sponsored by former colonial power Britain and other Western allies.'

It is indeed! You can learn about this by reading Greg Elichs classic Zimbabwe Under Siege:
 http://www.swans.com/library/art8/elich004.html

3. 'How to fight for freedom in Zimbabwe? How to avoid another Mugabe coming into power? How to fight poverty, inequality, unemployment? How to create equality and decent lives for all? These are the burning questions we must face.

The key task in Zimbabwe is to overthrow Mugabe.'

Did Vic Falls really write that? Where did u get the right to overthrow a countries government!? You sound like Bush! 'Fight for freedom' sounds like what Bush would say. He put his words into action: and we have Iraq, a nation in chaos.
Lets put it plainly:MUGABE IS THE ELECTED LEADER OF ZIMBABWE. Thats right. Hes what the majority of Zimbabweas wanted...whites who hate him because he launched land reform programs that were started by dispossessed black peasants.
Its not up to YOU or any foreign white nitwit to decide who is to rule a country: thats up to its people. You say you want to help Zimbabwe, yet you say

4.'The confused leaders of the MDC are quite unable to tackle the hard-nosed Mugabe and ZANU-PF'

Jeez! Vic seems to think the MDC (maybe its the word 'Democratic' in their name that confuses him) the MDC is Jesus Christ...its a a party funded by neocolonials like Bush and Blair, and backed by the white landowning class... go read Elichs article. Zimbabwes know all to well who MDC are THATS why they lose elections...just like the Venezuelan opposition.

Brian

Firstly. Of course Mugabe is going to claim the opposition is violent - its his justification for the violence on his own side. It doesn't make it true. Every leader who crushes dissent will claim the same thing.

Secondly, Bruce Anderson is against killing Mugabe, and for South Africa taking action against him.

Thirdly,when you ask :"Did Vic Falls really write that? " the answer is No! Its an article by a Southern African anarchist. Thats why theres a link to the article at the bottom of the comment.

Finally, in the second article by a(nother) Southern African anarchist; rather than claiming that the MDC is "Jesus Christ", the article makes it clear that the MDC is not the answer:

" The shift to neo-liberalism reflected the most basic structural problem of the MDC: it was not under the control of the popular movements, and was soon hijacked by moderates who hated criticism and tried to purge the small Trotskyist ISOZ group. As a party that called itself a "united front of Zimbabweans," the MDC was unable to develop a resolutely working class and peasant programme that went beyond simply criticizing repression to champion collectivisation of resources, self-management, equality and internationalism."

The purpose of posting those viewpoints was to show that the situation is far more complex than some commenteers allow, and that media coverage here is decontextualised, and is cheerleading the MDC, not out of support for the working class of Zimbabwe, but in the interests of the same capitalist enterprise in which their owners have a major stake.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree if your instinct is to defend Mugabe. He has attacked the working class time and time again.

I also think others are barking up the wrong tree when they rush to support Tsvangirai, he is not a friend of the working class either.

Those who want a better world should heed the calls to " foster a project of creating a post-capitalist, self-managed society, based on horizontal control of the communities and workplaces by those who live and work in them".

'Firstly. Of course Mugabe is going to claim the opposition is violent - its his justification for the violence on his own side. It doesn't make it true. Every leader who crushes dissent will claim the same thing.'

You seem unaware of the nature of MDC, its being backed by US/UK money and the white landowners, over whom this issue is all about. And yes, MDC HAS been using violence to force Mugabes hands...its called Provocation...an anarchist like you must be aware of such tactics!
Stephen Gowans has written on this:
 http://trinicenter.com/cgi-bin/selfnews/viewnews.cgi?newsid1174433398,4742,.shtml

2. 'Secondly, Bruce Anderson is against killing Mugabe, and for South Africa taking action against him.'


You did read what he wrote in the Independent? If not, here it is again:

'We would, of course, be justified in having him killed'
 http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/bruce_anderson/article2371557.ece

Thats pretty clear!

Here is more by Bruce Anderson, showiong you ar supporting a british neoliberal terrorist:

'"Africa is a beautiful continent, full of potential and attractive people who deserve so much more than the way in which they are forced to live, and die. Yet it is not clear that the continent can generate its own salvation. It may be necessary to devise a form of neo-imperialism, in which Britain, the U.S. and the other beneficent nations would recruit local leaders and give them guidance to move towards free markets, the rule of law and - ultimately - some viable local version of democracy, while removing them from office in the event of backsliding"
--Bruce Anderson, columnist of The Independent (London), writing on 2 June 2003.

There is nothing so harrowing as to see a Western writer consumed by nostalgia parodying himself because these days the "natives" of Africa have "ideas above their station", and will no longer carry Western explorers in hammocks to go and discover many a lake, a mountain, a river, a waterfall, even a people, somewhere on this "beautiful continent" of ours.

Poor Bruce Anderson. He must blame his parents.
etc
 http://www.swans.com/library/art9/ankomah8.html



3. Thirdly,when you ask :"Did Vic Falls really write that? " the answer is No! Its an article by a Southern African anarchist. Thats why theres a link to the article at the bottom of the comment.'

But you HAVE quoted him, and with approval.


Finally, in the second article by a(nother) Southern African anarchist; rather than claiming that the MDC is "Jesus Christ", the article makes it clear that the MDC is not the answer:

" The shift to neo-liberalism reflected the most basic structural problem of the MDC: it was not under the control of the popular movements, and was soon hijacked by moderates who hated criticism and tried to purge the small Trotskyist ISOZ group. As a party that called itself a "united front of Zimbabweans," the MDC was unable to develop a resolutely working class and peasant programme that went beyond simply criticizing repression to champion collectivisation of resources, self-management, equality and internationalism."

The purpose of posting those viewpoints was to show that the situation is far more complex than some commenteers allow, and that media coverage here is decontextualised, and is cheerleading the MDC, not out of support for the working class of Zimbabwe, but in the interests of the same capitalist enterprise in which their owners have a major stake.

4. 'I think you're barking up the wrong tree if your instinct is to defend Mugabe. He has attacked the working class time and time again. '

Coming from a defender of Bruce Anderson, this is risible! Do you expect MDC, backed as it is by the white farmers in Zimbabwe, cares for workers? Are you really a socialist/anarchist?

I suggest you be carefuil which side you support...you may find yoursefl backing another coup d'ete by the evil empire.

I have no doubt that the West and the MDC are engaged in a pact to oust Mugabe - the message is clear in our media - "Mugabe is kaput" - the MDC and the West keep saying it, and the media keeps reporting it in big headlines.

I'm not even going to go into the Bruce Anderson thing again. You're determined to ignore what he says immediately after he makes that statement. He is for South Africa cutting off the electricity and other services, and helping forment a coup. He is against the killing of Mugabe, as he says that in the aftermath Zimbabwe could become a killing fields. You take op-ed pieces far too literally. If you think that asserting that you've taken him too literally (I believe that he was mirroring things that many Britons believe in spite of the Saddam experience) means I support him, then you are way off beam.

His 2003 piece is disgusting racism. The recent piece outlines why military action by the West is not viable, and the pitfalls of resorting to assassination of Mugabe as a solution. His piece is entitled " A solution in Zimbabwe is not in our gift" and seems to be a backpedalling from what he wrote in 2003.

Yes, I posted approvingly 2 contradictory articles by Southern African anarchists. One says that anarchists should work with the MDC, and the other says not. Personally, I don't think that the MDC is any kind of solution, and I have clearly stated that their neo-liberal bent will have an horrendous impact on the already beleagured working class of Zimbabwe. That they would actually make things worse.

I have no reason to believe that some dude called Brian is more in touch with the struggle of the Zimbabwean working class, against their own oppression, than the Southern African anarchists quoted.

Considering I joined this debate to counter the cheerleading for the MDC/Western coup, its deeply ironic that you've managed to read it as support.

Hers an example of me backing a coup by the evil empire:

"It would be a sad day indeed if Indymedia became a cheerleader for western sponsored coups, and it is indeed valid to suggest that people should be wary of the reports that are being put out in the mainstream media."

Did you miss it, in your rush to misrepresent my position? In your rush to jump to ad homs and smears?

My support is for the people who live under the combined yoke of Western sanctions, and Mugabe's iron fist. You on the other hand blindly support Mugabe, despite the fact that the evidence of his attacks on the working classes is out in the open.

I am perfectly aware of the tactic of using provocation, and I am also perfectly aware of the tactic of states to use claims of defending themselves against violence to justify their own oppression oif dissent. The MDC didn't need to do more than to plan the rally in order to get the reaction that they were looking for - as I pointed out earlier:

"So the question that needs to be asked is this:"Why is the western press singling him out?". The latest outcry is over the beatings of leaders of the pro-western neoliberal MDC, and a single death. When it was 20,000 deaths the outcry didn't happen. Why now?"

And that remains my position: Clearly by bigging up fairly low level oppression, and declaring that Mugabe is kaput, the uk media and uk state are marching hand in hand towards some scripted finale - and the script is being kept under wraps from the rest of us. That is why we should not be cheerleading the coup, but neither should we be pretending that Mugabe is a good guy. He is a problem for the Zimbabwean people, and ultimately it is them that will have to resolve the problem.

My hatred is for all leaders - and my line is that there is little point in demanding impeccable standards from leaders in other continents, when our leaders are so corrupt, so murderous and so contemptous of the very same ideals that they seek to hold other leaders to.

' He is for South Africa cutting off the electricity and other services, and helping forment a coup. He is against the killing of Mugabe, as he says that in the aftermath Zimbabwe could become a killing fields. '

This is utterly irresponsible talk. What the hell is a this freaking english journalist doing making suggestions about how to bring down a foreign government? Mugabe is right! AND the MDC is showing that tho it hasnt the backing of the people of Zimbabwe, it has the support of british 'journalists' and 'anarchists'!

Help foment a coup? And in that coup, how many will die? Is Venezula 2002 so far from your mind?

No leaders? Thats typical twaddle of the armchair anarchists. Who will quieted the chaos in the aftermath?