Published by the government of Zimbabwe
Stephen T. Maimbodei
4 December 2008
opinion
Harare — It was a statement that passed without notice in an international media obsessed with Mugabe-bashing.
On November 7, Jitendra Joshi of AFP made a poignant remark, which should not only be applauded but also taken seriously for the good of the Zimbabwean people.
Joshi remarked that President Mugabe, long "branded a dictator" by the Bush administration, sent a congratulatory message and "extended an olive branch to (Barack) Obama" telling the US President-elect that he "cherish(ed) the hope of working with (his) administration".
Due to America's global standing, it also means that Obama's response can influence the West's attitude toward Zimbabwe.
However, we all wonder whether Obama will reciprocate this gesture of peace and goodwill. Will he live up to the meanings of his names "blessing, the good"?
The historic election of November 4, which saw Americans choosing the first black person to the presidency, has come and gone.
The variables at play in the US presidential poll are important when interrogating pertinent issues in the Zimbabwe-West discourse.
For they mirror African Americans' 400-year struggle to achieve the so-called American dream, vis-a-vis Zimbabwe's revolutionary fight for self-determination.
At the party political level, initially it was race and gender (black/white and male/female).
When Obama emerged the Democrats' candidate, it translated into race and ideology (black/white, Republican/Democrat; right, left, centre right and centre left).
Never has a presidential hopeful's name been such an issue as happened with Barack Hussein Obama.
As is the usual case with US polls, Obama's bid also became a religious issue although it was eventually played down.
Some tried to make the etymology, meanings, spellings and pronunciations of his names central issues, at the expense of real issue as the names underwent immense scrutiny.
Despite all that, Obama still emerged victorious.
This was why the Zimbabwean leader's message was so full of hope, congratulating a leader whose roots are set in Africa and in a country which, like Zimbabwe, fought a bitter struggle to gain independence under the leadership of Jomo Kenyatta.
The olive branch means that a new and positive chapter should be opened.
This writer hopes that Obama will appreciate that it has taken an African four centuries to be acceptable to the white world as a leader they can "trust".
However, I still question a justice system that puts in place mechanisms to prevent capable people whom it clams enjoy freedoms under its constitution to run for high office because of the colour of their skin.
Africa also had to pass that test from the colonial masters before being granted independence. Even then, the past five decades have shown that there are still many hurdles to be cleared before total independence.
Obama's win was good for Africa and its impact was felt everywhere.
Although Africa acknowledges that Obama will not govern single-handedly, they still wonder what his win means for Africa.
How many positives will translate into tangibles from his election agenda?
Obama is now putting together his government and people are already second-guessing his policies through the key people he has so far picked.
There are great expectations after the ruinous Bush policies.
Three principles are central to any American establishment: economy; foreign policy and national security.
The team already in place shows that Obama has not been able to extricate himself from political dynasties like the Kennedys, Clintons and Bushes.
Thus, his policy changes span four decades, since John Kennedy had an immense impact on Obama and the majority of people who voted for him.
His is an unenviable task.
The present line-up for key ministries says it all.
After the rhetoric that characterised his campaign, it is now back to practicalities; serving the American establishment.
He is unlikely to have leeway to push through most of what is on his "change" agenda.
The line-up includes Caroline Kennedy who was a central figure in his campaign. She still has to get a substantive position.
Hillary Clinton is secretary of state-designate and she is true to what critics say about her: a cautious, pragmatist and shrewd contriver who does or says nothing for nothing.
Seeing the concessions former president Bill Clinton made to enable her to get the post, it goes to show how much power the position wields.
Obama said that he admires her because she is tough and they share America's core values.
Another notable appointee is Bush's secretary of defence who retains his post and his Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay policies seem to dovetail with those of Obama's campaign promises.
Obama comes at a time of great instability and the president-elect is going the "African way" of inclusive governments.
On September 15, Zimbabwe's three largest parties signed a Global Political Agreement, paving way for an inclusive Government.
And they did so under the watchful eyes of the Bush administration and other Western governments.
Now faced with a nation divided by Iraq and Afghanistan and reeling under a severe recession, Obama's foreign policy will be intriguing to watch.
Arguments abound that he will be managing a lacklustre US whose superpower status is under threat from emerging economies such as China, Russia and India.
His task will be to "rebrand" America in a way that is acceptable to the establishment, the people who voted for him and an international community that is fed up with Washington's arrogance.
That Susan Rice, dubbed an expert on Zimbabwe, was appointed Ambassador to the United Nations, could mean any one of many things for Africa in general and Zimbabwe in particular.
Considering the huge investments in illegal regime change by the Bush administration, will Zimbabwe be one of Obama first ports of call in the "rebranding" exercise?
His administration already has Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice whose positions on Zimbabwe are well known.
However, what has been striking has been Obama's conspicuous silence on his Africa policy, except for odd comments here and there.
It is doubly odd because his Middle East policy was outlined the day he clinched the party candidacy.
So, whither Zimbabwe under Obama? What are the "changes" under Obama? Will these be changes meant to fullfil America's illegal regime change plans?
Will it be change that takes cognisance of the ruin that Western-induced sanctions have done to Zimbabwe?
Obama and Clinton vigorously supported these illegal sanctions and the regime change agenda.
Will there be an appreciation in the new administration that the land question is core to the principles and values of an independent Zimbabwe?
Will people like Susan Rice and Susan Page of the National Democratic Institute, who was recently in Zimbabwe, tell the truth that land has always been the issue?
Will it be change that will recognises Zimbabwe's sovereignty?
A bitter and protracted liberation struggle left thousands dead and maimed, as well as destabilising neighbouring states, some of which the US is now using to vilify Zimbabwe.
Will there be acknowledgement that the US, Britain and the rest of the Anglo-Saxon world have unfinished business dating back to Jimmy Carter and Margaret Thatcher?
Will the Obama administration also realise that the land issue, even in his native Kenya, is the epicentre of Africa's struggles, that Africa has to empower people using its rich natural resources?
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.
This post was deleted because it contravenes AllAfrica's commenting guidelines.
This post was deleted because it contravenes AllAfrica's commenting guidelines.
The world hopes that Obama does not change his stance on corrupt dictatorships, especially in Africa. The problems of Zimbabwe, Sudan among others should be of great concern to him. I would imagine, concidering he has ties to Africa, was educated in a free society, was brought up with democratic ideals, he will look upon Muagbe as the terrible dictator than he is. I would imagine he was not impressed with Mugabe's olive branch and would rather not to have received anything tainted by Muagbe.
The government of Zimbabwe is not a dictatorship.
Even it were, it would be none of Obama's business: in the same way that a bona fide "dictatorship," North Korea, according to bourgeois ideologues, is none of his business. Need I mention, the Great Republic of China?
By the way, when and where is it written that the bourgeois modus of crafting and managing human conflict, which is what politics is, SHOULD be universalized?
There is nothing sacred about the theoretical and practical prejudices of a theory of democracy, and a theory it is, open to falsification, just as any… [Read Full Text]
"The jury, to put it at the lowest level of generality, is still out on the fecundity of the bourgeoisification of human interactions.'- in your mind maybe; however countless millions of people believe in universal franchisement and government of the people, by the people and for the people. It was this belief that saw Smith and his cronies kicked out and will in time see Mugabe and his henchmen also kicked out.
Dude, of course it is in my mind. Moreover, there is no "maybe" about THAT.
Second, under current mathematical theory, if you say "millions," then those millions cannot, as you assert, be "countless." THEY ARE NUMERABLE, decidably numerable, and RECURSIVELY, to boot.
On Smithie, you are dead wrong. It was not a "belief" that sent Smithie running for cover, that made him sue for peace.
No. Innumerable times, no: it was the force of ARICAN FIGHTERS, DUDE.
Moreover, universal bla, bla, bla, exists nowhere in this world. Surprised? I am not surprised that you are… [Read Full Text]
"Second, under current mathematical theory, if you say "millions," then those millions cannot, as you assert, be "countless." THEY ARE NUMERABLE, decidably numerable, and RECURSIVELY, to boot. "
Oh don't be so pedantic. "countless millions" is an expression.
Your rant just goes to show that you're more concerned with syntax than sense.
See all comments (33).
Obama is for change, Chinja maiitiro its not a matter of an olive branch but change. The change that Zimbabweans believe Obama ndewe chinja blazi.