Zimbabwe And The Battle of Ideas
Thursday, 25 September 2008
by Netfa Freeman

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.

Zimbabwe and the Battle of Ideas
by Netfa Freeman


"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.

etc

 http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=805&Itemid=1