Maravi

THE HERALD - Tsvangirai: Asset in imperial agenda

Tsvangirai: Asset in imperial agenda
By Reason Wafawarova

MANY people probably wonder why the West does not just reveal the real agenda behind its imperialist wars of aggression and the alleged fight for "freedom and democracy" in the Middle East, China, Cuba and Zimbabwe. When Britain was a superpower in the 19th century it called its colonial intrigues, invasions and occupations of parts of the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and Asia, the "Great Game".

It was a game it played with the lives of Aboriginal people of Australia, the African "natives" of Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, South Africa and many other states; a game played with the lives of Afghans, Iraqis and many of the people in the former Ottoman Empire today.

It reads as an entertaining game in European history books where one gets an impression of a captivating competition for the rulers of the 19th century superpowers as they vied for control of African, Asian and Middle Eastern resources.

Today the same Western powers, led by the Americans, have abandoned the virtue of honesty and hide behind the mask of advocating "freedom, democracy and human rights," along with worn-out rhetoric of the so-called "war on terror."

History has never recorded any of the known imperialist powers as having embarked on any genuine humanitarian mission, let alone a moral one, all Western crusades have been contestable as guises for imperial gain from the colonial era, World War I and II, the formation of Israel, the invasion of Panama and Grenada, the 1991 Gulf War, the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the 2006 onslaught on Lebanon, the current meaningless provocations on Iran as well as the economic and political onslaught on Zimbabwe.

It is from this background that the recent admissions by the US government that it is sponsoring rebellion and anarchy in Zimbabwe under the guise of promoting human rights, democracy and freedom should be viewed.

One wonders if the Bush administration is attempting to posture as a pacifist regime, when it is sworn to violence. Most, clearly it is not, otherwise the deaths of 700 000 Iraqis and 3 000 US soldiers in Iraq would have given them more cause for concern than the sweeping away of Morgan Tsvangirai and his MDC anarchists from the streets of Harare in Zimbabwe.

Not only has the US failed to show this concern, but it even went ahead and publicly declared its resolve to escalate the violence in Iraq by sending in more troops and giving additional funding to Shia militias who have accounted for most of the civilian deaths in Iraq.

In the eyes of the US, a snivelling lackey like Morgan Tsvangirai is a cause for more concern than a million lives lost in Iraq as "collateral" damage in the imperial agenda of stealing and controlling the oil resource.

Of course, Tsvangirai is an asset in the imperial agenda since he happens to be a willing poodle hailing from a country made up of land that is agriculturally fertile at the top and minerally rich beneath.

What Christopher Dell and Andrew Pocock have been assigned to do in Zimbabwe is the old "Great Game" and their failure would get them painted as modern mission men failing to live up to the exploits of 19th century task man; from an imperialist point of view.

This writer will briefly outline the history of imperial interventions in Afghanistan just to show how the Imperial Empire operates.

In the 19th century there was "entertaining" competition for control of the "Crossroads of Asia" between Great Britain and Russia.

In the Great Game, Britain scored first in 1836 when it invaded Afghanistan and installed a king loyal to its interests, just like the same British are trying to do in Zimbabwe with the help of the Americans.

Most of the Afghans outside Kabul loathed this king the way the rural people of Zimbabwe loath Tsvangirai, and the Afghans mobilised themselves and revolted against this poodle king as well as triumphantly driving out the British in 1842.

Not deterred, the British struck back in 1878 and re-invaded Afghanistan for the control of its resources and again they were booted out a few years later.

As the saying goes, the imperialist British stuck to their guns and tried it yet again in 1919. It was third time defeat in a row for the British as they once again fell to a determined Afghan leader who had resolved to follow the Moscow type of mordenisation after being inspired by the 1917 Russian revolution.

In 1973, Afghanistan had a palace coup and many Western type economic policies were introduced. In 1978 a clique of Stalinist politicians and army officers seized power and once again Russia took its turn to spin the imperial wheel as it claimed it was coming in at the invitation of fellow comrades.

The British responded by teaming up with the US and they armed a rebellious movement harboured in Pakistan and that war took ten years before it halted.

It cost Afghanistan 1,3 million lives and hundreds of thousands were displaced into neighbouring countries. Like the British before them the Russians also finally suffered defeat.

That brings us to the present "war on terror" which has been premised on the "noble" aims of ridding Afghanistan of terrorists; according to George W. Bush, Afghanistan is "teeming with terrorists and Osama bin Laden, the Taliban and many shadowy wicked people are lurking in every cave."

The other noble aim of the war on terror is to liberate Afghan women from the Taliban, themselves a creation of the US against the Russians.

Now it is an era for the US to play the Great Game in this most strategic territory to establish its control over potential oil and gas pipelines as well as to encircle its rivals Iran and China.

These two goals are what is of importance to the US and not some suffering "women of colour" or any other humanitarian gospel the US may choose to preach to the world.

Clearly, the US has not been that much of a great player in the game at hand and five years after plunging itself in the field of play, there is no sign of victory in sight and clearly no sign of a quick fix solution to the quagmire, just like their "A Team" is having a hell of a nightmare in Iraq.

The US mission is not humanitarian in Afghanistan, or Zimbabwe.

For Afghanistan, its five years after the invasion and 20 000 Afghans have been killed, no visible female freedom has been put in place, average life expectancy is a mere 44 years and the country ranks 173rd out 178 on the UN Human Development Index.

As for democracy, the puppet regime of Hamid Karzai is reportedly peppered with corrupt politicians, warlords, drug barons and even former Taliban. The regime’s authority is limited to Kabul just like Iraq’s Nouri al Maliki’s regime is limited to the Green Zone in Baghdad.

This is "authority" only enforceable with the help of US firepower and one hopes Tsvangirai and his MDC are not hell bent on bringing such heresy to Zimbabwe.

The writer is a post-graduate student in International Relations at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia and can be contacted at wafawarova yahoo.co.uk

Labels: ZIMBABWE

posted by MrK @ 11:49 PM