---

---

Published by the government of Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe: West's Agenda Remains the Same

Mabasa Sasa

1 December 2008

---

opinion

THE novel "1984" by George Orwell is perhaps more instructive today than it was when the writer came up with the idea way back in 1948.

In the preceding half century since its publication and acclamation as a great piece of literature, its interpretation by mainstream academics has tended to be used to attack socialism, communism, nationalism and every other "ism" that is not capitalism.

And yet "1984" is probably a greater critique of capitalism than any other politico-economic ideological superstructure to ever emerge in the world.

Regardless, the West in general and the United States and Britain as leaders of that geopolitical hemisphere in particular adhere strongly to the ideals of nationalism and aspects of socialism (especially as seen in current interventions pursuant to the credit crunch) while denying every other country the right to follow these people-centred isms.

Texts of literature like "1984" have consequently been deployed to undress nationalism, socialism, communism while the West's highly politicised pseudo-academics ignore how that book is actually a powerful criticism of the capitalism they love so much and so blindly.

But the Third World has not been fooled and Orwell has contributed immensely to the way the wretched of the Earth interpret capitalism and globalisation.

There is one Orwellian term in particular derived from "1984" that the underdeveloped world can use to describe the manner in which the West engages the rest of the planet at political, cultural, economic and social levels: doublespeak.

The term itself does not appear anywhere in the novel and Orwell, in fact, never created it though there can be no denying that it has its roots in that human trait called hypocrisy whose strand runs consistently throughout the society described in "1984".

Doublespeak can be described as "deliberately ambiguous or evasive language; any language that pretends to communicate but actually does not".

And that is precisely what the West has been doing whenever the name of our country issues forth from its hypocritical lips.

There has been a lot of doublespeak concerning the talks between the ruling Zanu-PF and the two opposition MDCs and it is important for Zimbabweans to see it for what it is.

The European Union and the United States have become quite adept at doublespeak and the shameless hypocrisy that it tries unsuccessfully to conceal.

Just before the September 15 agreement between the three parties, the West felt no shame in telling a bemused world that they were going to impose more sanctions on Zimbabwe so as to pressure President Mugabe to accommodate the opposition.

Tellingly, they will say that the sanctions are targeted and affect "Mugabe's cronies", but how exactly is this supposed to happen when financial institutions are on the embargo list?

At the same time, they claim that fomenting a humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe will help the country. How absurd!

To make matters worse, they even included journalists on their sanctions lists while the other side of their mouth preaches incessantly about media freedom, the freedom of expression and all the other freedoms that America loves so much but will not allow the rest of the world to enjoy.

And just a week before the agreement was signed, Canada waded into the fray and piped up its voice -- always inconsequential in international politics -- and said it too had imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe.

Again these sanctions are targeted at "Mugabe's cronies" and yet Air Zimbabwe is barred under the embargo from flying over Canadian airspace and landing on their territory.

The past week, we were greeted with the news that the US had widened its sanctions to more "Mugabe cronies" (at this rate it appears as if the whole country is full of "Mugabe cronies").

Four people, including three businesspersons and a doctor said to be "one of Mugabe's personal physicians", were placed on what is surely turning out to be a roll of honour containing the names of those who have dared to oppose Western megalomania.

The US State Department then hides behind its traditional fig leaf, saying that the expansion of the sanctions did not mean America would stop providing "its US$200 million a year humanitarian aid programme to the people of Zimbabwe".

In essence, they are saying: "We will burn you then relieve ourselves in your faces and you should thank us for cooling you down."

So maybe in the Orwellian world of doublespeak the West is right about the sanctions being targeted: they are targeted against the entire country!

But what is the point of all this and what does it have to do with the current situation in the country in the context of the talks?

It is rather simple really, and perhaps its simplicity is what people do not want to accept or even think about.

The generality of the nation had been infused with a sense of optimism when the parties signed the agreement to form an inclusive Government.

But beneath this optimism was the unpalatable realisation that Tsvangirai really had no control of the processes that were playing out around him.

This was seen when he religiously had to seek the counsel of his "advisors" whenever anything was laid on the table for his consideration during the talks.

It was also seen in the manner in which he stalled signing the agreement until the spooks working at EU House in Harare, such as Armin Rabitsh (can't be bothered with the spelling) had relayed the documents to Europe for perusal by the real powers in the opposition party.

Again it was seen when it emerged he engaged in golf matches with his chief handler in Harare and he could not be bothered to fly to Swaziland to meet Southern African leaders.

There are too many examples to cite, with the most recent being the way he fawned over mere Foreign Affairs officials in Paris while hurling abuse at regional Heads of State and Government.

And it was in that last episode that emerges the simplicity of all this doublespeak.

Tsvangirai is incensed on behalf of his buddies in the West that Sadc leaders have refused to be cowed into pushing President Mugabe out of office just because it will please American and European political and economic sensibilities.

The long and short of it is that the West does not want any negotiated settlement that involves President Mugabe. They will accept nothing less than the eradication of anything called Mugabe in Southern Africa and indeed the whole Third World.

It is a simple but bitter truth for the people of Zimbabwe to swallow.

Without intending to sound like a naysayer or doomsday prophet, this writer posits that as long as President Mugabe is in anyway involved in the governmental matrix in this country, the West will not call off its hounds or slow down its onslaught on the people of this land.

That is why they continue to expand the sanctions list and it should not surprise anyone if Tsvangirai himself is personally included on that piece of paper if he dares to enter into a Government the West believes will not give them an opportunity to permanently deal with President Mugabe.

There is no goodwill anywhere and indeed none should be expected from the West.

It is in the nature of their politics to seek to dominate the rest of the world (which is why no miracles should be expected of Barrack Obama on the foreign policy front) and they seek out and try to crush people like President Mugabe wherever they appear on the world map.

They have spent 50 years attempting to destroy Cuba because they did not like Cde Fidel Castro and if President Mugabe were to live to be 200 years old, they can spend the next century trying to annihilate him. He has committed the unpardonable sin of believing that the people of this land deserve better than the crumbs and "humanitarian aid" offered by America and Europe, and for that he must be destroyed.

Read comments. Write your own.

---