Mugabe sworn in officially....simultaneously loses his legacy
Bill Fletcher | 05.07.2008 09:32
The African World
I remember reading of the origin of the term 'Pyrrhic
victory.' It came from a battle in which Pyrrhus, the
King of ancient Epirus, won a victory over the Romans
at such a terrible cost, that he and his forces were
ruined.
Robert Mugabe has been declared the victor in the
Zimbabwean elections. The elections were so tainted by
murder and intimidation that they lost all credibility.
Leaders of African nations who, hitherto, had been
reluctant to criticize the undemocratic practices of
President Mugabe have now spoken out. South Africa's
former President Nelson Mandela felt compelled to break
with his successor, President Thabo Mbeki, in
denouncing President Mugabe and his 'failure of
leadership.' In the middle of this, President Mugabe
stands firm, as if a character out of a Shakespearean
play, proclaiming his eternal rule and willingness to
go to war should he lose an election.
Progressives around the world must now take a deep
breath and reflect on the situation. Those who have
been entranced by President Mugabe's anti-imperialist
rhetoric must do an assessment of the situation on the
ground. The Black farm workers who worked the land of
the white farmers, did not measurably benefit from
Mugabe's land seizures; inflation is at a scale
virtually unimaginable in economics; hundreds of
thousands of people were removed from their homes two
years ago in the middle of the Zimbabwean winter,
having no place to go, allegedly because they were
vagrants living in shacks, but more likely because they
were a base of support for the opposition;
assassinations and physical intimidation became the
modus operandi of pro-Mugabe militias in the aftermath
of the first round of elections this spring as a way of
suppressing the opposition; and the homophobic
President continues to ignore the depth of the HIV/AIDS
crisis in his country.
As noted Syracuse Professor Horace Campbell remarked in
a debate on the Pacifica program 'Democracy Now!',
while it is absolutely true that there are other
countries in Africa (and certainly around the world)
who have horrendous human rights practices, this in no
way lets Zimbabwe off the hook. Zimbabwe was, according
to its leaders, supposedly attempting to carry out more
than political independence from colonialism, but was
to be engaged in a project of social transformation.
For this reason alone we should hold Zimbabwe, and
President Mugabe, to a higher standard than we would
someone like Egypt's President Mubarak.
The dilemma for progressives in the USA who support the
people of Zimbabwe revolves around what steps we can
take. In fact, what we are most often asked is whether
we support the various actions by the Bush
administration to put pressure on President Mugabe.
I wish that I could support such efforts. I simply
cannot. Neither the USA nor Britain possesses the moral
authority to engage constructively in the Zimbabwe
crisis. At best they can play a supportive role where
African nations are taking the lead. The Bush
administration is not in a position to lecture anyone
on human rights or genuine elections. This fact,
however, should NOT mean that we remain silent simply
because President Bush holds President Mugabe in
distain. The enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our
friend.
Many progressives in South Africa have taken a leading
role in opposing the Mugabe tyranny, and they have done
this without the support of their own government.
Several weeks ago, for instance, a Chinese ship full of
weapons destined for Mugabe's government attempted to
unload in South Africa. South African dockworkers
refused to unload the boat. Ultimately the ship had to
turn around and sail back to China.
The example of the refusal to unload the Chinese ship
was interesting in that the workers imposed their own
sanctions on the Mugabe regime. It was also
interesting, as a side note, that China was supplying
small arms to Zimbabwe in the middle of a political
crisis; small arms that would have been of little use
against external invaders but certainly useful for
suppressing internal dissent.
Subsequently, and in the context of the fraudulent,
second-round Zimbabwean elections, the Congress of
South African Trade Unions went one step further and
called on South Africans to blockade Zimbabwe. They
actually took an additional step: they have called upon
friends of the Zimbabwean people to engage in total
non-cooperation with the Mugabe regime. I believe that
this is the course that should be followed. Nothing
should be done to assist or give the slightest bit of
credibility to the Mugabe regime. The Mugabe regime
should henceforth be recognized to be an oligarchy
administered by an autocrat in the name of a clique
that is currently benefiting at the expense of the
Zimbabwean people.
Those who support the people of Zimbabwe should not
follow the lead of President Bush or British Prime
Minister Brown. They have nothing to offer and they
will, in fact, worsen the situation. Rather, we should
be calling upon the African Union and Zimbabwe's
neighbors to take action. Perhaps with the right amount
of genuine pressure, a transitional government can be
put into place. A transitional government, however,
cannot be a mechanism for the practical elimination of
the opposition. It must be a means to step back from
the precipice of civil war.
A final point and actually one that I have made at
other moments in discussing Zimbabwe. Much has been
made of the contradictory and often pro-Western
politics of the principal opposition group, the
Movement for a Democratic Change. In fact, and quite
ironically there have been times when Mugabe was
perceived to be and portrayed as being pro-Western. He
certainly introduced economic policies to the
satisfaction of the World Bank and International
Monetary Fund in the 1980s.
Opposing the Mugabe autocracy does not mean supporting
the MDC. The future of the MDC, let alone Zimbabwe,
should be in the hands of the people of Zimbabwe. What
we, progressives and friends of Zimbabwe should
recognize is that we have a duty of solidarity with the
people of that country fighting to complete that which
their Liberation War started so very long ago.
______
BlackCommentator.com Executive Editor, Bill Fletcher,
Jr., is a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy
Studies, the immediate past president of TransAfrica
Forum and co-author of the just released book,
Solidarity Divided: The Crisis in Organized Labor and a
New Path toward Social Justice (University of
California Press), which examines the crisis of
organized labor in the USA.
I remember reading of the origin of the term 'Pyrrhic
victory.' It came from a battle in which Pyrrhus, the
King of ancient Epirus, won a victory over the Romans
at such a terrible cost, that he and his forces were
ruined.
Robert Mugabe has been declared the victor in the
Zimbabwean elections. The elections were so tainted by
murder and intimidation that they lost all credibility.
Leaders of African nations who, hitherto, had been
reluctant to criticize the undemocratic practices of
President Mugabe have now spoken out. South Africa's
former President Nelson Mandela felt compelled to break
with his successor, President Thabo Mbeki, in
denouncing President Mugabe and his 'failure of
leadership.' In the middle of this, President Mugabe
stands firm, as if a character out of a Shakespearean
play, proclaiming his eternal rule and willingness to
go to war should he lose an election.
Progressives around the world must now take a deep
breath and reflect on the situation. Those who have
been entranced by President Mugabe's anti-imperialist
rhetoric must do an assessment of the situation on the
ground. The Black farm workers who worked the land of
the white farmers, did not measurably benefit from
Mugabe's land seizures; inflation is at a scale
virtually unimaginable in economics; hundreds of
thousands of people were removed from their homes two
years ago in the middle of the Zimbabwean winter,
having no place to go, allegedly because they were
vagrants living in shacks, but more likely because they
were a base of support for the opposition;
assassinations and physical intimidation became the
modus operandi of pro-Mugabe militias in the aftermath
of the first round of elections this spring as a way of
suppressing the opposition; and the homophobic
President continues to ignore the depth of the HIV/AIDS
crisis in his country.
As noted Syracuse Professor Horace Campbell remarked in
a debate on the Pacifica program 'Democracy Now!',
while it is absolutely true that there are other
countries in Africa (and certainly around the world)
who have horrendous human rights practices, this in no
way lets Zimbabwe off the hook. Zimbabwe was, according
to its leaders, supposedly attempting to carry out more
than political independence from colonialism, but was
to be engaged in a project of social transformation.
For this reason alone we should hold Zimbabwe, and
President Mugabe, to a higher standard than we would
someone like Egypt's President Mubarak.
The dilemma for progressives in the USA who support the
people of Zimbabwe revolves around what steps we can
take. In fact, what we are most often asked is whether
we support the various actions by the Bush
administration to put pressure on President Mugabe.
I wish that I could support such efforts. I simply
cannot. Neither the USA nor Britain possesses the moral
authority to engage constructively in the Zimbabwe
crisis. At best they can play a supportive role where
African nations are taking the lead. The Bush
administration is not in a position to lecture anyone
on human rights or genuine elections. This fact,
however, should NOT mean that we remain silent simply
because President Bush holds President Mugabe in
distain. The enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our
friend.
Many progressives in South Africa have taken a leading
role in opposing the Mugabe tyranny, and they have done
this without the support of their own government.
Several weeks ago, for instance, a Chinese ship full of
weapons destined for Mugabe's government attempted to
unload in South Africa. South African dockworkers
refused to unload the boat. Ultimately the ship had to
turn around and sail back to China.
The example of the refusal to unload the Chinese ship
was interesting in that the workers imposed their own
sanctions on the Mugabe regime. It was also
interesting, as a side note, that China was supplying
small arms to Zimbabwe in the middle of a political
crisis; small arms that would have been of little use
against external invaders but certainly useful for
suppressing internal dissent.
Subsequently, and in the context of the fraudulent,
second-round Zimbabwean elections, the Congress of
South African Trade Unions went one step further and
called on South Africans to blockade Zimbabwe. They
actually took an additional step: they have called upon
friends of the Zimbabwean people to engage in total
non-cooperation with the Mugabe regime. I believe that
this is the course that should be followed. Nothing
should be done to assist or give the slightest bit of
credibility to the Mugabe regime. The Mugabe regime
should henceforth be recognized to be an oligarchy
administered by an autocrat in the name of a clique
that is currently benefiting at the expense of the
Zimbabwean people.
Those who support the people of Zimbabwe should not
follow the lead of President Bush or British Prime
Minister Brown. They have nothing to offer and they
will, in fact, worsen the situation. Rather, we should
be calling upon the African Union and Zimbabwe's
neighbors to take action. Perhaps with the right amount
of genuine pressure, a transitional government can be
put into place. A transitional government, however,
cannot be a mechanism for the practical elimination of
the opposition. It must be a means to step back from
the precipice of civil war.
A final point and actually one that I have made at
other moments in discussing Zimbabwe. Much has been
made of the contradictory and often pro-Western
politics of the principal opposition group, the
Movement for a Democratic Change. In fact, and quite
ironically there have been times when Mugabe was
perceived to be and portrayed as being pro-Western. He
certainly introduced economic policies to the
satisfaction of the World Bank and International
Monetary Fund in the 1980s.
Opposing the Mugabe autocracy does not mean supporting
the MDC. The future of the MDC, let alone Zimbabwe,
should be in the hands of the people of Zimbabwe. What
we, progressives and friends of Zimbabwe should
recognize is that we have a duty of solidarity with the
people of that country fighting to complete that which
their Liberation War started so very long ago.
______
BlackCommentator.com Executive Editor, Bill Fletcher,
Jr., is a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy
Studies, the immediate past president of TransAfrica
Forum and co-author of the just released book,
Solidarity Divided: The Crisis in Organized Labor and a
New Path toward Social Justice (University of
California Press), which examines the crisis of
organized labor in the USA.
Bill Fletcher
Comments
Hide the following 9 comments
the white commentator
05.07.2008 12:40
It is so shallow it is laughable. He doesn’t even both to explain why it is that a movement that came out of trade unions, the MDC, are espousing neo-liberal policies. All he says is that we shouldn’t trust the West on Zimbabwe but we should trust the West when they say Mugabe is a tyrant.
He doesn’t even ask how come the army has not removed Mugabe if most of the military has no special allegiance to Mugabe.
The ZIMBABWE Situation
Loyal
Mr Rupiya, now at South Africa's Institute of Security Studies, dismisses those who say that security officials have been bought off with land.
"I would not for one moment consider that that would be a payment to keep their loyalty," he said.
He estimates that 20-30% of the security forces are "politicised". "The rest are suffering with the people," he said.
The real questions for Pan-Africanists are:
- Can a country that resists Western domination survive the subsequent attack on it?
- Is it wise for a black country to adopt a position of black self-determination when the Western enemy is as strong as it is?
- How can the leaders retain support from ordinary black people if the West joins up to destroy its economy?
- Should black people acknowledge that black countries must be subordinate to the interests of the West?
- To what extent should Pan-Africanists use force against some of its people who succumb to Western bribes to defend black self-determination?
- How can we tell that a black leader is genuine if he espouses ‘anti-imperialist rhetoric’?
Simon
Mugabe - victim or villian
05.07.2008 14:23
Robert Mugabe: Victim or Villain?
Posted: Friday, July 4, 2008
By Amengeo Amengeo
July 04, 2008
The African Executive
When sharks smell blood, they go into a feeding frenzy and attack relentlessly. There is feeding frenzy about Zimbabwe that preceded the June 27 run-off elections.
Thwarted in their bid to install their man Morgan Tsvangirai in power, the forces of Western neo-colonialism continue to ratchet up media pressure. Some African leaders seem to have bought into this propaganda campaign.
Stories in the Western Press about "Government-sanctioned violence" in Zimbabwe focus on lurid details quoting one-sided and opinionated anonymous sources without much verifiable data.
Remember the gory reports about Saddam's troops in Kuwait during the first Gulf War bayoneting babies in their incubators? Many of these stories later turned out to be fabrications. The same type of campaign is operating in Zimbabwe now.
Could the violence have been orchestrated by external forces attempting to force a crisis of chaos, thereby justifying intervention? Mugabe's suspension of aid agencies' involvement was a matter of national survival. The outspoken comments of the US ambassador went beyond his purview as a resident diplomat and entered the restricted area of direct interference in a sovereign country's internal affairs.
The struggle for control of Zimbabwe has never been about democracy. We need to be absolutely clear about that. The struggle for control of Zimbabwe is about, and has always been about whether Africans will rule themselves or be subordinated to the dictates and whims of Western powers.
When one considers there are at least half a dozen African leaders who actually brutalise their people and have ruled their respective countries without any pretensions about democracy for longer than Mugabe, the question must be asked: why, then Mugabe?
There is a trend across Africa among certain sectors, to dismiss and devalue the ideology and values of the liberation struggle, values which encompassed the quest for freedom from foreign rule (which was a thousand times worse than anything any African dictator could dream up today. King Leopold of Belgium, for example, butchered 10 million Congolese during the scramble for Africa at the turn of the last century), the search for an African identity and ultimately, continental unification.
The implication of that struggle has never been lost on Western strategic planners – for a unified Africa, in control of vast human and natural resources, land space three times the size of the United States of America, could evolve into a military and economic giant as has China in recent years.
The implications of this vision, with the psychological consequences for Africans the world over living on the margins of societies they inhabit on sufferance in Europe and America, are world-changing. Thus, buds that sprout must be torn up like weeds before their roots can anchor and spread. Zimbabwe is such a bud.
Whatever his shortcomings, Mugabe has consistently and unequivocally stood for African independence and has demonstrated his pan-African convictions by intervening on behalf of the government of the late Laurent Kabila in the Democratic Republic of Congo when it was attacked by forces backed by Western economic interests.
Mugabe's stance vis-à-vis the West has its justification based on sound historical reasons. When the European nations scrambled for Africa's resources at the turn of the last century, Cecil Rhodes, the quintessential British imperialist (who presumptuously stamped his name on an African country) sent in his mercenaries and freebooters, butchered the Ndebele and Shona, the original owners of the land.
The Africans resisted fiercely inspired by Nehanda, a divine woman (later hung by the whites for daring to inspire and resist) but were decimated by the maxim machine gun, a new weapon against which they had no defence. African lands were then apportioned to the invaders and Africans were dispossessed of and driven off their lands.
When Mugabe took back the lands from the whites in 2000, he was acting legitimately and righting a century-old wrong. Talk about the "rule of law" and that he should have followed legal protocol is absolute nonsense – for when Rhodes' thieves and mercenaries invaded, they exercised no legalities, but simply killed and stole the land just as their contemporaries had done with the indigenous people of America and Australia.
As the so-called Rhodesians, faced defeat by Mugabe's guerrilla armies, Britain, which had previously refused to intervene on behalf of the Africans against their "kith and kin", scrambled to arrange a peace deal before suffering a humiliating defeat. The warring parties were invited to Lancaster House in London where the British bugged the hotel rooms of the Africans and thus checkmated their best moves. The British promised to fund the land reform, which was the casus belli for the war, but typically had no intentions of so doing. In 2000, faced with a rising demand for land reform, Mugabe acted.
This was unforgiveable.
As Cuba remains unforgiveable for manifesting independence, so does Zimbabwe remain unforgivable for exercising her right to reclaim land that rightfully belongs to Africans. Behind all the high-flown talk about "property rights" and the "rule of law" lies white racism, a sense of white entitlement, and that Africans have no right to redress the wrongs perpetrated against them so brutally and for so long.
The West, especially Britain, the US, Australia and other Europeans have no right to lecture Africans about rights and the "rule of law" given the history of their depredations – slavery, theft of lands, extermination of the Tasmanians by the Australians and genocide by the Germans against the Herero.
As African heads of state and government resolved at the recently held African Union summit in Egypt, Zimbabwe's problems are African problems and must be solved by Africans. Tsvangirai's running to Western capitals like a petulant schoolchild complaining about Mugabe is giving the West an excuse to intervene in Zimbabwe's affairs or perhaps he is truly their puppet and has to report to his masters. It is very curious that the West announced his victory ahead of even exit polls.
Frustrated by the failure of their man to win an outright victory, the West has ratcheted up the pressure in the hopes of precipitating a crisis which would allow them to intervene more directly. Mugabe's pre-emptive move against the aid agencies [which have the perfect cover for espionage] has taken critical pieces off the board. Africans need to understand that is a test of their sovereignty and independence. If Mugabe's independent voice can be stilled by Western intervention, propaganda and the collusion of local puppets, then Africa's independence becomes meaningless.
Africa can solve its own problems and it needs to assertively tell the West this. Mbeki's quiet diplomacy is an attempt to find African solutions and avoid violence and chaos, for the people of Zimbabwe refused to ride off into the sunset and give the country to a man who cavorts about Western capitals calling for sanctions and intervention against his own country and seems to speak from a script that echoes the detractors of the Government.
Zimbabwe's problems are not intractable and they can be solved by Africans working together, but the region's leaders need to speak with one voice as they did at the just-ended AU Summit, and unequivocally told the West to leave Africa alone to resolve the Zimbabwean situation, whether by a unity government or some cession of power.
Unfortunately, Tsvangirai continues to compromise his credibility by appearing as the West's man. We need not to be befuddled by talk of "democracy" which the West insists on when it meets their interests.
Zimbabwe, we must never, never forget, is really about one defiant black man taking back what was stolen from his people as was his right to do. Africans have no reason to be ashamed of this.
Amengeo Amengeo is a specialist in Spanish, Latin American, Caribbean as well as African history. He has also been a journalist, civil servant and graphic artist.
Reproduced from: The African Executive
Simon
good article shame about reactionaries
05.07.2008 16:32
joe
Funny, eh?
05.07.2008 19:07
What a flip and outrageous statement.
Does this mean imperialism is a good thing? Does this mean the attempt by the West to - as the then Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Chester Crocker told the Senate -'you have to make the 'Zimbabwean economy scream'?
White people destroy Zimbabwe's economy. You blame black people and then make flip remarks about it as if it's some sort of joke.
What sort of Left person believes that Western capitalists are going to destroy an African capitalist?
Simon
Dos Locos Simon!!
07.07.2008 17:02
Simon,
Coming from a guy who believes in a dictatorship for Zimbabwe, I don't see how your comments have any credibility, (Mark has already discredited your comments, your response was silence)!!! And I wonder why?
Why is it you only make comments on Zimbabwe and nowhere else? You would think Zimbabwe is the only country in the world in your mind. You praise Mugabe, but I don't see any praise from you for Hugo Chavez. I don't see you defending Chavez against western propaganda!
.....
Jason
Jason
Oreo Mugabe
07.07.2008 17:12
Simon,
Perhaps you could explain to me, (despite sanctions) Cuba exports doctors, Zimbabwe does not. Despite being overthrown Chavez has increased its 'gini-coefficient' Mugabe's Zimbabwe has not! Despite colonial rule, Ethiopia has increased its 'gini-coefficient', Mugabe's Zimbabwe has not. Despite a military dictatorship, Nigeria is now a thriving democracy, Zimbabwe is not!
How has Zimbabwe improved? Oreo cookie Presdent Robert 'Ian Smith' Mugabe has become what he opposed!
I agree with this thoughtful, well written article, non-cooperation is the way forward, you prefer negativity and hypocrissy.
Jason
Jason
exposing zimbabwe people we care frauds
08.07.2008 14:57
The US and UK record on civil liberties across the free world is a joke and is more about brutal intervention which is always unwanted. Unless, independent news media verify the stories of the corporate media ie propaganda BBC, ITN, C4 they are all the same (just approach it differently), do not trust them especially if they are some dodgy groups who are actually pretending to be led by social justice. Butt out unless you are going to care about what is happening to blacks in Rwanda, the Congo and Haiti. Lets face it Zimbabwe (richness) and Darfur (oil) are only worthy of attention because they should not be lost
zimbabwe
zimbabwe
09.07.2008 11:33
zimbabwe
I'm not sure what your point is, other than pointing out the obvious to most indymedia readers! We know about Rwanda, Congo, bbc C4 propagada,that's why we are here on indymedia! The fact is daily herald is no better! The issues are not as black and white as yourself and simon portray them as!
Alas, there are many shades of grey and many many hypocrites too numerous to name on this forum! I've had comments deleted on bbc, not the case with indymedia! :-)
Since simon has a love affair with President Oreo cookie, perhaps he also supports Robert 'Ian Smith' Mugabes' very white and very rich supporters at Anglo-American!
My point, Mugabe is not better than the dictators of Rwanda, Kenya, or Congo, all of which exploit their people and are financially supported by the west, Direct or indirect), as is the case with Mugabe, shocker!!!!!
Jason
Jason
Simon & his acolytes' views are systematically discredited - so stop posting!
09.07.2008 13:59
Jason is right in saying that Simon has clearly been unable to respond to the various points I have raised with him in that he answered my last comments with notable silence. The same goes for Brian.
Ref:
Here was my article:
Simon said in a previous thread: "It is up to black people in Zimbabwe and elsewhere as to whether they want socialism or communist not the white Left in the formerly colonising country."
> Incredible! But, it's up to black people in Zimbabwe what government they want, is it Simon?
Simon claims those who disagree with him are white imperialists trying to stop a black nationalist government from determining it's own destiny. It is complete nonsense and a veil to hide his own inability to justify his support for a brutal dictatorship (for which he used to say there was no evidence, but funnily enough has refrained from doing so in more recent postings).
To Simon & Brian's ridiculous assertion that I and others that criticise Mugabe are either just MDC supporters and supporters of neoliberal intervention, or that we are white Rhodesians or some other crap, I have responded by pointing out that I get my analysis on Zimbabwe from black activists in that country - for instance the International Socialist Organisation, the Zimbabwe Social Forum and all the organisations under the umbrella of the Zimbabwe People's Convention who signed up to the Zimbabwe Peoples' Charter Ref:
The position of the real Black Left of Zimbabwe - the International Socialist Organisation - can be read here:
It is nonsense for Simon to assume that this particular non-appeaser of Mugabe has formed this opinion by being duped by pro-western anti-Mugabe propaganda. For most of his detractors on these threads, their objection to Mugabe and ZanuPF are on their own terms, because this government exacts brutal suppression of political opponents and commandeer ruthless execution of political power in partnership with military rule.
Infact, Simon previously said in another Indymedia posting:
"Is it not pointless for an unpopular Zanu-PF to try to force people to vote for them"
> enough said.
Despite all the endless points I have written on these threads that discredit the rule of Mugabe and ZanuPF and his mismanagement of the Zimbabwean economy/corruption of the land reform process, all of which has been wasted on the clearly daft likes of Simon and Brian and their Stalinist acolytes, I refer all to the short and sweet comments by "(A)" from another thread copied here:
28.06.2008 15:00
Comment title: You fucking idiots
you'd probably praise Hitler if he had said he was 'anti-imperialist'.
(A)
Mark