This Is A Rude Joke, Right?
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Zimbabwe Secret Files: Transcript 1
By Zimbabwe Confidential
Inconceivable as it may seem, Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe and opposition Movement for Democratic Chamge (MDC) leader Morgan Tsvangirai have a direct line of communication. After Tsvangirai won the first round of the presidential vote on March 29, Mugabe was ready to concede, but he knew that his generals would not accept it. He secretly reached out to Tsvangirai and two men set up a secure, direct line of communication through which they have kept in touch almost on a daily basis.
In early May, we were alerted to this interesting arrangement and set out to breach the line. Our effort involved placing a mole within the Zimbabwe Secret Service, a branch of the Zimbabwe's spy agency, Central Intelligence Organization (CIO). The Zimbabwe Secret Service is responsible for the protection of the Zimbabwe President, his spouse, children and visiting foreign heads of state and government.
At the end of July, our mole made a stunning breakthrough and breached the line. Since then, we have been collecting transcripts of all the communication that has transpired between the two men. Since the information is not classified, and in the spirit of openness, we will share it all with you.
Today we bring you the following transcript from the conversation between the two men around midnight on Wednesday, August 27, 2008.
Robert Mugabe: Hello, Morgan! Hello! Are you there! Morgan! Pick up the damn phone, Morgan!
Morgan Tsvangirai: Jesus Christ, Robert. I pick up the phone after three rings, remember?
Robert Mugabe: The line is secure, Morgan.
Morgan Tsvangirai: You sound agitated. You need to calm down.
Robert Mugabe: Don’t tell me to calm down. Especially not after your MPs heckled me in parliament yesterday. What a rude bunch of lieutenants you have.
Morgan Tsvangirai: I had nothing do with it-
Robert Mugabe: Really? You mean you have no control over the agenda of your caucus?
Morgan Tsvangirai: Oh, you have complete control?
Robert Mugabe: Maybe not any more, but I’m proud of my record. For twenty-eight long years I controlled every Zimbabwean’s mind-
Morgan Tsvangirai: Here we go again! Listen, have you really decided to form the next cabinet without me as reported in The Herald?
Robert Mugabe: What other choice do I have? What is a country without a government? Besides, you want me to transfer my powers to you, instead of sharing them. There is a difference between power-sharing and power-transfer-
Morgan Tsvangirai: I know the difference. But I won the March 29 election.
Robert Mugabe: I won the June 27 election mandated by the law of the land.
Morgan Tsvangirai: OK, this is obviously not working-
Robert Mugabe: Thank you! But I will tell you why it’s not working. You were ready to sign on to the power-sharing agreement.
Morgan Tsvangirai: No I wasn’t. Not as long as you retained all the executive authority-
Robert Mugabe: Oh, yes, you were ready, Morgan. But then the British nudged you and said “give us another six months to roast Mugabe”. They assured you that sanctions would be more devastating this time around, that in six months' time my government would collapse-
Morgan Tsvangirai: That’s preposterous! I don’t take orders from the British. I follow the wishes of my fellow Zimbabweans.
Robert Mugabe: How naïve of you, Morgan? Would I have lasted 28 years if I followed the wishes of my fellow Zimbabweans?
Morgan Tsvangirai: You’re the past, Robert. In the now and the future, the people’s will prevails. Any ways, lets’ stick with the issue of the new government, shall we?
Robert Mugabe: Absolutely, and I’ll tell you something about a thing called perception.
Morgan Tsvangirai: What has perception got to do with anything?
Robert Mugabe: Hear me out, first, Morgan-
Morgan Tsvangirai: Alright, get on with it.
Robert Mugabe: Suppose I make one of your MPs Minister of Foreign Affairs, another, Minister of Economic Development, a third, Minister of Social Welfare, and you – (pause) - a ceremonial Prime Minister-
Morgan Tsvangirai: Over my dead body.
Robert Mugabe: Mind your language, Morgan.
Morgan Tsvangirai: You’re insulting me. You have the audacity-
Robert Mugabe: It’s a hypothetical scenario, okay. We form an inclusive government in which you are ceremonial Prime Minister and your lieutenants control the key portfolios just mentioned.
Morgan Tsvangirai: Forget it. Your hypothetical scenario seeks to dump the responsibility for the country’s economic recovery and social services on my lap.
Robert Mugabe: And foreign relations, especially foreign relations. I’ll need your help to re-establish our standing with the family of the nations of the world.
Morgan Tsvangirai: Forget it.
Robert Mugabe: I’m coming to the perception point, Morgan. You see, Zimbabweans have already given me an A-plus for destroying the country. If the country recovers from its current pariah state, even with you as a ceremonial Prime Minister, you think they will forget the pain and suffering I have inflicted upon them? You don’t think they will give you an A-plus for the turn-around? (Pause) Perception, Morgan, it’s all about perception.
Morgan Tsvangirai: My God!
Robert Mugabe: What? What is it, now? I’m just trying to help here-
Morgan Tsvangirai: I know, Robert. Put it in writing
Robert Mugabe: Put what in writing?
Morgan Tsvangirai: All the stuff you just told me.
Inconceivable as it may seem, Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe and opposition Movement for Democratic Chamge (MDC) leader Morgan Tsvangirai have a direct line of communication. After Tsvangirai won the first round of the presidential vote on March 29, Mugabe was ready to concede, but he knew that his generals would not accept it. He secretly reached out to Tsvangirai and two men set up a secure, direct line of communication through which they have kept in touch almost on a daily basis.
In early May, we were alerted to this interesting arrangement and set out to breach the line. Our effort involved placing a mole within the Zimbabwe Secret Service, a branch of the Zimbabwe's spy agency, Central Intelligence Organization (CIO). The Zimbabwe Secret Service is responsible for the protection of the Zimbabwe President, his spouse, children and visiting foreign heads of state and government.
At the end of July, our mole made a stunning breakthrough and breached the line. Since then, we have been collecting transcripts of all the communication that has transpired between the two men. Since the information is not classified, and in the spirit of openness, we will share it all with you.
Today we bring you the following transcript from the conversation between the two men around midnight on Wednesday, August 27, 2008.
Robert Mugabe: Hello, Morgan! Hello! Are you there! Morgan! Pick up the damn phone, Morgan!
Morgan Tsvangirai: Jesus Christ, Robert. I pick up the phone after three rings, remember?
Robert Mugabe: The line is secure, Morgan.
Morgan Tsvangirai: You sound agitated. You need to calm down.
Robert Mugabe: Don’t tell me to calm down. Especially not after your MPs heckled me in parliament yesterday. What a rude bunch of lieutenants you have.
Morgan Tsvangirai: I had nothing do with it-
Robert Mugabe: Really? You mean you have no control over the agenda of your caucus?
Morgan Tsvangirai: Oh, you have complete control?
Robert Mugabe: Maybe not any more, but I’m proud of my record. For twenty-eight long years I controlled every Zimbabwean’s mind-
Morgan Tsvangirai: Here we go again! Listen, have you really decided to form the next cabinet without me as reported in The Herald?
Robert Mugabe: What other choice do I have? What is a country without a government? Besides, you want me to transfer my powers to you, instead of sharing them. There is a difference between power-sharing and power-transfer-
Morgan Tsvangirai: I know the difference. But I won the March 29 election.
Robert Mugabe: I won the June 27 election mandated by the law of the land.
Morgan Tsvangirai: OK, this is obviously not working-
Robert Mugabe: Thank you! But I will tell you why it’s not working. You were ready to sign on to the power-sharing agreement.
Morgan Tsvangirai: No I wasn’t. Not as long as you retained all the executive authority-
Robert Mugabe: Oh, yes, you were ready, Morgan. But then the British nudged you and said “give us another six months to roast Mugabe”. They assured you that sanctions would be more devastating this time around, that in six months' time my government would collapse-
Morgan Tsvangirai: That’s preposterous! I don’t take orders from the British. I follow the wishes of my fellow Zimbabweans.
Robert Mugabe: How naïve of you, Morgan? Would I have lasted 28 years if I followed the wishes of my fellow Zimbabweans?
Morgan Tsvangirai: You’re the past, Robert. In the now and the future, the people’s will prevails. Any ways, lets’ stick with the issue of the new government, shall we?
Robert Mugabe: Absolutely, and I’ll tell you something about a thing called perception.
Morgan Tsvangirai: What has perception got to do with anything?
Robert Mugabe: Hear me out, first, Morgan-
Morgan Tsvangirai: Alright, get on with it.
Robert Mugabe: Suppose I make one of your MPs Minister of Foreign Affairs, another, Minister of Economic Development, a third, Minister of Social Welfare, and you – (pause) - a ceremonial Prime Minister-
Morgan Tsvangirai: Over my dead body.
Robert Mugabe: Mind your language, Morgan.
Morgan Tsvangirai: You’re insulting me. You have the audacity-
Robert Mugabe: It’s a hypothetical scenario, okay. We form an inclusive government in which you are ceremonial Prime Minister and your lieutenants control the key portfolios just mentioned.
Morgan Tsvangirai: Forget it. Your hypothetical scenario seeks to dump the responsibility for the country’s economic recovery and social services on my lap.
Robert Mugabe: And foreign relations, especially foreign relations. I’ll need your help to re-establish our standing with the family of the nations of the world.
Morgan Tsvangirai: Forget it.
Robert Mugabe: I’m coming to the perception point, Morgan. You see, Zimbabweans have already given me an A-plus for destroying the country. If the country recovers from its current pariah state, even with you as a ceremonial Prime Minister, you think they will forget the pain and suffering I have inflicted upon them? You don’t think they will give you an A-plus for the turn-around? (Pause) Perception, Morgan, it’s all about perception.
Morgan Tsvangirai: My God!
Robert Mugabe: What? What is it, now? I’m just trying to help here-
Morgan Tsvangirai: I know, Robert. Put it in writing
Robert Mugabe: Put what in writing?
Morgan Tsvangirai: All the stuff you just told me.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Mutambara Criticism Reveals Disturbing Zimbabwean Inferiority Complex
By Obie Madondo
The recent criticism of Arthur Mutambara’s Heroes’ Day speech is an attack on a new consciousness that the prolonged Zimbabwe crisis has sired. This consciousness is unequivocally critical of the West’s rigid and counterproductive position against Robert Mugabe. It resents the West’s coddling of opposition MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai as much as Mugabe’s dictatorship. Mostly, it resents Tsvangirai’s jinxed leadership.
Former South African President, Nelson Mandela, recently suggested that Zimbabwe’s crisis was a failure of leadership. He implied that both Mugabe and Tsvangirai had failed Zimbabwe. The March 29 election produced an electoral front-runner but not a president. The disputed June 27 re-run produced an unacceptable president. The ongoing talks have yet to create democratic leadership.
Both Mugabe and Tsvangirai are now a liability. The Zimbabwe Mugabe now proposes is a cauldron of bigoted authoritarian nationalism masquerading as African self-determination. Tsvangirai is unequivocally pro-West. On the surface his proposed Zimbabwe is an antidote to Mugabe’s. In reality, it is an acquiescing proxy country that will host secret CIA torture chambers while staying silent on Western excesses.
Both propositions are unacceptable.
Mutambara earned the political capital that should allow him to propose a different direction. With 10 seats, Mutambara’s MDC faction holds the swing vote in the lower house of Parliament, where Tsvangirai faction and Mugabe’s Zanu-PF are separated by just one seat. His proposed Zimbabwe is one that honors Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle while insisting on being treated as an equal by the rest of the world. Unlike Tsvangirai, Mutambara is proposing a Zimbabwe that is also willing to challenge the West’s criminal and genocidal military adventure in Iraq.
Now Mutambara is accused of currying favour with Mugabe by parroting the dictator’s anti-West rhetoric. Nonsense! Mugabe does not hold the Zimbabwean monopoly to criticize the West. No sane and peace-loving Zimbabwean condones Guantanamo Bay, the American Gulag. At the core, Zimbabweans share the same revulsion of America’s frequent double standards and abuse of power.
In his speech, Mutambara justifiably asked: “Where are the Western democratic demands to Egypt, Angola, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Israel, Pakistan, and Kuwait? Moreover, what does the record of the US and UK in Iraq, Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay teach us?” Mutambara’s critics have yet to answer these questions.
Mutambara went on: “Who took out Patrice Lumumba, Salvador Allende and Kwame Nkrumah?” The West did. These individuals, leaders of sovereign countries, had become expendable because they stood in the way of American imperial interests.
Again, Mutambara asked: “Who created and nursed Mobutu Sese Seko, Sadam Hussein, Manuel Noriega, Jonas Savimbi and Osama Bin Laden?” Again, the West did. These criminals were one-time assets of America’s imperial ambition.
In attacking the West’s proven double standards and patronizing arrogance Mutambara vocalized what Zimbabweans feel at the core. He played the quintessential critic and fearless, independent mind. His chief crime: he is a black African criticizing the benevolent and almighty white West. His other crime is praising Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle, which humbled the white supremacist arrogance of Rhodesia. Mutambara rubbed salt into an immortal white wound.
Forget the hullabaloo about racial tolerance, the West is yet to regard black Africans as equals, let alone accept their criticism. The West has a new definition of an acceptable black person – the Mandelas, Obamas and Tsvangirais.
But here is the contradiction:
Throughout the 1970s and '80s, Apartheid South African banned the then liberation movement, African National Congress (ANC) and designated it a terrorist group. The United States designated Mandela a terrorist; he required special certification from the US secretary of state every time he visited the US.
This is the same Nelson Mandela who spent 27 years in jail for fighting Apartheid; the same Mandela elected South Africa's first black president in 1994. It is the same Mandela who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his reconciliatory leadership which helped South Africa transition peacefully from Apartheid to majority rule. This is the same Mandela who speaks for global justice, an undisputed world statesman and international symbol of reconciliation, peace and freedom. It is the same Mandela who is good friends with former US President, Bill Clinton.
The US only removed Mandela from this infamous list in 2008. Mandela liberated everyone else but himself. This is the kind of African the West is comfortable with. Isn’t this the modern manifestation of racism?
US Democratic candidate for the White House, Barack Obama, is the ideal African American. His conciliatory position makes whites less guilty about slavery and racism. Some radical Obama critics credit his phenomenal success to an unwritten “deal” he allegedly struck with white America, where he will not to rub history in its face in exchange for support for his White House.
The pro-West Tsvangirai is easy for the West to deal with, but no Mandela or Obama. Since becoming leader of the MDC Tsvangirai has never criticized the West. He is yet to honor a liberation struggle that freed him from racist colonial rule. The West purchased Tsvangirai’s conscience with the unprecedented sympathy and moral and material support it has lavished on him in the last ten years. Tsvangirai’s humble education and lack of sophistication has made him the essence of an acquiescing African. He is the epitome of a new and disturbing African inferiority complex.
But what’s to be said of educated Zimbabwean critics of Mutambara? They shamelessly seek the West’s approval through unrestrained Mugabe-bashing. In dealing with European and American hegemony, they practice debilitating self-censorship. They invent myths and excuses to mask their inferiority complex. The West is far too powerful, we are told. We need the West more than the West needs us, etc.
Maybe we are still colonized, mentally, after all? In Australia, South and North America, Europeans conquered the natives’ land. In Africa, they failed to conquer the black person’s land but successfully appropriated most of his conscience.
Heidi Holland, the author of the book Dinner With Mugabe, tells us that the British treated Mugabe condescendingly during the Lancaster House talks. He was bullied, belittled, denigrated and subjected to socially humiliating treatment in a move that sought to weaken him. Mugabe gave in to British power and embraced the same inferiority complex that’s now afflicting Tsvangirai.
The British gave Zimbabwe a constitution that required the protection of white economic privileges acquired through black slavery, lynching and outright theft. They gave Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe. Mugabe relentlessly sought the West’s approval. In the name of reconciliation, he forgave former Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Douglas Smith, a war criminal whose regime slaughtered fifty thousands, mostly defenseless black women and children during the liberation struggle.
Then Mugabe slaughtered 20 000 during Gukurahundi and what happened? Gukurahundi partly sought to bolster security for white farms and other investments in Matabeleland and the Midlands. The West rewarded Mugabe with honorary degrees after the massacres. In 1994, the dictator became the Knight Commander of the Order of Bath, knighted by Queen Elizabeth II.
Tsvangirai is treading Mugabe’s footsteps and this is exactly what irks Mutambara. Those who share his critical view of the West are informed by the unfortunate outcome and subsequent consequences of Lancaster House. They are fearful of another bad deal.
But Mutambara is simultaneously proposing a revisionist position on the Zimbabwe crisis while engaging the larger question of global citizenship. He is chastising both Mugabe and Tsvangirai. Mutambara is challenging the veiled racism that characterizes the West’s engagement of Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is now a conglomeration of negative statistics, fodder for the Western intellectual articulation of Africa’s failed democratic project.
Christopher Bickerton, the co-editor of Politics without Sovereignty: A Critique of Contemporary International Relations even suggests that the West is “using Mugabe as a stick to beat Africa” for failing to rid itself of tyrants.
By criticizing the West and Tsvangirai, Mutambara is risking his political career. Already he is deprived on the moral and material support lavished on Tsvangirai. The assault on his reputation has already begun with the futile effort to portray him as a Mugabe reincarnate.
Praising Zimbabwe’s liberation war is not Mugabeism. Criticizing the West’s criminal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is not Mugabeism. It is global citizenship.
If Mutambara is the great future he’s playing, he must be willing to risk it all for the sake of his conscience. He must continue to steer away from Zimbabweans who demean themselves and suppress their conscience for the sake of the West’s approval. Mutambara should be prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice and declare: give me the freedom of conscience or give me death! It is a matter of life and death. But this one is a different kind of death; it’s the death of the soul of Zimbabwe.
The recent criticism of Arthur Mutambara’s Heroes’ Day speech is an attack on a new consciousness that the prolonged Zimbabwe crisis has sired. This consciousness is unequivocally critical of the West’s rigid and counterproductive position against Robert Mugabe. It resents the West’s coddling of opposition MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai as much as Mugabe’s dictatorship. Mostly, it resents Tsvangirai’s jinxed leadership.
Former South African President, Nelson Mandela, recently suggested that Zimbabwe’s crisis was a failure of leadership. He implied that both Mugabe and Tsvangirai had failed Zimbabwe. The March 29 election produced an electoral front-runner but not a president. The disputed June 27 re-run produced an unacceptable president. The ongoing talks have yet to create democratic leadership.
Both Mugabe and Tsvangirai are now a liability. The Zimbabwe Mugabe now proposes is a cauldron of bigoted authoritarian nationalism masquerading as African self-determination. Tsvangirai is unequivocally pro-West. On the surface his proposed Zimbabwe is an antidote to Mugabe’s. In reality, it is an acquiescing proxy country that will host secret CIA torture chambers while staying silent on Western excesses.
Both propositions are unacceptable.
Mutambara earned the political capital that should allow him to propose a different direction. With 10 seats, Mutambara’s MDC faction holds the swing vote in the lower house of Parliament, where Tsvangirai faction and Mugabe’s Zanu-PF are separated by just one seat. His proposed Zimbabwe is one that honors Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle while insisting on being treated as an equal by the rest of the world. Unlike Tsvangirai, Mutambara is proposing a Zimbabwe that is also willing to challenge the West’s criminal and genocidal military adventure in Iraq.
Now Mutambara is accused of currying favour with Mugabe by parroting the dictator’s anti-West rhetoric. Nonsense! Mugabe does not hold the Zimbabwean monopoly to criticize the West. No sane and peace-loving Zimbabwean condones Guantanamo Bay, the American Gulag. At the core, Zimbabweans share the same revulsion of America’s frequent double standards and abuse of power.
In his speech, Mutambara justifiably asked: “Where are the Western democratic demands to Egypt, Angola, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Israel, Pakistan, and Kuwait? Moreover, what does the record of the US and UK in Iraq, Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay teach us?” Mutambara’s critics have yet to answer these questions.
Mutambara went on: “Who took out Patrice Lumumba, Salvador Allende and Kwame Nkrumah?” The West did. These individuals, leaders of sovereign countries, had become expendable because they stood in the way of American imperial interests.
Again, Mutambara asked: “Who created and nursed Mobutu Sese Seko, Sadam Hussein, Manuel Noriega, Jonas Savimbi and Osama Bin Laden?” Again, the West did. These criminals were one-time assets of America’s imperial ambition.
In attacking the West’s proven double standards and patronizing arrogance Mutambara vocalized what Zimbabweans feel at the core. He played the quintessential critic and fearless, independent mind. His chief crime: he is a black African criticizing the benevolent and almighty white West. His other crime is praising Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle, which humbled the white supremacist arrogance of Rhodesia. Mutambara rubbed salt into an immortal white wound.
Forget the hullabaloo about racial tolerance, the West is yet to regard black Africans as equals, let alone accept their criticism. The West has a new definition of an acceptable black person – the Mandelas, Obamas and Tsvangirais.
But here is the contradiction:
Throughout the 1970s and '80s, Apartheid South African banned the then liberation movement, African National Congress (ANC) and designated it a terrorist group. The United States designated Mandela a terrorist; he required special certification from the US secretary of state every time he visited the US.
This is the same Nelson Mandela who spent 27 years in jail for fighting Apartheid; the same Mandela elected South Africa's first black president in 1994. It is the same Mandela who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his reconciliatory leadership which helped South Africa transition peacefully from Apartheid to majority rule. This is the same Mandela who speaks for global justice, an undisputed world statesman and international symbol of reconciliation, peace and freedom. It is the same Mandela who is good friends with former US President, Bill Clinton.
The US only removed Mandela from this infamous list in 2008. Mandela liberated everyone else but himself. This is the kind of African the West is comfortable with. Isn’t this the modern manifestation of racism?
US Democratic candidate for the White House, Barack Obama, is the ideal African American. His conciliatory position makes whites less guilty about slavery and racism. Some radical Obama critics credit his phenomenal success to an unwritten “deal” he allegedly struck with white America, where he will not to rub history in its face in exchange for support for his White House.
The pro-West Tsvangirai is easy for the West to deal with, but no Mandela or Obama. Since becoming leader of the MDC Tsvangirai has never criticized the West. He is yet to honor a liberation struggle that freed him from racist colonial rule. The West purchased Tsvangirai’s conscience with the unprecedented sympathy and moral and material support it has lavished on him in the last ten years. Tsvangirai’s humble education and lack of sophistication has made him the essence of an acquiescing African. He is the epitome of a new and disturbing African inferiority complex.
But what’s to be said of educated Zimbabwean critics of Mutambara? They shamelessly seek the West’s approval through unrestrained Mugabe-bashing. In dealing with European and American hegemony, they practice debilitating self-censorship. They invent myths and excuses to mask their inferiority complex. The West is far too powerful, we are told. We need the West more than the West needs us, etc.
Maybe we are still colonized, mentally, after all? In Australia, South and North America, Europeans conquered the natives’ land. In Africa, they failed to conquer the black person’s land but successfully appropriated most of his conscience.
Heidi Holland, the author of the book Dinner With Mugabe, tells us that the British treated Mugabe condescendingly during the Lancaster House talks. He was bullied, belittled, denigrated and subjected to socially humiliating treatment in a move that sought to weaken him. Mugabe gave in to British power and embraced the same inferiority complex that’s now afflicting Tsvangirai.
The British gave Zimbabwe a constitution that required the protection of white economic privileges acquired through black slavery, lynching and outright theft. They gave Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe. Mugabe relentlessly sought the West’s approval. In the name of reconciliation, he forgave former Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Douglas Smith, a war criminal whose regime slaughtered fifty thousands, mostly defenseless black women and children during the liberation struggle.
Then Mugabe slaughtered 20 000 during Gukurahundi and what happened? Gukurahundi partly sought to bolster security for white farms and other investments in Matabeleland and the Midlands. The West rewarded Mugabe with honorary degrees after the massacres. In 1994, the dictator became the Knight Commander of the Order of Bath, knighted by Queen Elizabeth II.
Tsvangirai is treading Mugabe’s footsteps and this is exactly what irks Mutambara. Those who share his critical view of the West are informed by the unfortunate outcome and subsequent consequences of Lancaster House. They are fearful of another bad deal.
But Mutambara is simultaneously proposing a revisionist position on the Zimbabwe crisis while engaging the larger question of global citizenship. He is chastising both Mugabe and Tsvangirai. Mutambara is challenging the veiled racism that characterizes the West’s engagement of Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is now a conglomeration of negative statistics, fodder for the Western intellectual articulation of Africa’s failed democratic project.
Christopher Bickerton, the co-editor of Politics without Sovereignty: A Critique of Contemporary International Relations even suggests that the West is “using Mugabe as a stick to beat Africa” for failing to rid itself of tyrants.
By criticizing the West and Tsvangirai, Mutambara is risking his political career. Already he is deprived on the moral and material support lavished on Tsvangirai. The assault on his reputation has already begun with the futile effort to portray him as a Mugabe reincarnate.
Praising Zimbabwe’s liberation war is not Mugabeism. Criticizing the West’s criminal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is not Mugabeism. It is global citizenship.
If Mutambara is the great future he’s playing, he must be willing to risk it all for the sake of his conscience. He must continue to steer away from Zimbabweans who demean themselves and suppress their conscience for the sake of the West’s approval. Mutambara should be prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice and declare: give me the freedom of conscience or give me death! It is a matter of life and death. But this one is a different kind of death; it’s the death of the soul of Zimbabwe.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Kirsty Coventry for Zimbabwe President
By Obie Madondo
Nelson Mandela recently bemourned the traggic failure of leadership in Zimbabwe. During the March election opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai beat long-time President and tyrant, Robert Mugabe, but failed to secure a 50-plus margin to secure the presidency. Robert Mugabe "won" the June re-run, in which he he was the sole candidate, after Tsvangirai had boycotted the vote. Now the two Zimbabwean leaders are locked in a battle for supremacy, without any guarantee that an agreement will be reached any time soon, if at all.
Why not compromise and surrender the esteemed office to one Zimbabwean who has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that she's qualified for the job: recording-busting swimming superstar, Kirsty Leigh Coventry.
As the New York Times recently put it, “Coventry’s performances in the pool have been a steady source of good news for Zimbabwe.” For the last ten years, Zimbabwe has suffered tremendously under the brutal dictatorship of Robert Mugabe. Through a combination of sporting excellence and diplomacy, Coventry has consistently raised the Zimbabwean flag and given Zimbabweans something to smile about.
Sporting Excellence
In 2000, while still attending the Dominican Convent High School in Harare, Zimbabwe, Coventry became the first Zimbabwean swimmer to reach the semifinals at the Olympics and was named Zimbabwe's Sports Woman of the Year.Coventry bagged 1 gold and 3 silver medals at the Beijing Olympics. To date, she has amassed 7 Olympic medals and more than 20 gold, silver and bronze medals in World Championships, All-Africa Games and other international competitions.
This phenomenal run started at the Athens Olympics in 2004. Coventry won a full set of medals: gold in the 200m backstroke; silver in the 100m back; and bronze in the 200m individual medley. This was the first time Zimbabwe won an Olympic medal since 1980. Coventry returned home to a riotous and hero’s welcome. She was hailed as a “national treasure” and greeted at the airport by beating drums, traditional dancers and hundreds of fans screaming and waving banners. As if to immortalize her triumph, many new babies were given her first name, often with the middle name of "Coventry". Many other were simply named "Gold Medal".
Even Robert Mugabe, considered by critics to be racist, could not help celebrating Coventry’s undeniable power. He called her "a golden girl" and hosted a reception for her, presented her with a diplomatic passport and “pocket money” to the tune of US$50,000.Zimbabweans put aside racial tensions aside to celebrate a true hero! At the 2005 World Championships in Montreal, Canada, Coventry grabbed 4 medals: gold in both the 100m and 200m backstroke and silver in the 100m and the 200m individual medley. Although she was the only swimmer from Zimbabwe, her performance allowed her country to rank third in the medal count by nation.
Diplomacy
Coventry’s commitment to Zimbabwe is unquestionable. Throughout her international career she has repeatedly had to deal with an international media relentlessly soliciting inflammatory and divisive statements on the escalating political crisis in Zimbabwe. She recently told Reuters news agency: "I strongly believe that athletics and politics should not mix. I just need to be proud that I get to compete for and represent my country and that's it. What I love is seeing people back home feeding off my success, and giving them something to cheer for."
This, undoubtedly, is the language that unites and heals. It’s the language of diplomacy. If there is a better Zimbabwean out there, especially in this difficult time in Zimbabwe, please, let me know!
Here are a few more words of wisdom from Kirsty:
"I wanted to take care of this one, no matter what I will go down fighting," Beijing, 2008, just before bagging the gold.
“As everyone knows, it's pretty tough back home right now. I think sport is kind of taking a little bit of the back seat. But I am excited to be here representing Zimbabwe. Hopefully, it could get people back home especially the youngsters back home excited about sports."
"I take any opportunity I can to raise our country's flag really high and get some shining positive light on things over there (Zimbabwe)."
"I am getting a really good reception from the people back home.""It was awesome to have my flag raised; it's huge for the people back home."
"Oh my gosh, people back home are so excited. I have been getting cards and text messages. " "I try not to think about it (political situation) too much other than as a positive thing to get people excited back home. It doesn't feel like pressure, it feels like an opportunity to get people excited and happy, to give them something to enjoy."
THE MEDAL COUNT:
2008 Olympics:
Gold in the 200m Backstroke (2:05.24 WR)
Silver in the 400m IM (4:29.89 AR)
Silver in the 100m Backstroke (59.19)
Silver in the 200m IM (2:08.59 AR)
2007 World Championships:
Silver in the 200m backstroke (2:07.54)
Silver in the 200m IM (2:10.74) 2007
All-Africa Games:
Gold in the 200m IM (2:13.02 CR)
Gold in the 400m IM (4:39.91 CR)
Gold in the 50m freestyle (26.19)
Gold in the 800m freestyle (8:43.89 CR)
Gold in the 50m backstroke (28.89 AR)
Gold in the 100m backstroke (1:01.28 CR)
Gold in the 200m backstroke (2:10.66 CR)
Silver in the 100m breaststroke (1:11.86)
Silver in the 4x100m medley (4:21.60 NR)
Silver in the 4x200m freestyle (8:38.20 NR)
2005 World Championships:
Gold in the 100m backstroke (1:00.24)
Gold in the 200m backstroke (2:08.52)
Silver in the 200m IM (2:11.13)
Silver in the 400m IM (4:39.72)
2004 Olympics:
Bronze in the 200m IM (2:12.72)
Gold in the 200m backstroke (2:09.19)
Silver in the 100m backstroke (1:00.50)
Nelson Mandela recently bemourned the traggic failure of leadership in Zimbabwe. During the March election opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai beat long-time President and tyrant, Robert Mugabe, but failed to secure a 50-plus margin to secure the presidency. Robert Mugabe "won" the June re-run, in which he he was the sole candidate, after Tsvangirai had boycotted the vote. Now the two Zimbabwean leaders are locked in a battle for supremacy, without any guarantee that an agreement will be reached any time soon, if at all.
Why not compromise and surrender the esteemed office to one Zimbabwean who has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that she's qualified for the job: recording-busting swimming superstar, Kirsty Leigh Coventry.
As the New York Times recently put it, “Coventry’s performances in the pool have been a steady source of good news for Zimbabwe.” For the last ten years, Zimbabwe has suffered tremendously under the brutal dictatorship of Robert Mugabe. Through a combination of sporting excellence and diplomacy, Coventry has consistently raised the Zimbabwean flag and given Zimbabweans something to smile about.
Sporting Excellence
In 2000, while still attending the Dominican Convent High School in Harare, Zimbabwe, Coventry became the first Zimbabwean swimmer to reach the semifinals at the Olympics and was named Zimbabwe's Sports Woman of the Year.Coventry bagged 1 gold and 3 silver medals at the Beijing Olympics. To date, she has amassed 7 Olympic medals and more than 20 gold, silver and bronze medals in World Championships, All-Africa Games and other international competitions.
This phenomenal run started at the Athens Olympics in 2004. Coventry won a full set of medals: gold in the 200m backstroke; silver in the 100m back; and bronze in the 200m individual medley. This was the first time Zimbabwe won an Olympic medal since 1980. Coventry returned home to a riotous and hero’s welcome. She was hailed as a “national treasure” and greeted at the airport by beating drums, traditional dancers and hundreds of fans screaming and waving banners. As if to immortalize her triumph, many new babies were given her first name, often with the middle name of "Coventry". Many other were simply named "Gold Medal".
Even Robert Mugabe, considered by critics to be racist, could not help celebrating Coventry’s undeniable power. He called her "a golden girl" and hosted a reception for her, presented her with a diplomatic passport and “pocket money” to the tune of US$50,000.Zimbabweans put aside racial tensions aside to celebrate a true hero! At the 2005 World Championships in Montreal, Canada, Coventry grabbed 4 medals: gold in both the 100m and 200m backstroke and silver in the 100m and the 200m individual medley. Although she was the only swimmer from Zimbabwe, her performance allowed her country to rank third in the medal count by nation.
Diplomacy
Coventry’s commitment to Zimbabwe is unquestionable. Throughout her international career she has repeatedly had to deal with an international media relentlessly soliciting inflammatory and divisive statements on the escalating political crisis in Zimbabwe. She recently told Reuters news agency: "I strongly believe that athletics and politics should not mix. I just need to be proud that I get to compete for and represent my country and that's it. What I love is seeing people back home feeding off my success, and giving them something to cheer for."
This, undoubtedly, is the language that unites and heals. It’s the language of diplomacy. If there is a better Zimbabwean out there, especially in this difficult time in Zimbabwe, please, let me know!
Here are a few more words of wisdom from Kirsty:
"I wanted to take care of this one, no matter what I will go down fighting," Beijing, 2008, just before bagging the gold.
“As everyone knows, it's pretty tough back home right now. I think sport is kind of taking a little bit of the back seat. But I am excited to be here representing Zimbabwe. Hopefully, it could get people back home especially the youngsters back home excited about sports."
"I take any opportunity I can to raise our country's flag really high and get some shining positive light on things over there (Zimbabwe)."
"I am getting a really good reception from the people back home.""It was awesome to have my flag raised; it's huge for the people back home."
"Oh my gosh, people back home are so excited. I have been getting cards and text messages. " "I try not to think about it (political situation) too much other than as a positive thing to get people excited back home. It doesn't feel like pressure, it feels like an opportunity to get people excited and happy, to give them something to enjoy."
THE MEDAL COUNT:
2008 Olympics:
Gold in the 200m Backstroke (2:05.24 WR)
Silver in the 400m IM (4:29.89 AR)
Silver in the 100m Backstroke (59.19)
Silver in the 200m IM (2:08.59 AR)
2007 World Championships:
Silver in the 200m backstroke (2:07.54)
Silver in the 200m IM (2:10.74) 2007
All-Africa Games:
Gold in the 200m IM (2:13.02 CR)
Gold in the 400m IM (4:39.91 CR)
Gold in the 50m freestyle (26.19)
Gold in the 800m freestyle (8:43.89 CR)
Gold in the 50m backstroke (28.89 AR)
Gold in the 100m backstroke (1:01.28 CR)
Gold in the 200m backstroke (2:10.66 CR)
Silver in the 100m breaststroke (1:11.86)
Silver in the 4x100m medley (4:21.60 NR)
Silver in the 4x200m freestyle (8:38.20 NR)
2005 World Championships:
Gold in the 100m backstroke (1:00.24)
Gold in the 200m backstroke (2:08.52)
Silver in the 200m IM (2:11.13)
Silver in the 400m IM (4:39.72)
2004 Olympics:
Bronze in the 200m IM (2:12.72)
Gold in the 200m backstroke (2:09.19)
Silver in the 100m backstroke (1:00.50)
Monday, July 14, 2008
Anatomy of A Doomed Sanctions Campaign
By Obie Madondo
Western leaders have only their arrogant, supremacist and manipulative attitude to blame for the spectacular defeat of the draft “United Nations Security Council resolution” to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe. In pushing for the sanctions, they played dirty, engaged in open moral blackmailing and totally ignored reality.
Russia and China’s giant-killing veto was a direct indictment of this undiplomatic attitude.
Russia’s UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said sanctions would have taken the UN beyond its mandate in trying to punish political disputes by "artificially elevating them to the level of a threat" to international peace and security. Churkin believed the sanctions move was “illegitimate and dangerous”.
Russia is accusing the West of vindictiveness, lying and exaggeration in the name of the UN here. Moscow is alleging an attempted derailment of the UN Charter for self-interests that have nothing to do with helping Zimbabweans out of the Robert Mugabe dictatorship.
Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya accused the West of “nation-tinkering” and attempted theft of the Zimbabwe political crisis from the domestic scene, where it belongs.
An examination of the anatomy of this failed sanctions campaign will justify the indictment of the West by both Russia and China.
The West’s first response to Mugabe’s June 27 re-election purported to highlight global indignation at the suffering that Mugabe has imposed on Zimbabweans. The West rejected the result and moved to de-legitimize Mugabe’s stolen mandate. Both the US and European Union (EU) called for the outright recognition of Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), as the legitimate president of Zimbabwe.
Surely, Tsvangirai can not be the “legitimate” president of Zimbabwe. He won the March election, held under an undemocratic electoral arrangement he consented to, but failed to score 50-plus percent.
But the West had no clear strategy to turn rhetoric into reality. The two weeks leading to the G8 Summit in Japan witnessed a powerful diplomatic offensive as leaders of G8 and EU countries took personal charge of their countries’ offensive against Mugabe.
In Berlin, Chancellor Angela Merkel guaranteed that Germany and the EU would seek "all possible sanctions" against Mugabe, and “think up all possible sanctions and check to see what more we can do…”
In the UK, Queen Elizabeth II finally stripped Mugabe of the knighthood she bestowed on him in 1994. The Queen knighted Mugabe well after he slaughtered 20 000 innocent, defenseless, ethnic Ndebele villagers in the early 1980s.
In Canada, the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper finally imposed travel, work and study bans on “senior Zimbabwean officials”. Like all Western countries, Ottawa protested neither Mugabe’s 1980s genocide nor the Queen shameless honor.
But this time playing tough with Mugabe promised domestic political capital. Harper faces a possible federal vote likely to be dominated by climate change and the gridlocked war in Afghanistan.
Thanks to the disastrous Iraq War, domestic sub-prime mortgage meltdown, an economy hurtling toward recession, huge budget deficits and a plummeting dollar, the majority of Americans consider US President George W. Bush’s presidency to be a failure. Many say history will record him as the worst US president.
In the UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s ruling Labour Party came fifth in a June Parliamentary by-election in Henley-on-Thames, near London. John Kampfner suggests that the party “might not just lose the next election, but be wiped off the map”.
Sanctions on Zimbabwe would have handed the three leaders a diplomatic coup.
But the West’s campaign could only hold with solid African backing. In Zimbabwe Tsvangirai tried to sabotage South African President Thabo’s SADC-mandated mediation effort. He reportedly personally asked Mbeki to arrange a meeting with Mugabe. The dictator, Mbeki and Arthur Mutambara, leader of the smaller faction of the MDC showed up. Tsvangirai shamed them by boycotting the meeting at the last minute.
Elsewhere in Africa, Botswana rejected Mugabe’s re-election and but curiously agitated for Zimbabwe’s expulsion from the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC).
Kenyan Prime Minister, Raila Odinga, called on the African Union (AU) to suspend Zimbabwe. Odinga belongs at The Hague. 1 500 Kenyans were slaughtered in the aftermath of last December’s election because of his criminal political negligence.
As the Western leaders pushed for sanctions, the Western media reprised the collusive posture it assumed on the eve of the disastrous invasion of Iraq. The western media hung on to every word Western leaders and their African mouthpieces said. No one bothered to explain how exactly new sanctions would topple Mugabe while guaranteeing a meal on the table for Zimbabweans.
At the end of June the New York Times carried the sad story of Blessing Mabhena, an 11-months old Zimbabwean baby boy whose legs had allegedly been broken by Mugabe’s thugs. The story drew global outrage. The papers later confessed that the story had been exaggerated.
As the G8 summit began, the Canadian media choked with news of Harper taking the lead to convince G8 leaders to act against Zimbabwe. The British media said the same of Brown, and the American media of Bush. Who exactly was trying to convince who? Why all the convincing if the case against Mugabe was clear-cut?
As the summit progressed, world public opinion had been won over, but not quite. Brown went for the kill and used shock tactics to shame the G8 into line. He showed all a picture of the charred body of Joshua Bakacheza, an opposition members murdered by Mugabe's thugs.
African countries needed a special kind of manipulation. Brown urged Africa to “now see [that] what is happening in Zimbabwe is damaging the credibility of Africa as a whole.” Canada’s Globe and Mail newspaper suggested that seven African leaders were cautioned that Africa’s negative perception in G8 countries could adversely affect the flow of aid dollars. Ah, dollars!
The West ignored Presidents Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete and Abdoulaye Wade of Tanzania and Senegal, respectively, who insisted that the AU favored a negotiated settlement and a government of national unity. By pushing ahead with the sanctions agenda the West clearly showed contempt for the African sentiment and position.
But the West’s biggest faux pax was its deliberate disregard of the true positions of both Russia and China. They banked on negotiations the UN headquarters in New York. But, as Russia and China showed with the veto, the UN Security Council is a theatre of international politics where influential countries exploit global problems, however small, for self-interest.
China’s economic paw is all over Africa. China is now among Zimbabwe’s biggest trading partners. Beijing also sells arms to Harare. Beijing had everything to lose from imposing sanctions on Mugabe.
For Russia, the Zimbabwe sanctions vote provided the opportunity for simultaneous revenge against the US and UK. During the G8 summit, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev criticized the U.S. deal to place parts of a missile-defense shield in the Czech Republic. He promised to respond. The US thought Medvedev was bluffing? The UK accuses the Russian state of complicit in the fatal poisoning of former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko. The UK thinks Moscow is amused? A resurgent Russia is currently repositioning itself as a powerful anti-dote of the West?
The G8 countries and members of the UN Security Council exploited the Zimbabwe crisis for selfish self-interest. Moscow and Beijing walked away with the bounty. Maybe it’s time for the sore losers – US, UK, Canada and their EU allies – to yield and give a negotiated settlement the chance.
Western leaders have only their arrogant, supremacist and manipulative attitude to blame for the spectacular defeat of the draft “United Nations Security Council resolution” to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe. In pushing for the sanctions, they played dirty, engaged in open moral blackmailing and totally ignored reality.
Russia and China’s giant-killing veto was a direct indictment of this undiplomatic attitude.
Russia’s UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said sanctions would have taken the UN beyond its mandate in trying to punish political disputes by "artificially elevating them to the level of a threat" to international peace and security. Churkin believed the sanctions move was “illegitimate and dangerous”.
Russia is accusing the West of vindictiveness, lying and exaggeration in the name of the UN here. Moscow is alleging an attempted derailment of the UN Charter for self-interests that have nothing to do with helping Zimbabweans out of the Robert Mugabe dictatorship.
Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya accused the West of “nation-tinkering” and attempted theft of the Zimbabwe political crisis from the domestic scene, where it belongs.
An examination of the anatomy of this failed sanctions campaign will justify the indictment of the West by both Russia and China.
The West’s first response to Mugabe’s June 27 re-election purported to highlight global indignation at the suffering that Mugabe has imposed on Zimbabweans. The West rejected the result and moved to de-legitimize Mugabe’s stolen mandate. Both the US and European Union (EU) called for the outright recognition of Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), as the legitimate president of Zimbabwe.
Surely, Tsvangirai can not be the “legitimate” president of Zimbabwe. He won the March election, held under an undemocratic electoral arrangement he consented to, but failed to score 50-plus percent.
But the West had no clear strategy to turn rhetoric into reality. The two weeks leading to the G8 Summit in Japan witnessed a powerful diplomatic offensive as leaders of G8 and EU countries took personal charge of their countries’ offensive against Mugabe.
In Berlin, Chancellor Angela Merkel guaranteed that Germany and the EU would seek "all possible sanctions" against Mugabe, and “think up all possible sanctions and check to see what more we can do…”
In the UK, Queen Elizabeth II finally stripped Mugabe of the knighthood she bestowed on him in 1994. The Queen knighted Mugabe well after he slaughtered 20 000 innocent, defenseless, ethnic Ndebele villagers in the early 1980s.
In Canada, the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper finally imposed travel, work and study bans on “senior Zimbabwean officials”. Like all Western countries, Ottawa protested neither Mugabe’s 1980s genocide nor the Queen shameless honor.
But this time playing tough with Mugabe promised domestic political capital. Harper faces a possible federal vote likely to be dominated by climate change and the gridlocked war in Afghanistan.
Thanks to the disastrous Iraq War, domestic sub-prime mortgage meltdown, an economy hurtling toward recession, huge budget deficits and a plummeting dollar, the majority of Americans consider US President George W. Bush’s presidency to be a failure. Many say history will record him as the worst US president.
In the UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s ruling Labour Party came fifth in a June Parliamentary by-election in Henley-on-Thames, near London. John Kampfner suggests that the party “might not just lose the next election, but be wiped off the map”.
Sanctions on Zimbabwe would have handed the three leaders a diplomatic coup.
But the West’s campaign could only hold with solid African backing. In Zimbabwe Tsvangirai tried to sabotage South African President Thabo’s SADC-mandated mediation effort. He reportedly personally asked Mbeki to arrange a meeting with Mugabe. The dictator, Mbeki and Arthur Mutambara, leader of the smaller faction of the MDC showed up. Tsvangirai shamed them by boycotting the meeting at the last minute.
Elsewhere in Africa, Botswana rejected Mugabe’s re-election and but curiously agitated for Zimbabwe’s expulsion from the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC).
Kenyan Prime Minister, Raila Odinga, called on the African Union (AU) to suspend Zimbabwe. Odinga belongs at The Hague. 1 500 Kenyans were slaughtered in the aftermath of last December’s election because of his criminal political negligence.
As the Western leaders pushed for sanctions, the Western media reprised the collusive posture it assumed on the eve of the disastrous invasion of Iraq. The western media hung on to every word Western leaders and their African mouthpieces said. No one bothered to explain how exactly new sanctions would topple Mugabe while guaranteeing a meal on the table for Zimbabweans.
At the end of June the New York Times carried the sad story of Blessing Mabhena, an 11-months old Zimbabwean baby boy whose legs had allegedly been broken by Mugabe’s thugs. The story drew global outrage. The papers later confessed that the story had been exaggerated.
As the G8 summit began, the Canadian media choked with news of Harper taking the lead to convince G8 leaders to act against Zimbabwe. The British media said the same of Brown, and the American media of Bush. Who exactly was trying to convince who? Why all the convincing if the case against Mugabe was clear-cut?
As the summit progressed, world public opinion had been won over, but not quite. Brown went for the kill and used shock tactics to shame the G8 into line. He showed all a picture of the charred body of Joshua Bakacheza, an opposition members murdered by Mugabe's thugs.
African countries needed a special kind of manipulation. Brown urged Africa to “now see [that] what is happening in Zimbabwe is damaging the credibility of Africa as a whole.” Canada’s Globe and Mail newspaper suggested that seven African leaders were cautioned that Africa’s negative perception in G8 countries could adversely affect the flow of aid dollars. Ah, dollars!
The West ignored Presidents Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete and Abdoulaye Wade of Tanzania and Senegal, respectively, who insisted that the AU favored a negotiated settlement and a government of national unity. By pushing ahead with the sanctions agenda the West clearly showed contempt for the African sentiment and position.
But the West’s biggest faux pax was its deliberate disregard of the true positions of both Russia and China. They banked on negotiations the UN headquarters in New York. But, as Russia and China showed with the veto, the UN Security Council is a theatre of international politics where influential countries exploit global problems, however small, for self-interest.
China’s economic paw is all over Africa. China is now among Zimbabwe’s biggest trading partners. Beijing also sells arms to Harare. Beijing had everything to lose from imposing sanctions on Mugabe.
For Russia, the Zimbabwe sanctions vote provided the opportunity for simultaneous revenge against the US and UK. During the G8 summit, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev criticized the U.S. deal to place parts of a missile-defense shield in the Czech Republic. He promised to respond. The US thought Medvedev was bluffing? The UK accuses the Russian state of complicit in the fatal poisoning of former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko. The UK thinks Moscow is amused? A resurgent Russia is currently repositioning itself as a powerful anti-dote of the West?
The G8 countries and members of the UN Security Council exploited the Zimbabwe crisis for selfish self-interest. Moscow and Beijing walked away with the bounty. Maybe it’s time for the sore losers – US, UK, Canada and their EU allies – to yield and give a negotiated settlement the chance.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Zimbabweans Rejected Tsvangirai, Mugabe
By Obert Madondo
The Zimbabwe election of March 29 is unresolved? Nonsense. Zimbabweans spoke. They rejected both Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) leader, Morgan Tsvangirai and dictator, Robert Mugabe, who has ruled the country since independence in 1980.
A few months before the election, Mugabe was assured of outright victory. The opposition was in shreds following a 2005 split that led to two bitterly feuding factions.
A few weeks before the election, Tsvangirai was assured of outright victory. Simba Makoni and other prominent leaders had deserted Mugabe’s Zanu PF party, causing deep chasms and dissention within the party’s grassroots support base.
To the opposition’s further advantage, the economy was in the intensive care unit, registering the world’s highest inflation rate at 165,000 percent. 80 percent of Zimbabwe was unemployed. Chronic food and fuel shortages abound.
The MDC capitalized and blamed Mugabe. The party mounted a US-style campaign that called for change. It saturated the local media with cutting edge advertising. Its candidates traversed Zimbabwe in impressive motorcades and helicopters hired from abroad.
The western media chipped in with the usual relentless anti-Mugabe propaganda and demonization.
A besieged Mugabe limped across Zimbabwe, punching his tired 84-year old fist in the air as usual. At every campaign stop, he screamed the usual revolutionary propaganda which his dwindling crowds only pretended to believe in. Mugabe blamed everything on Western neo-colonialists and their salaried local stooges.
Then a very interesting thing happed on Election Day. Zimbabweans voted for change; they voted for a continuation of the status quo.
Zimbabweans refused to give Tsvangirai a full mandate of 50 plus one percent of the vote. They decided, apparently at the last minute, that he deserved only 47.9%. Zimbabweans confirmed their unwillingness to part with Mugabe too. They gave him a surprise 43.2 % of the vote.
This election was the most peaceful in Zimbabwe’s history. Zimbabweans made it crystal clear that both Mugabe and Tsvangirai are unworthy of the Zimbabwean presidency. They made it clear that Mugabe represents the last detour toward Zimbabwe's final descent into hell, and Tsvangirai, a false democratic beginning.
The pending run-off is unnecessary. Both men should step aside and let Zimbabwe move forward. Their continued presence on the political scene will tear the country apart and kill the future.
The Zimbabwe election of March 29 is unresolved? Nonsense. Zimbabweans spoke. They rejected both Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) leader, Morgan Tsvangirai and dictator, Robert Mugabe, who has ruled the country since independence in 1980.
A few months before the election, Mugabe was assured of outright victory. The opposition was in shreds following a 2005 split that led to two bitterly feuding factions.
A few weeks before the election, Tsvangirai was assured of outright victory. Simba Makoni and other prominent leaders had deserted Mugabe’s Zanu PF party, causing deep chasms and dissention within the party’s grassroots support base.
To the opposition’s further advantage, the economy was in the intensive care unit, registering the world’s highest inflation rate at 165,000 percent. 80 percent of Zimbabwe was unemployed. Chronic food and fuel shortages abound.
The MDC capitalized and blamed Mugabe. The party mounted a US-style campaign that called for change. It saturated the local media with cutting edge advertising. Its candidates traversed Zimbabwe in impressive motorcades and helicopters hired from abroad.
The western media chipped in with the usual relentless anti-Mugabe propaganda and demonization.
A besieged Mugabe limped across Zimbabwe, punching his tired 84-year old fist in the air as usual. At every campaign stop, he screamed the usual revolutionary propaganda which his dwindling crowds only pretended to believe in. Mugabe blamed everything on Western neo-colonialists and their salaried local stooges.
Then a very interesting thing happed on Election Day. Zimbabweans voted for change; they voted for a continuation of the status quo.
Zimbabweans refused to give Tsvangirai a full mandate of 50 plus one percent of the vote. They decided, apparently at the last minute, that he deserved only 47.9%. Zimbabweans confirmed their unwillingness to part with Mugabe too. They gave him a surprise 43.2 % of the vote.
This election was the most peaceful in Zimbabwe’s history. Zimbabweans made it crystal clear that both Mugabe and Tsvangirai are unworthy of the Zimbabwean presidency. They made it clear that Mugabe represents the last detour toward Zimbabwe's final descent into hell, and Tsvangirai, a false democratic beginning.
The pending run-off is unnecessary. Both men should step aside and let Zimbabwe move forward. Their continued presence on the political scene will tear the country apart and kill the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)