Maravi

(TALKZIMBABWE) Dangers of bypassing imperial authority

Dangers of bypassing imperial authority
Reason Wafawarova - Opinion
Sat, 16 May 2009 08:14:00 +0000

THE greatest threat to the success of Zimbabwe’s inclusive Government is not the much publicised delays in resolving what the invectives by the hostile media houses have described as “outstanding issues in the Global Political Agreement”.

There are fundamental assumptions in the West that both Sadc and the African Union did not observe when they secured the current governance arrangement in Zimbabwe. Essentially, it was an arrogant gesture for the AU and Sadc to go it alone in the negotiations that led to the Zimbabwean inclusive Government.

When Kenya adopted a similar kind of arrangement in February 2008 the script was different in that the foundations of the negotiations were set up by the then US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Jendayi Frazer who literally bundled President Mwai Kibaki and then opposition leader Raila Odinga into a room and instructed them to form a power-sharing arrangement before directing, or is it recommending, Kofi Annan, the former Secretary General to the UN to polish up the modalities of this arrangement.

The fact that this Kenyan project is seriously threatening to collapse with each passing day is not much an issue in the West as is the story that Jestina Mukoko continues to appear before Zimbabwean courts or that Roy Bennet has not yet been sworn in as a deputy Minister in the Zimbabwe government.

The problems in Kenya can be sanitised by the comical cover of Kenyan women organising a sex ban so the Kenyan males can stop bickering and start governing the country while Zimbabwe’s inclusive Government is no comical matter at all – it is an arrangement that needs to go through Western benchmark-ratings before anyone can be allowed to respect it.

The assumptions that have been violated in the Zimbabwean case are that the West in general and the United States in particular, have a perfect right to oversee the political processes of every country in order to realise the goals of their foreign policies.

It is like the assumption that the United States has an inalienable right to use force and violence to achieve its ends anywhere in the world. Anyone who refused to accept this and to obey American wishes during the Cold War was a “communist” by definition, and anyone who refuses to accept such American wishes as the murderous Afghani war today is by definition a “terrorist.” It is therefore legitimate to destroy them in “self defence”.

By the logic of this assumption, we are supposed to solemnly accept that the 150 civilians massacred ruthlessly in Western Afghanistan by US forces two weeks ago all died in the process of the US’s marvellous intentions of eradicating “terrorism” from the face of this planet.

This is the logic that is supposed to convince us that Zimbabweans can suffer a continued embargo until the West is satisfied that there is the “rule of law” and respect for “property rights” in the country.

The West regards property rights as the returning of farm lands to white settler-farmers who were moved to make way for landless indigenous Zimbabweans in the last decade. They regard The Rule of Law as a slogan to be used for three purposes.

Firstly the rule of law in the West is a tool to pacify the domestic population, much the same way it is in most of the countries anywhere else.

Secondly, it is a slogan used to denounce official enemies of the West. In this regard Miami based Cubans are victims of a lack of rule of law in their country, the Taliban are being hunted for lack of the rule of law and abuse of women (when we are not being told they are harbouring Osama bin Laden), the Iranian leaders are ruthless human rights violators, Zimbabweans are a hopelessly oppressed people living in a lawless country and the North Korean leaders are Devil incarnates.

Lastly the Rule of Law slogan may be used to deal with problems where other means may prove ineffective, as a last resort. Apart from these concerns, the West, like every other imperial power that has ever existed, are committed to the Rule of Force, be it military force or economic force.
This assumption that the West has a perfect right to run the affairs of the world and to influence the political processes of all else as well as to use force and violence at will is shared by just about everybody in the political culture of the West.

It may hardly be shared by the majority of Western populations but it is certainly shared by the political classes: by the articulate intelligentsia, the corporate elite that control Western governments and the military. These people share the assumption that the US-led Western alliance is global judge and executioner. The West has a moral right to use force and violence to attain their ends anywhere; they can strangle the economy of whoever they may to protect their own interest.

When Zimbabwean politicians and their allies in Sadc and the AU appeal for a change of policy in the West they are basically asking for something that has never changed before, not since the end of the World War 11. That could never change. There is no change among the Western elites just like there is hardly any change with any other elite elsewhere.

While there can be some minor changes in a few individuals like President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of Australia, the basic understanding of the pillars of Western hegemony is largely accepted as is.

The only questions debated in Western Parliaments and by the planners at western think-tanks are, “can we get away with it?” or “is it tactically advisable?” or “would it be too costly?”

In rare moments of morality there is the question of whether it would be too bloody; so some would draw the line at some point, say, no humanitarian aid to save dying children during a ruthless sanctions regime, or napalm attacks that kill too many children in war zone like Afghanistan.

That would be too much. However a smaller amount would be just fine, enough to punish those deemed to be in defiance of imperial authority.

Surely it cannot be put that bluntly. The way it is put is that the West has a right to stop human rights abuses in Zimbabwe or anywhere else in the world. It is like the Cold War rhetoric that said the West had a right to stop the Russians anywhere in the world.

It never mattered whether the Russians were there or not, it was still always a defensive act to stop the Russians – in Angola, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Cuba, Nicaragua and in Vietnam.

These days it does not matter whether the terrorists are there or not, it is still always an act of defence against the scourge of terrorism – in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan and in Somalia.

It does not matter that Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai says the inclusive government in Zimbabwe is progressing well, sanctions are still always an act of defending the human rights of Zimbabweans, an act of creating democracy in Zimbabwe – yes because the inclusive government that carters for all the three parties in the Zimbabwean Parliament is not democratic enough.

It cannot be democratic because it is an illegitimate child born to the parenthood of the “unpeople” of this world. This inclusive government is a child born out of that unwelcome mantra of “African solutions to African problems”, an arrogant slogan that foolishly violates the right of the United States and the West to rule the world.

The West cannot, does not and will not fund African solutions to African problems. They fund Western solutions to Western created problems.

Zimbabwe may have eradicated the conflict between its politicians and their respective constituencies but this new sense of peace and tranquillity is not going to be interpreted as good enough for investment.

Zimbabwe is supposed to adopt Western policies and benchmarks in the economic sphere of its governance and only that adherence to the unwritten assumption will unlock Western investment.

The most unfortunate part of Western hegemony is that whatever they pretend to be fighting for or against is widely accepted and believed both at home and abroad. The world has become a well-indoctrinated society with very effective systems of thought control.

When the US tell the world today that ZIDERA is about bringing democracy to Zimbabwe people in and outside Zimbabwe actually believe this kind of nonsense. When the US says they killed 150 innocent civilians in Afghanistan because they were bombing the untraceable Taliban troops among the villagers people actually believe this nonsense.

When the US invaded Grenada in 1982, people in the United States literally discussed the claim that Grenada was a military threat that was about to obliterate the US. The discussions were quite serious on radio and television that one would have thought they were serious allegations, not mere black comedy.

The position taken on Zimbabwe by the West is a theological one, not one based on rational discourse. In theology facts are rarely relevant and predetermined outcomes often rule.

The pre-determined outcome in Zimbabwe is that Zanu PF and President Mugabe must be out of government and the political classes in the West are theological fanatics to this regime change doctrine.

These elites are of the opinion that Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai must not be in this inclusive government to help end Zimbabwe’s economic crisis but to position himself to push out the Zimbabwean President from inside.

To this end Western aid is not an act of goodwill to alleviate the suffering of common Zimbabweans but a tool to give leverage to the political aspirations of certain politicians in the inclusive government so they can oust their rivals with ease.

This is why it must make perfect sense that the West want to endorse ambassadors and senior civil servants for Zimbabwe before they can think of giving what we are supposed to believe is aid.

The level of thought control that comes with Western aid and donations is very difficult to imagine, but one can only measure it fairly well when they come across the grip of a fanatical delusional system that drives the Western sponsored civic society in Zimbabwe.

The majority if not all of these organisations have a burning desire to set fires on the inclusive government. They thrive not on peace and development but on crisis and this tranquillity is a serious threat to the well being of these organisations.

Can anyone imagine the relevance of WOZA, Crisis in Zimbabwe, SW Radio Africa or even Madhuku’s NCA in a peaceful and well fed Zimbabwe?

These organisations are the foot-soldiers that will fight to remind Sadc and the AU that they have no right whatsoever to preach this African solutions for African problems gospel. They will fight to remind Morgan Tsvangirai that he has no right whatsoever to tell the world that President Robert Mugabe is “part of the solution” to the problems facing Zimbabwe.

This is the dilemma that we face as a country. We are pretty much asking for food that is between the jaws of predators and in our hunger we pray and hope that we may not be devoured.

It is homeland or death! Zimbabwe we are one and together we will overcome.


--------------------
*Reason Wafawarova is a political writer and can be contacted on wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk or reason@rwafawarova.com or visit www.rwafawarova.com

Labels: NEOCOLONIALISM, USA

posted by MrK @ 3:35 PM