---

---

Published by the government of Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe: Unemployed Busybodies Masquerading As Elders

Tafataona Mahoso

27 November 2008

---

opinion

Harare — WHILE former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo was dancing with Laurent Nkunda's war criminals in the DRC, Zimbabwe was confronted by three other former somebodies demanding to come here also.

These were former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan, ex-US President Jimmy Carter and former Mozambican First Lady Graca Machel, who is now married to Nelson Mandela.

These three claim to constitute a humanitarian mission or commission without saying how they were chosen to constitute such a mission or who commissioned them on the basis of what authority and to accomplish what task!

The very same Anglo-Saxon forces who were behind the so-called UN Special Envoys in 2005 are behind the current mission.

People will remember Anna Kajumulo Tibaijuka and Jan Egeland who came here claiming to represent Annan's office and turning out to be "CIA jackals" in the service of Anglo-American interests.

If humanitarian tragedies are that important, why don't these "Eminent Elders" go to Afghanistan where the Anglo-Saxon powers are fully in charge and where more than four million Afghan women and children face a bleak and severe winter without food or shelter?

If Afghanistan is too far away, the elders could perhaps go to Somalia where "regime change" has made it possible for that country to go for 17 years with no legitimate central Government.

Why do they seek to divide and destabilise a stable country?

From the point of view of Africa and the Sadc region, Mrs Machel and Carter can be forgiven for not knowing what they are doing or how to do it.

Annan, however, is expected to know better because he is a well-trained and experienced diplomat. He is also an experienced African who by now should know enough about the tricks of imperialism and white racism.

Therefore, whether or not the Government of Zimbabwe eventually allows these three busybodies to come in, the people need to examine Annan's score card.

He became secretary-general of the United Nations in 1997 because one country alone refused to renew Boutros Boutros-Ghali's second term in that post.

The UN Security Council had voted 14 to 1 in favour of renewal of Boutros-Ghali's term but the US stopped the renewal because he was viewed as too close to the Non-Aligned Movement to allow the UN to be used as a front for the dismantling and recolonisation of former Yugoslavia by Nato.

The same US administration was instrumental in Annan's elevation as Mr Boutros-Ghali's successor.

The US and Nato got their way at the UN, proceeded to dismantle Yugoslavia, waged an air war against Serbia, and created conditions for the final secession of Kosovo from Serbia.

In celebration of this US-Nato colonisation of the UN under Annan, the then Chairman of the US Foreign Relations Committee Senator Jesse Helms asked to address the Security Council and was allowed to do so on 20 January 2000.

This was the first time someone from that US Senate office had ever addressed the UN Security Council.

This is what Senator Helms told the Security Council on 20 January 2000.

"They (US citizens) know instinctively that the UN lives and breathes on the hard-earned money of the American taxpayers. And yet they have heard comments here in New York constantly calling the United States a 'deadbeat' . . . They see the majority of the UN members voting against America in the General Assembly.

"They have read reports of raucous cheering of UN delegates in Rome, when US efforts to amend the International Criminal Court Treaty to protect American soldiers were defeated . . . Now, I grant you, the money we (the US) spend on the UN is not charity. To the contrary, it is an investment -- investment from which the American people rightly expect a return.

"They expect a reformed UN that works more efficiently, and which respects the sovereignty of the United States . . . So, as the representatives of the UN's largest investors, the American people, we have not only a right, but a responsibility, to insist on specific reforms in exchange for their investment . . . Most Americans do not regard the United Nations as an end in and of itself -- they see it as just one part of America's diplomatic arsenal."

After Yugoslavia, Serbia and Kosovo, Annan's most spectacular failure was Iraq.

The secretary-general failed to use the reports of UN weapons inspectors in Iraq to strengthen those powers and organisations who were opposed to the US-UK campaign to invade the country.

This failure is clearly documented in the massive collection of articles by Media Lens Media Alert, which is entitled "The Western Media and Iraq: Selected Articles".

Once Iraq was invaded in violation of the UN Charter and on the basis of lies that UN weapons inspectors and the UN secretary-general knew to be lies, Annan faced another spectacular failure.

His own representative in Iraq was killed, when insurgents against the illegal occupation of that country accused the UN mission there of being indistinguishable from the US-UK occupation forces.

The insurgents bombed the UN mission headquarters in Iraq.

Under Annan, UN offices were again attacked by patriots in Cote d'Ivoire and Lebanon, again for failure by UN representatives there to distinguish themselves from the imperialist interests of France, the US, the EU (in the case of Cote d'Ivoire) and the interests of the US and Israel (in the case of Lebanon).

Zimbabweans of course remember Annan as the UN secretary-general who, when he occupied that office, failed to stop the UK, the US, the EU, Australia and their white racist allies from imposing sanctions against Zimbabwe.

Zimbabweans also remember that President Robert Mugabe has used every UN forum since 2000 to appeal to the UN to stop the Anglo-Saxon axis from its illegal interference in the internal affairs of Zimbabwe.

We received no help from Annan.

But Annan did far worse than failing to use his office to mobilise the UN to protect Zimbabwe.

Annan's office itself inflicted much damage on Zimbabwe when it agreed to send Tibaijuka and Egeland on missions similar to the one which he now wants to lead.

The 2005 Zanu-PF National People's Conference in Esigodini condemned the behaviour of Annan's so-called special envoys.

The same conference urged the Government of Zimbabwe in future to be highly sceptical of any similar envoys and missions.

The behaviour of the two envoys was shocking because it did not fit the manner and style of UN diplomats as Zimbabweans used to know them during our Second Chimurenga in the 1970s and during the best years of the Non-Aligned Movement.

This new and strange behaviour by Annan's subordinates fits that of the people John Perkins calls "CIA jackals" in his book Confessions of an Economic Hitman. It fits the behaviour of the people whom Cuban patriots call "mules."

Mules are unsuspected people whose job is to smuggle someone's information or agenda through well-guarded doors or borders.

CIA jackals are spies planted in NGOs, companies and multilateral and inter-governmental agencies to carry out the destabilisation missions of singular countries or blocs of countries.

They are usually called in at the third stage of imperialist intervention, when the first two stages have failed to produce results.

The whole typology of intervention and destabilisation in pursuit of regime change includes five stages, the last of which is direct military intervention as we see in Iraq today, according to John Perkins.

CIA jackals are spy-activists whose aim is to cause social, political and psychological havoc by attacking the public morale and unity of the people as demonstrated in the last two elections in Zimbabwe.

The language of Tibaijuka's report and the language that Egeland used on the BBC after visiting Zimbabwe was not the language of UN special envoys.

Read comments. Write your own.

---