The Zimbabwe Guardian (London)
Philip Tonderai
4 April 2008
opinion
I WRITE on a very sad day indeed for Zimbabwe for many reasons. I have spent a few weeks looking at the developments in the country and trying to make sense of it all. I carefully considered arguments from all parties during their election campaigns and have come to some fundamental conclusions which I would like to share with the people of Zimbabwe.
President Mugabe has banged on about the 'regime change agenda' of the West to suit their needs. I am one of those sceptics who used to dismiss this argument; but I have given myself sufficient time to consider what exactly is going on, without resorting to some twisted conspiracy theorisations.
I have developed a very disturbing pattern which I would like to share with the people of Zimbabwe, as we titter at this tipping point in the politics of our country.
There was a story published in The Herald last month regarding SABMiller's policy issues manager, Christine Thompson who was said to be supporting the Makoni Project. That story was never pursued enough, and many newspapers dismissed it as irrelevant politicking by the Zanu PF government.
There was another story, again covered by The Herald, which many people also dismissed as irrelevant; that is the story about funding of the Zimbabwe Law Society by the Law Society of the UK.
These two stories, among others, if investigated deeper reveal some very disturbing patterns in the nature of our politics in Zimbabwe and the relationship with the West.
Before you dismiss this pattern consider the evidence.
End of the Cold War
The twenty-first century has presented huge challenges for the Allies; USA, UK, France, Germany, etc. The Cold War was costly to the Allies and threatened peace both in the global North and South. It also threatened the supremacy of the USA as the USSR often neutralised US threats and counter-threats on weaker nations, or nations that 'threatened US foreign interests'. The bi-polar world was a huge challenge for the US in that it thwarted its hegemonic and imperialistic aspirations.
So the demise of the Soviet Union (USSR) marked an important watershed for the USA and presented an opportunity to establish itself as the sole global superpower, that could bully weaker nations -- or every nation for that matter -- in pursuance of 'American interests'.
The US, in this endeavour made sure countries like the UK, Germany, France, who were facing problems in their own countries; who had been helped by the US in fighting regional wars; and who depended on the US for aid, would back a global alliance that made sure that 'democracy' would never be threatened again -- that the Cold War would never resurface, that the US would remain a sole Superpower; of course with the help of the UK, France, Germany, etc.
These countries would form regional alliances that would ensure that their social and political systems will dominate the world; and never get threatened by rival modes of social and political organisation. They would also form global social, political, economic and legal systems that ensured that their interests will forever be protected.
These systems will reorganise the world; reorganise world relations, and ensure that they would remain the only superpowers, that would exert pressure to 'democratise'.
Some of these organisations include the twin Bretton Woods institutions (IMF, World Bank), the World Trade Organisation, the International Criminal Court (ICC), among other organisations that purport to help develop and organise the world.
The arguments advanced by these organisations make sense; but only on the surface. Only if they are adhered to and respected by those who formed them, do they make sense. Arguments range from the need to end impunity, protection of people from tyrants, fair and equitable trade, development of the Third World and global peace and stability.
These are very honourable arguments and aspiration; but only if those who advanced them respected them.
I will consider a few of these organisations to make my point clear.
Business interests
The regime change agenda, which President Mugabe always talks about is not a figment of his imagination. There are arguments that it is necessary to have regime change because Mugabe is a tyrant; that he is a dictator and that he needs to go.
Those who advance these arguments also argue that the West should help in that endeavour, or anyone for that matter.
They also advance the argument that China and Russia also have imperialistic tendencies like the West and is no better devil.
On the face of it, these arguments seem credible; yet many people who advance those arguments forget two fundamental things -- China was Africa's liberator; and the West colonised Africa. This is a crucial starting point because it is easier to trust China than it is to trust the West. Given a coloniser and a liberator I would choose the latter. Whatever reasons are advanced for China helping the colonised people of Zimbabwe is not an issue, they still helped crush that system. Whether it was a feature of the Cold War or not, is not the issue. The issue is that the Chinese brought independence to an African country like Zimbabwe.
China did not stay when it helped these countries, so one can argue that they were altruistic in their help. They did not establish 'military bases' in other people's lands, nor take over the running of their institutions. In fact they helped establish a solid base from which to develop own countries. They still do this today.
Yet Western countries have come in all shapes and sizes. They colonised Africa and stayed. They established companies and remitted profits to their countries and excluded indigenous peoples from participation in social and political systems that affected them. The highest position one could attain the civil service in Rhodesia was a clerk, and was never promoted. They had reached their ceiling.
Yet today those same people re-appear in another disguise to 'help us'. Their systems crafted by the infamous "Washington Consensus" crew have failed dismally. Their economic predictions in South East Asia have been proved wrong. The SAP packages imposed on the developing world have failed dismally everywhere they have been implemented. Their own economies are crumbling and the global economic order is threatened by methods which have been proposed by those who have been bestowed with prizes in economics; e.g. Stiglitz et al. Their stabilisation predictions have dealt a huge blow to economies in Asia, Latin America and Africa; because they did not take into consideration the local socio-economic and political environment.
The new hegemonic expansion institutions
Western governments have now realised that to neo-colonise Africa they have to use new methods, subtle methods. These methods have to be seen in context at least by the indigenous peoples. Blatant colonisation brought resistance and did not last; so new methods have to be packaged and disguised as aid, donations, loans, etc. Yet these packages do not improve ownership by indigenous peoples. They do not add value to local raw materials. The value chain ends in Europe or America.
Let's consider some examples.
Neo-colonisation disguised as Research and Development
SABMiller's Policy Issues Manager, Christine Thompson, has wide ranging links wit Havard's Kennedy School of Governance which has given many fellowships and bursaries to Zimbabweans; only those in opposition, and not on merit. She has supported and initiated 'regime change research' on Zimbabwe and 'helped' opposition members attend the Kennedy School.
Robert I. Rotberg who is Director of the Program on Intrastate Conflict at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government and President of the World Peace Foundation is a friend and close confidante of Christine Thompson's.
Attendees include Morgan Tsvangirai, MDC Mayor Eng Elias Mudzuri, editors of various anti-government newspapers in Zimbabwe, among others. These individuals are being moulded to take over Zimbabwe by being offered these attendance certificates and accolades, not on merit, but on some flimsy criteria bent at 'changing the regime' in Zimbabwe. These individuals are taught 'democracy' as the only alternative and not encouraged to think. They are made into i-robots, that move when told to move.
Read comments. Write your own.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
