On Zimbabwe, Western left follows agenda set by capitalist elite
brian | 30.04.2008 02:28 | World
Yes, the left has been fooled by the MSM. They are acting as a propaganda channel for the MDC and its foreign backers: the govts of US and UK.
A better source opf info is the following:
http://gowans.blogspot.com/
and esp
http://www.raceandhistory.com/Zimbabwe/
A better source opf info is the following:
![](/img/extlink.gif)
and esp
![](/img/extlink.gif)
On Zimbabwe, Western left follows agenda set by capitalist elite
By Stephen Gowans
While the Western media loudly demonizes the government of Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, it is fairly silent on the repressions of the US client regime of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.
Outdoing each other in the quest for the William Randolph Hearst prize for excellence in yellow journalism, Western newspapers slam Mugabe as the “Monster” and “Hitler of Africa .” At the same time, civil society hagiographers compromise with imperialist forces to help oust the “dictator” in Harare, but on Egypt, have little to say.
Meanwhile, wave after wave of strikes rock Egypt, sparked by rising food prices, inadequate incomes, political repression, and the government’s gutting of the social safety net.
Virtually absent in a country which receives $1.3 billion in US military aid every year are democracy promotion NGOs helping to organize a people’s revolution. Indeed, it might be hypothesized that the amount of democracy promotion funding a country receives is inversely proportional to the amount of US military aid it receives.
Egypt is not even a limited democracy. It is a de facto dictatorship. You might, then, expect to find Stephen Zunes’ International Center for Nonviolent Conflict training nonviolent democracy activists to overthrow the Mubarak regime. You might expect the Voice of America to be broadcasting “independent” news and opinion into Egypt, urging Egyptians to declare” enough is enough!” Predictably, this isn’t happening.
A year and a half ago, Hosni Mubarak – seen in Egypt as “Washington’s lackey” (1) -- reversed the country’s social security gains of the 50s and 60s. The changes, he said, would “not only aim to rid Egypt of socialist principles launched in the 60s, but also seek a more favorable atmosphere for foreign investment” (2) – the same goal the opposition seeks in Zimbabwe.
Elections held last June to select members of the upper house of Parliament were described by election monitors “as manipulated to ensure that the governing party won a majority of seats.” (3)
Still, in the West, few have heard of vote-rigging in Egypt. Most, however, are familiar with vote-rigging allegations against Mugabe. Few too know that in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, “the only opposition group with a broad network and a core constituency,” is banned. (4) At the same time, Zimbabwe’s opposition MDC has never been banned, despite its conspicuous connections to foreign governments that have adopted regime change as their official policy.
The Brotherhood’s “popularity is based on a reputation for not being corrupt and extensive solidarity work in clinics, nurseries and after-school tutoring.” Its volunteers “fill the gaps left by a state system that has seen illiteracy rise and services fail as liberal economic reforms enrich businesses close to the regime.’ (5) Zimbabwe’s opposition, by comparison, seeks to privatize, slash government spending and give the country’s prized farm land back to European settlers and their descendants to restore the confidence of foreign investors.
In recent years, “Egyptian officials have stepped up repression as a means to blunt the rising popularity of the Muslim Brotherhood, locking up its leaders without charge. There is also talk of amending the constitution for president, but in such a way as to prohibit any independent candidate aligned with the Brotherhood.” (6)
As in Zimbabwe, a vast majority live in deep poverty, but unlike in Zimbabwe, “Egyptian authorities have cancelled elections, prohibited the creation of new parties and locked up political opponents.” (7)
Last June, “President Bush lavished praise on President Hosni Mubarak…while publicly avoiding mention of the government’s actions in jailing or exiling opposition leaders and its severe restrictions on opposition political activities.” (8) Bush’s silence contrasts sharply with his accusations against President Mugabe, who hasn’t jailed or exiled opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai or banned his party.
So, how is it that a regime that “arrests political opposition figures, beats street demonstrators, locks up bloggers, and blocks creation of new political parties” (9) gets so little attention in the West, while Zimbabwe gets so much?
And why is there a liberal-progressive-left affinity with opposition forces in Zimbabwe, when those forces are funded by a billionaire financier, capitalist foundations and Western governments, while if there’s any solidarity movement with the people of Egypt, it is virtually invisible?
The answer, I would suggest, lies in the failure of the greater part of the Western left to understand how corporate officers, corporate lawyers, and investment bankers set the agenda through their ownership of the media, domination of government, and control of high-profile foundations and think tanks.
Mubarak’s pro-investment policies and repression of the Arab street serve the bottom-line interests of the US corporate class. Accordingly, the media and foundation agenda steers clear. What foundation grants are distributed, are handed out to groups that eschew confrontation, and seek to work within the system, rather than against it, to change it.
On the other hand, Mugabe’s land reform and economic indigenization policies challenge Western corporate and investment interests. It’s in the interests of European-connected commercial farmers, resource-extraction companies and Western banks, through their control of the media and foundations and domination of Western governments, to mobilize public opinion and forces on the ground to oppose these policies and replace them with more investment-friendly ones.
Not surprisingly, opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, the principal immediate potential beneficiary of the corporate-directed mobilization in Zimbabwe, promises to “encourage foreign investment” and to bring Zimbabwe’s “abundant farmlands back into health” (10) – that is, to return Zimbabwe to raising cash crops and to reverse legislation mandating majority ownership of the economy by the majority population.
This is an agenda that serves Western corporate elites, not ordinary people. Cheerleaders for a left practice of compromising with imperialism say this is a sign of independence. But a left that is regularly mobilized on behalf of corporate and investor interests when those interests are threatened, and remains quiescent when the same interests are being challenged, is hardly independent.
Western leftists should ask themselves fundamental questions.
Who owns and controls the media? Are the media neutral, or do they shape public opinion in ways that advance the interests of the media’s owners and others who share the same interests and connections? What are the interests of the people who own and control the media?
Who owns and controls the foundations that fund policy experts, including those on the left? Do foundations give money to people who effectively oppose their interests or to people who effectively advance them?
How will a leader, political party, or movement that effectively advances the interests of ordinary people over those of corporations, banks and imperialist governments be treated by the media and by foundation-connected experts (recognizing that corporations and banks own the media and foundations and dominate imperialist governments)? Will they be given grudging respect? Are will they be vilified?
If a leader promotes the interests of corporations and investors while cracking down on ordinary people (Mubarak) will he be demonized? If not, why not? And if a leader promotes the interests of ordinary people over those of foreign corporations, investors and colonial settlers (Mugabe), will he be treated indifferently?
1. New York Times, September 20, 2006
2. Al-Ahram Weekly, February 1, 2007
3. New York Times, June 15, 2007
4. New York Times, April 9, 2008
5. The Guardian (UK), July 19, 2007
6. New York Times, October 22, 2006
7. Los Angeles Times, October 22, 2006
8. New York Times, June 17, 2008
9. New York Times, September 20, 2006
10. The Guardian (UK), April 7, 2008
http://gowans.blogspot.com/2008/04/on-zimbabwe-western-left-follows-agenda.html
By Stephen Gowans
While the Western media loudly demonizes the government of Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, it is fairly silent on the repressions of the US client regime of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.
Outdoing each other in the quest for the William Randolph Hearst prize for excellence in yellow journalism, Western newspapers slam Mugabe as the “Monster” and “Hitler of Africa .” At the same time, civil society hagiographers compromise with imperialist forces to help oust the “dictator” in Harare, but on Egypt, have little to say.
Meanwhile, wave after wave of strikes rock Egypt, sparked by rising food prices, inadequate incomes, political repression, and the government’s gutting of the social safety net.
Virtually absent in a country which receives $1.3 billion in US military aid every year are democracy promotion NGOs helping to organize a people’s revolution. Indeed, it might be hypothesized that the amount of democracy promotion funding a country receives is inversely proportional to the amount of US military aid it receives.
Egypt is not even a limited democracy. It is a de facto dictatorship. You might, then, expect to find Stephen Zunes’ International Center for Nonviolent Conflict training nonviolent democracy activists to overthrow the Mubarak regime. You might expect the Voice of America to be broadcasting “independent” news and opinion into Egypt, urging Egyptians to declare” enough is enough!” Predictably, this isn’t happening.
A year and a half ago, Hosni Mubarak – seen in Egypt as “Washington’s lackey” (1) -- reversed the country’s social security gains of the 50s and 60s. The changes, he said, would “not only aim to rid Egypt of socialist principles launched in the 60s, but also seek a more favorable atmosphere for foreign investment” (2) – the same goal the opposition seeks in Zimbabwe.
Elections held last June to select members of the upper house of Parliament were described by election monitors “as manipulated to ensure that the governing party won a majority of seats.” (3)
Still, in the West, few have heard of vote-rigging in Egypt. Most, however, are familiar with vote-rigging allegations against Mugabe. Few too know that in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, “the only opposition group with a broad network and a core constituency,” is banned. (4) At the same time, Zimbabwe’s opposition MDC has never been banned, despite its conspicuous connections to foreign governments that have adopted regime change as their official policy.
The Brotherhood’s “popularity is based on a reputation for not being corrupt and extensive solidarity work in clinics, nurseries and after-school tutoring.” Its volunteers “fill the gaps left by a state system that has seen illiteracy rise and services fail as liberal economic reforms enrich businesses close to the regime.’ (5) Zimbabwe’s opposition, by comparison, seeks to privatize, slash government spending and give the country’s prized farm land back to European settlers and their descendants to restore the confidence of foreign investors.
In recent years, “Egyptian officials have stepped up repression as a means to blunt the rising popularity of the Muslim Brotherhood, locking up its leaders without charge. There is also talk of amending the constitution for president, but in such a way as to prohibit any independent candidate aligned with the Brotherhood.” (6)
As in Zimbabwe, a vast majority live in deep poverty, but unlike in Zimbabwe, “Egyptian authorities have cancelled elections, prohibited the creation of new parties and locked up political opponents.” (7)
Last June, “President Bush lavished praise on President Hosni Mubarak…while publicly avoiding mention of the government’s actions in jailing or exiling opposition leaders and its severe restrictions on opposition political activities.” (8) Bush’s silence contrasts sharply with his accusations against President Mugabe, who hasn’t jailed or exiled opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai or banned his party.
So, how is it that a regime that “arrests political opposition figures, beats street demonstrators, locks up bloggers, and blocks creation of new political parties” (9) gets so little attention in the West, while Zimbabwe gets so much?
And why is there a liberal-progressive-left affinity with opposition forces in Zimbabwe, when those forces are funded by a billionaire financier, capitalist foundations and Western governments, while if there’s any solidarity movement with the people of Egypt, it is virtually invisible?
The answer, I would suggest, lies in the failure of the greater part of the Western left to understand how corporate officers, corporate lawyers, and investment bankers set the agenda through their ownership of the media, domination of government, and control of high-profile foundations and think tanks.
Mubarak’s pro-investment policies and repression of the Arab street serve the bottom-line interests of the US corporate class. Accordingly, the media and foundation agenda steers clear. What foundation grants are distributed, are handed out to groups that eschew confrontation, and seek to work within the system, rather than against it, to change it.
On the other hand, Mugabe’s land reform and economic indigenization policies challenge Western corporate and investment interests. It’s in the interests of European-connected commercial farmers, resource-extraction companies and Western banks, through their control of the media and foundations and domination of Western governments, to mobilize public opinion and forces on the ground to oppose these policies and replace them with more investment-friendly ones.
Not surprisingly, opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, the principal immediate potential beneficiary of the corporate-directed mobilization in Zimbabwe, promises to “encourage foreign investment” and to bring Zimbabwe’s “abundant farmlands back into health” (10) – that is, to return Zimbabwe to raising cash crops and to reverse legislation mandating majority ownership of the economy by the majority population.
This is an agenda that serves Western corporate elites, not ordinary people. Cheerleaders for a left practice of compromising with imperialism say this is a sign of independence. But a left that is regularly mobilized on behalf of corporate and investor interests when those interests are threatened, and remains quiescent when the same interests are being challenged, is hardly independent.
Western leftists should ask themselves fundamental questions.
Who owns and controls the media? Are the media neutral, or do they shape public opinion in ways that advance the interests of the media’s owners and others who share the same interests and connections? What are the interests of the people who own and control the media?
Who owns and controls the foundations that fund policy experts, including those on the left? Do foundations give money to people who effectively oppose their interests or to people who effectively advance them?
How will a leader, political party, or movement that effectively advances the interests of ordinary people over those of corporations, banks and imperialist governments be treated by the media and by foundation-connected experts (recognizing that corporations and banks own the media and foundations and dominate imperialist governments)? Will they be given grudging respect? Are will they be vilified?
If a leader promotes the interests of corporations and investors while cracking down on ordinary people (Mubarak) will he be demonized? If not, why not? And if a leader promotes the interests of ordinary people over those of foreign corporations, investors and colonial settlers (Mugabe), will he be treated indifferently?
1. New York Times, September 20, 2006
2. Al-Ahram Weekly, February 1, 2007
3. New York Times, June 15, 2007
4. New York Times, April 9, 2008
5. The Guardian (UK), July 19, 2007
6. New York Times, October 22, 2006
7. Los Angeles Times, October 22, 2006
8. New York Times, June 17, 2008
9. New York Times, September 20, 2006
10. The Guardian (UK), April 7, 2008
![](/img/extlink.gif)
brian
Comments
Hide the following 11 comments
"What about what about what about"
30.04.2008 09:36
Hmmm. I've met more than one victim of Zimbabwe's security services in this country though. Where do the scars come from?
Is the Egyptian government nasty? Yes
Are the MDC being used to set up a "Shock Doctrine" style intervention by Western governments? Maybe.
Does Mugabe's regime torture people? YES.
Do any of those facts cancel the others? No, so why write in a style designed to belittle the real suffering in Zimbabwe and of those who have escaped torture there?
More simplistic binary crap getting setting up a competition to see who's the most righteously oppressed. Bonus points from kneejerk anti-imperialists if your oppressor is linked to the US or Israel.....
CH
Mugabe, you need brighter mouthpieces
30.04.2008 09:55
Just cos the western govts think so too, don't mean it ain't so. even a stopped clock....
DaanSaaf
DaanSaaf - proof positive of the article's title
30.04.2008 10:25
Blood Brothers
NED Funding for Egypt - none
NED funding for Zimbabwe:
American Center for International Labor Solidarity (2000, 2001, 2004, 2006)
Centre for Policy Studies (2004)
Column Width Ltd. - Subgrantee: Horizon Magazine (1995, 1996)
Crisis Coalition (2005, 2006)
Federation of African Media Women – Zimbabwe (FAMWZ) (2005)
International Republican Institute (1992, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2006)
Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies - Subgrantee: Institute for Democracy in South Africa (IDASA) (1990)
Mass Public Opinion Institute (MPOI) (2005, 2006)
Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA-ZIM) (2006)
National Constitution Assembly (2006)
National Democratic Institute (1999, 2000, 2004)
Public Opinion Institute (2000)
Washington Office for Democracy in Zambia - Subgrantee: Willie Masarurwa Trust (1994)
Zimbabwe Community Development Trust (2006)
Zimbabwe Election Support Network (2005)
Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (2005, 2006)
Zimbabwe Human Rights Association (2006)
Mubarak with his massive funding is a git who is nevetheless helpless before market forces.
All the funding into Zimbabwe goes to the opposition and yet Mugabe (sanctioned since he started taking back white owned land) is responsible for his country sliding into economic repression.
Go read the Guardian if you don't care about the blatant propaganda
Fucked off with wet liberals
Fucked off with braindead idiots meself
30.04.2008 13:56
Kindly observe.
to ecoriate one evil regime (mugabe'[s ) is NOT to excuswe another? How ON EARTH did you ever reach that ridiculous, idiotic conclusion? without braincells I presume?
Unlike you, I have been to egypt, and know just how evil, inhumane and undemocratic the place is (in fact, the only difference between the two is that the egyptian trade and finace ministries are run by competent people, and they get some oil money, and tourist dosh, and the economy is doing OK as a result, whereas Zim's is a basket case).
It is for the SAME reasons that I loathe mubarak - and in fact, every Arab regime, bar possibly qaddhafi's - that I loathe mugabe - he is a brutal, corrupt tyrant who has ruined the workers' lives, and stolen elections. BOTH countries are hell to live in
That is the reality on the ground, whichever western regimes are cosying up to whom is IRRELEVANT, viewed from a working class perspective (the only perspective this SOCIALIST - note, NOT liberal - will ever look at anything).
Is that REALLY so hard to grasp, or are you incapable of breaking free of the thought-replacing monkey-mantra "ush-bad-west-bad-people-they-hate-GOOD!"?
Bush AND western power players AND mugabe and Mubarak - all BAD! In different ways!
can yopu please grasp this, or get someone very patient to explain this to you, dummy?
jeebus....
DaanSaaf
CH
30.04.2008 15:27
Dictator Hater
Left happy with lies
30.04.2008 17:07
Yet again, senseless, unsubstantiated reports. We are told that the majority in Zimbabwe has always wanted Mugabe out. We are told that opposition against him exists in the army and the police. Then we are told that the police and army are being used to torture the oppositon. And we are supposed to believe that the majority in the country are helpless victims of Zanu-PF violence.
What sense does this make?
Below is the US State Department which, clearly, wants Mugabe out because he is a ‘brutal dictator’. So what did the brutal dictator do to oppression his people up to in 2006 according to the State Department? Any different from what many black people or Native Americans would say in the US?
ZIMBABWE, COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES - 2006
‘a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life
Unlike in the previous year, there were no reports of politically motivated killings by the government or ruling party supporters…
b. Disappearance
There were no reports of disappearances during the year…
c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Although the constitution prohibits torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, security forces continued to engage in such practices. Police reportedly used excessive force in apprehending and detaining criminal suspects, as well as ordinary citizens, for holding meetings or participating in demonstrations. Government supporters continued to assault suspected opposition members. Violent confrontations between various youth groups aligned with either the government or the opposition continued…
Prison and Detention Center Conditions
Prison conditions remained harsh and life threatening…
d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention
The constitution and law prohibit arbitrary arrest and detention; however, some laws effectively weakened this prohibition, and security forces repeatedly arbitrarily arrested and detained persons…’
This is a report of a fact-finding mission by US politicians in 2002:
One of their conclusions is:
'We found the media accounts to be exaggerated in many respects when dealing with the modalities of the land reform program, freedom of the press and human rights conditions. In fact, despite its current financial difficulties through a combination of drought and external sanctions, Zimbabwe remains one of the most stable countries in Africa. Its economy also is still the largest on the continent after South Africa’s.'
insidejob
eh?
01.05.2008 08:53
I'd like to see the data supporting that, please
DaanSaaf
Zimbabwe: a state the West loves to hate
02.05.2008 06:50
It has become highly fashionable in the Western media to draw far fetched parallels between the architect of the Holocaust, Adolf Hitler, and Zimbabwe's current incumbent, Robert Mugabe. Of course, such comparisons are complete fantasies which says far more about those who use such terminology to describe Mugabe, than it does about the current situation on the ground in Zimbabwe.
In the rush to demonise Mugabe, many have forgotten that it was in fact the white supremacist and former Rhodesian leader Ian Smith who first coined the phrase 'Black Hitler' to describe Mugabe and his national liberation movement - and many in the West have also ignored how the Great Western powers, their governments and fiscal institutions have played the most important role in bringing the Zimbabwean economy to its knees. Indeed, it has been the outside interference in the internal affairs of Zimbabwe that have twisted and distorted the countries economy.
It is difficult to imagine how back in 2001, The New York Times gave Zimbabwe the title of the 'worst government on earth' - yeah, right, as if - what, worse than China? Such statements actually betray the narrow and highly selective nature of criticism directed against Zimbabwe by its opponents in the West. Some Western observers (former colonials) seem to lose all sense of proportion when talking about Zimbabwe, for one writer of the The Times (London), what appears to be unfolding in Zimbabwe is nothing less than a 'silent genocide'. Even the organisation Genocide Watch rightfully argue that such claims can appear 'ridiculous' given the fact that there have been relatively few deaths due to conflict in Zimbabwe.
Much of what I see and read about Zimbabwe is no more than unsubstantiated junk propaganda. As the astute political journalist Brendan O'Neill kindly reminds us, there are a few honourable exceptions, like the US congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, who had the temerity to question received Western wisdom on Zimbabwe. McKinney rightfully argued that Zimbabwe is 'Africa's second-longest stable democracy', it is a country that has 'multi-party' elections, the opposition has 'over 50 seats in the parliament. It has an opposition press which vigorously criticises the government and governing party. It has an independent judiciary which issues decisions contrary to the wishes of the governing party'. That's more than can be said about Egypt, Rwanda, or the Congo. Yet all three of these countries are allies of the West who receive serious amounts of funding from the United States.
Zimbabwe, viewed from the perspective of Western colonial, 'Eton-educated' bi-focals appears more like a horrific symbol of African arrogance and cockiness. It is a point of view that cannot comprehend how 'our last white man in Rhodesia' Ian Smith was humiliated and forcefully jettisoned out of office, by a ‘Black Hitler’ to boot.
Courtney Hamilton (repost)
Homepage:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/forum/democracy_power/2008/04/06/zimbabwe_a_state_the_west_loves_to_hate
to all ther wsestern liberal guilt-merchants
02.05.2008 15:29
Mugabe has;
1) made a complete ricket of the undeniably-necessary land appropriation programme
2) won 2 elections by rigging and thuggery
3) taken the zim economy from the point of being a powerhouse to a basketcase
4) Massacred thousands in matabeleland
5) cracked down violently on all dissent
Let me put it simply; jus because Bush, brown and co hate someone, this is NOT enough to make that person a revolutionary hero, by itself.
Now is this REALLY that hard to grasp?
DaanSaaf
Good to see some critical thinking
03.05.2008 00:33
Here is Stephen Gowans again in an interview, telling you like it is:
NOTE, the chinese arms shipment was ordered a year ago. Yet the media would have you believe it was ordered yesterday, for current events.
brian
DaanSaaf - recycling imperialist propaganda?
03.05.2008 06:59
Yeah - its like the people of Zimbabwe had nothing to do with it, right?
"Mugabe did well for a long time. The media and govts of their west ubdoubtedly have their own Agenda in demonising Mugabe and ZANU-PF. However, they don't need to try."
Yup - of course, every single one of us has been to Zimbabwe, and we know the facts for ourselves. We don't need the media to shape our views with a slant put on the story by the western intelligence services who fund the MDC, and the Foreign Commonwealth Office. Our free and unbaised press gives a true account of events in Zimbabwe and it merely confirms our first hand experience.
"Mugabe has;
1) made a complete ricket of the undeniably-necessary land appropriation programme"
Subtext, if Black Zimbabwean's want their land back they should pay for it with their own money. Britain recognised that it should assist with land redistribution during the Lancaster House Agreement. In practice this meant that it was prepared to fund the buy back of stolen land that the white settlers were prepared to sell, Needless to say, those charitable farmers were eager to sell off the best of the land at their disposal, and it would be outrageous to suggest that they milked the system by disposing only of the worst of their land, thus maintaining their stranglehold on the economy. Neo-colonialism is a myth and definitely didn't happen in Zimbabwe.
"2) won 2 elections by rigging and thuggery"
Jack Straw is a white man, and therefore one who has integrity and can be trusted. He could not possibly have any agenda when he denouned the 2002 election. The leaders of Namibia, Nigeria and South Africa are not white men, and therefore their account of the elections must be false. They clearly have a hidden agenda. The British had no official observers, but they are still better placed to assess the fairness of the elections than the neighbouring countries who did.
"3) taken the zim economy from the point of being a powerhouse to a basketcase"
The sanctions applied against Zimbabwe by the West (whose incredible wealth is clearly nothing to do with brutal exploitation via colonialism and imperialism - they're just very clever people.....) had nothing to do with the collapse of the Zimbabwean economy. All Mugabe had to do was be a puppet to the West, accept stringent controls on his economy by the Western controlled IMF and WB, and let the white farmers hold onto the land they needed and wanted, and the economy would have been fine. This was the state of affairs that the people of Zimbabwe struggled for and finally achieved. Mugabe was a total arsehole for thinking that the way that the neo-colonial masters dictated was unacceptable and unjust. It is all his fault - the West is blameless.
"4) Massacred thousands in matabeleland"
How many thousands was that then DaanSaaf? Did you count them yourself?
- Most reliable accounts believe that about 1000 Ndebele deserters and suspected terrorists were killed in the conflict between the Fifth Brigade and the rebel forces of Joshua Nkomo. -
Jeez, thank goodness you know several times more than most reliable accounts - they're clearly propagandists for a brutal dictator, whereas it would be absurd to suggest that you are recycling Imperialist propaganda, including demonising by inflating the bodycount and ignoring the fact that there was an armed insurgency taking place. Western powers would, in any case never respond with disproportionate force to an armed insurgency - of course its a co-incidence that western revulsion took some years to kick in - at about the point when Mugabe declined to implement another stringent round of ESAPs, and decided to take stolen land back for his 90 000+ 'close friends'. The fact that the West continued to work closely with Saddam for some years after Halabja can in no way suggest that they don't give a fuck about massacres as long as the people doing the massacring are still dancing sufficiently to the tune of the neo-colonial organ grinders, nor that the main advantage of such massacres is they can be ignored until the tinpot dictators become uncooperative - when they can then be used to enrage liberals and stop them using their critical faculties..
Britain's own invasion of Matabeleland was after all achieved without the shedding of a single drop of blood. Same as Iraq in the 21st century.
"5) cracked down violently on all dissent"
Yes indeed. No other leader has done this except the unruly dictators who defy the imperialist powers. Quisling Mubarak is often criticised on IMC UK for his torture and violent crackdowns on dissent - about as often as the 'nasties' that the FCO spins against. Right?
"Let me put it simply; jus because Bush, brown and co hate someone, this is NOT enough to make that person a revolutionary hero, by itself.
Now is this REALLY that hard to grasp?"
Yes - because that is exactly what people in this thread are saying. In fact the quotes are here:
Quote 1:
Mugabe is a revolutionary kitten who never hurt a fly.
(Perhaps that isn't in the thread - but I couldn't find one - feel free to supply your own.)
The thing that you seem to find hard to grasp is that people are offering a critique of propaganda, and trying to suggest that its never quite as black and white as the mainstream media and western states like to paint it. Mugabe is clearly prepared to use force to quell dissent. So are plenty of other rulers, whom the imperial masters are quite happy to pretend are benign, because they are useful.
Now, why don't you tell us what us unthinking people should be doing to show our support for the people of Zimbabwe and Egypt?
Cos that'd be really interesting.
Finally, can you re-assure us that Morgan Tsvangerai would never use force to quell dissent - that he would in fact welcome armed insurrection as a sign of a healthy democracy?
Thankyou for making it all so clear, and showing us for the fools we really are.
Propaganda Pete.