Published by the government of Zimbabwe
Stephen T. Maimbodei
4 December 2008
(Page 2 of 2)
Will the Obama administration realise that as much as we want democracy, human rights and good governance, these cannot exist outside of economic empowerment?
It is an understatement to tell the Western world that Africans want to be masters of their destiny.
Policies crafted by fly-by-night "experts" will not work until people are fully empowered.
Well-meaning policies on HIV and Aids and poverty should be premised on realities on the ground, such as who exactly is benefiting from Africa's rich natural and human resources.
Why should Africa play second fiddle in
organisations such as the World Trade Organisation and the UN where they cannot even get a permanent veto-status seat?
Africa operates on policies which do not work imposed by the West, and when they do not work, it is reduced to governance problems.
Africa has become a dumping ground for Western excesses and has been negatively impacted by these excesses, resulting in climate change that is causing perennial droughts that threaten food security and regional peace and security.
Why should Africa be so indebted to the West when it is so rich in mineral wealth? Who is fuelling the continent's conflicts when Africa lacks manufacturing capacity?
These are issues ignored by previous American administrations and the European Union, and Zimbabwe and Africa now hope that Obama will look closely and address them with a human heart.
Foreign Secretary-designate Clinton should realise that in a global village no one nation can be allowed to call the shots at the expense of others.
It is not true that Africom is being force-fed on a continent that is lagging in development.
Would the Obama administration pursue a project that Africa has rejected simply because it seeks to preserve American lives at the expense of lives elsewhere?
Late national hero Cde Eddison Zvobgo said in 1980 that the West's unwritten policy was "(Robert) Mugabe must be stopped".
Twenty-eight years later not much has changed and we wonder if Obama will make any changes.
Successive US administrations have sponsored anyone who seems capable of stopping President Mugabe at the expense of real development that benefits all Zimbabweans.
Successive US ambassadors have been posted with the sole mission of dislodging the Zanu-PF Government from power and installing a puppet regime.
The divisive policies of past administrations while perpetuating US interests have been meaningless for the people they claim to be "fighting" for.
This antagonistic approach to Zimbabwe and Africa is what Obama should look at.
Obama should realise that the world is watching him acutely.
Some analysts argue that Obama's Southern Africa policy (read Zimbabwe) will be based on close partnerships with what they say is an amenable emerging leadership in the region.
Such divide-and-rule tactics keep Africa in perpetual underdevelopment.
Clinton's policy influence on Zimbabwe dates back to her days as first lady when she visited Zimbabwe in 1997, and she had the opportunity to meet various interest groups, most of which were anti-Government.
Two years after her visit, MDC was formed with immense backing from the West and with the mandate of effecting an illegal regime change.
The so-called Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act (commonly known by its acronym ZDERA) followed soon after that and sanctions are there for all to see.
In June 2007, Clinton sponsored the "Clinton Bill to Support Democracy and Human Rights in Zimbabwe", calling on Washington "to address ongoing human rights concerns in Zimbabwe".
Clinton said that the Bill would send a message to the region that America supports a "free and fair Zimbabwean election and a lasting democratic peace in the years that follow."
These sentiments were echoed in her acceptance statement last Monday, after the appointment.
Obama is no different.
In March 2007, he introduced the "Obama Resolution Condemning Human Rights Violations in Zimbabwe", which basically called for regime change and was passed in June 2007 by the Senate.
However, campaigning and governing are separate issues.
Come January 20, 2009 Obama will be governing, and Zimbabweans anxiously await Obama's response to President Mugabe's olive branch.
Zimbabwe's revolution is ongoing and generations later many will continue from where Cde Mugabe left. The region has also made it clear that it does not want to again host the likes of Jonas Savimbi, Afonso Dhlakama and Laurent Nkunda in order to feed Western interests.
Read comments. Write your own.
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.
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 other theory. The jury, to put it at the lowest level of generality, is still out on the fecundity of the bourgeoisification of human interactions.
"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 not surpised, for softies like you post your emotions, instead of your thoughts.
Cheers from Camp Relexion and the school of hardened souls.
"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.