Maravi

(TALKZIMBABWE) Failure of Western diplomacy and its perilous wars

Failure of Western diplomacy and its perilous wars
Reason Wafawarova – Opinion
Sun, 02 Nov 2008 11:20:00 +0000

THE diplomatic war between Harare and London in particular, and Zimbabwe and the West in general, is a classical illustration of how the economically and militarily strong countries are often politically very weak.

In fact, Britain has over the last eight years tried all in its power to deny that London has a diplomatic dispute with Harare, opting instead to portray a convenient global picture of a Zimbabwe that is an awful violator of international law and human rights law.

This is precisely because the political argument that it was grossly unfair for 4,000 white farmers of British origin to hold on to 75 per cent of arable land while the majority of Zimbabweans languished on unproductive land is too strong to contest.

The West, in its interaction with the developing countries; countries the West prefers to classify as Third World; always faces the recurrent problem of political weakness. Slavery made the West politically weak because the evil episode was indefensible, colonialism collapsed because it was too evil a system to be sustained and imperialism is denied by the West because it is an iniquity that leaves one politically so weak.

One consequence of this political weakness has always been a resort to violence in order to demolish popular organizations. Another has been the constant effort to evade diplomatic settlement, something Britain has ensured will never happen in relation to Zimbabwe and the land question.

It is obviously unacceptable for the West to resort to violence or evasion of diplomatic settlements. This is why the ideological institutions like the media and foreign affairs departments have had the task of portraying these unacceptable facts as the exact opposite of what they are.

In particular, the diplomatic record must be recast in such a way as to justify further resort to either violence or the resort to illegal sanctions where the UN cannot be called on for endorsement and legitimization of such isolation.

These are choices made on the principle that the enemy cannot be trusted, whoever the enemy happens to be; it could be Communist Cuba, socialist Venezuela or nationalist Robert Mugabe.

In Zimbabwe, the much sought after diplomatic settlement between Zanu PF and the opposition MDC-T and MDC has already been recast in the West in a way that is meant to justify further sanctions against the country rather than a political settlement. This is not new, and what the MDC-T is doing has nothing to do with Morgan Tsvangirai’s prowess as a tough negotiator or with his desire to have enough powers to run government business. It is all to do with doing away with diplomacy and recasting the diplomatic record in a way that paints “the enemy” in bad light and also justifying a further resort to the hostilities of sanctions.

These antics were overplayed during the Cold War on the basis that “Communists cannot be trusted” – an otherwise fair statement if only it were completed by the missing phrase: “Nor can anyone else, particularly the US led Western alliance.”

The Western conclusion to the inconclusive negotiations for an inclusive government between Zimbabwean political parties is that “Mugabe cannot be trusted” – a statement that is obviously not complete without the phrase: “Nor can anyone else, particularly the Western backed Morgan Tsvangirai.”

The classic Communist iniquities were so many during the Cold War, with a favored classical case of the Soviet’s alleged violation of the Yalta and Potsdam agreements, agreements on post war reconstruction of Germany after World War 11.

Melvyn Leffler did a detailed study on this topic and concluded that, “In fact the Soviet pattern of adherence to Yalta, Potsdam and other war time agreements was not qualitatively different from the American pattern.”

It is like Zimbabwe’s pattern of adherence to human rights law measured against the US and its Western allies’ conduct in Iraq and Afghanistan, or against the US’s atrocious history in Latin America.

While fully unacceptable and worth of unreserved condemnation, the pre and post-election violence that was seen in Zimbabwe’s 2008 election can only be described as a pea standing next to the mountain when one looks at Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Afghanistan and what happened to Nicaragua, Panama and many other victims of US imperial brutality.

Turning to the so-called deadlock in the political process in Zimbabwe, one cannot fail to see the ample evidence that the West is keen to evade a peaceful settlement of the dispute and to violate the Southern African Development Community (Sadc) facilitated political agreement. The West needs a fresh pad on which to launch an offensive against Zanu PF in general and President Robert Mugabe in particular and the recasting of the diplomatic record of this political deal becomes a necessity.

There are records to support this pattern of thinking, particularly by US planners. When the US supported and took over France’s efforts to reconquer Indochina in the late 1940s, Washington knew that it was confronting major nationalist forces in the region, just like they are aware that there are many in Africa that will never take kindly to open Western involvement in the affairs of Zimbabwe.

When the US failed to establish “political bases” through the clients they had established in Indochina, they were forced into overturning the Geneva agreements of 1954. They subverted the democratically elected government of Pathos Lao in Laos in 1958, just because they wanted a base to escalate the war against South Vietnam in the early sixties. Lao’s government was overthrown and the people of Laos were bombarded into submission with aerial firepower.

The US desperately evaded the political settlement sought by all sides, so that they could expand their war to all of Indochina; much the same way the US has of late been evading all prospects of a political settlement with Tehran’s nuclear program. The US has even baselessly argued that Washington will not “negotiate with terrorists”.

This is all because Washington is well aware that they are politically weak when it comes to their case against Iran’s nuclear program, especially when Israel and Pakistan are brought into the discussion. Equally, Britain cannot stand a diplomatic discussion over Zimbabwe’s land question. They are simply politically too weak on that one.

The undermining of the Zimbabwe deal by the US in particular is not a new phenomenon. Theoretically and perhaps practically it became inevitable that the opposition MDC needed to be seen to be respecting African institutions. Only for this inevitable reality did Morgan Tsvangirai sign the September 15 Harare agreement, as facilitated by Sadc through Cde Thabo Mbeki of South Africa.

However, that objective of identifying with Africa has since been achieved and the US now wants Morgan Tsvangirai’s MDC to undermine the diplomatic agreement in a last effort to achieve by obnoxious aggression what they have chosen to abandon on paper.

The US was unable to avoid signing an agreement theoretically terminating all hostilities of the Indochina war in Paris in 1973. However, Washington proceeded at once to undermine the agreement in an effort to achieve by brutal force what it was abandoning on paper.

The factual record of sanctions on Zimbabwe lacks serviceability on the part of the opposition MDC that mobilized such sanctions. As a result this ruinous campaign has been replaced by a mythical reconstruction carefully crafted to satisfy doctrinal requirements and political mileage for the MDC. This is the mythical reconstruction that says Zimbabwe would be the best country in Africa today had it not been for President Mugabe’s “unsound policies” and for the “unskilled black farmers” as well as the “stifling of democracy”.

Whatever the facts, the record must show that it is President Mugabe and his Zanu PF party that cannot be trusted, just like it was always the Communists that could not be trusted.

The US has perfected the art of sanitizing history on the understanding that the method has to be used across the globe as and when “dissident” states crop up against the Empire. Political weakness necessitates the resort to violence or sanctions, and also the evasion of diplomacy, violation of treaties and agreements and a concomitant commitment to propaganda designed to prevent awareness of the facts.

It was always the Communists that were never to be trusted to live up to agreements and its not surprising that it has to be the “Marxist Robert Mugabe” that cannot be trusted to live up to the Zimbabwe agreement. It could never be the West and its client states and allies and it cannot be the Western-backed MDC for Zimbabwe.

It is always the West seeking negotiations and political settlements while others refuse, and these must therefore be driven by the force of military action or sanctions, right to the negotiation table. Then these others will always violate the negotiations and agreements.

Well, in many of the circumstances of the West’s political weakness, as was the case with Indochina and Central America, and as is the case with Zimbabwe’s land reform program, the West does not pursue a diplomatic settlement but rather uses the force of military might or economic strangulation to eliminate this threat. For this reason it is highly unlikely that Zimbabwe’s opposition will ever adhere to the much publicized political agreement; not as long as they operate on political benchmarks from London and Washington.

The US sponsored and nurtured the Contras against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua in order to “force the Sandinistas to the negotiation table” but Washington was never going to be committed to the political settlement anyway; only using it as an objective to justify the use of brutal force against a government that commanded a superior political strength to that of the Empire.

One wonders what the reaction would be if someone argued that the Pearl Harbor attack was Japan’s way of compelling the US to stop its vicious internal racism and to begin serious moves towards true democracy. Or what the reaction would be if one argued that September 11 was Al-Qaeda’s way of compelling the US to stop their unilateral decision to illegally occupy parts of the Middle East and stop the looting of Middle East Oil resources.

It is a sad reality that among the fanatical supporters of the economic strangulation of Zimbabwe are some Zimbabweans themselves. Unless the facts around these sanctions are accepted for what they are, there is very little hope that this negotiated deal will ever bring happiness to the people of Zimbabwe. It might as well be a handy tool to justify further subversion and to exacerbate the suffering of our people.


This writer calls upon the political leadership of Zimbabwe to see beyond the machinations that are only a replica of what we have seen in the past and to place the Zimbabwean national interest ahead of ambition and doctrinal interests.

Zimbabweans we always one and together we will overcome. It is homeland or death.

Labels: NEOCONSERVATISM

posted by MrK @ 11:55 PM