Published by the government of Zimbabwe
Brendan O'Neill
9 April 2008
(Page 2 of 2)
It was political considerations in the West that elevated Cde Mugabe to that position (of a "tyrant" and an "African Hitler") and transformed Zimbabwe into a pariah state. Western governments despised what they considered to be Cde Mugabe's cheek, in particular his temerity in daring to seize white farms, to interfere in the Congo without a green light from the US, and his frequent denunciations of Western colonialism. Indeed, since the defeat of the white rulers of Rhodesia in 1980, Cde Mugabe lived off his reputation as a brave warrior against Western arrogance in Africa.
It was colonialism and imperialist intervention that gave him his base of support, which has always been a substantial one, despite, or perhaps because of, international hostility against Zimbabwe. As the African commentator Barrie Collins has argued: "Since the end of the Cold War, the USA and the UK have got used to a high degree of compliance on the part of African governments -- and they are no longer prepared to tolerate those, like Zimbabwe, that insist on doing things their own way." Bashing Zimbabwe played a dual role for Western officials and commentators. It allowed those of a conservative stripe to defend the historic reputation of colonialism by comparing it favourably with the rule of individuals like Cde Mugabe. Eton-educated British observers loathed Cde Mugabe because they considered him a symbol of African cockiness, who had humiliated Ian Smith (the white minority ruler of a self-declared "independent" Rhodesia from 1965 to 1979) before the eyes of the world.
Attacking President Mugabe's rule became a way of rehabilitating the image of old-fashioned, British-tinged colonialism. At the same time, one-time anti-colonialist radicals - including most notably the gay rights activist Peter Tatchell in the UK - focused their political energies on opposing Mugabe, describing him as intolerant and not sufficiently respectful of minority rights.
At a time when political radicalism is on the wane in the West, some activists sought to recover their old campaigning spirit by taking potshots at the easy target of a beleaguered African state. Indeed, radicals often led the charge for tougher economic and political punishment of Zimbabwe - and frequently, they got what they asked for. From the late 1990s to today, Zimbabwe became the West's favoured punchbag in the "Dark Continent". Yet Western governments have chosen striking forms of intervention. Instead of militarily and directly intervening in Zimbabwean affairs -- despite loud demands from the colonialist/radical alliance that they should do so - governments in the West pursued a more hands-off form of meddling in Zimbabwe. They used sanctions and economic blackmail; they funded opposition parties and "events"; and, most revealingly, they put pressure on South Africa, Tanzania and other nearby states to use their muscle to try to push Cde Mugabe from power. This was effectively "blacked-up imperialism", an attempt by Western powers nervous about being seen smashing their way into Africa to use local proxies to do their dirty work for them. To their credit, many African officials refused to play the game. The African Union turned down Western suggestions to send forces to Zimbabwe in 2005, arguing that "it is not proper for the AU commission to start running the internal affairs of member states". Though South Africa's Mbeki has become involved in Zimbabwean politics, he has also, to the irritation of Western observers, insisted that the future of Zimbabwe "has never been a South African responsibility".
Zimbabwe captures both the West's sense of caution in international affairs and also its inexorable drive to interfere wherever and however it can. As the former British foreign secretary Margaret Beckett argued, Britain cannot be seen explicitly interfering in Zimbabwe because we are "the old colonial power" -- yet at the same time Britain apparently has a "responsibility" to spread democracy around the world. The end result of this schizophrenic approach to African affairs and international affairs more broadly, a political defensiveness combined with a desire to do something seemingly purposeful and proper, is an unpredictable, ravenous, behind-the-scenes form of meddling in other countries' affairs, a kind of "cowardly colonialism". And it can have dire consequences for people in the Third World.
On the basis of little more than the fact that they needed a focus for their international pretensions, Western governments have put Zimbabwe into an economic straitjacket and warped its internal political process. If the sanctions, blackmail and withdrawal of trade have helped to push Zimbabwe's economy into freefall, then the relentless backdoor political interventions have disempowered the people of Zimbabwe. The dynamic of Western intervention caused Cde Mugabe to become more entrenched and paranoid about outsiders and it encouraged MDC to look to Western officials and radicals for favour and flattery rather than to build a meaningful grassroots movement inside Zimbabwe.
Indeed, for all the talk of a "revolution" in Zimbabwe, both during minor street protests last year and during the elections this week, many people actually seem quite resigned about Zimbabwe's fate. As one report recently said: "The opposition hasn't been able to mobilise tens of thousands of people . . ." Lots of the current news coverage continually shows Zimbabweans queuing up for hours to buy a newspaper for a few thousand dollars so that they can read about the elections.
This footage is supposed to show how bad inflation has become in Zimbabwe, but it also reveals something else: that the West's attempted strangulation of Cde Mugabe has reduced the people of Zimbabwe to observers rather than masters of their fate, who look to the front pages of newspapers to find out what might happen next in their country.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2008 The Herald. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
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.
