Maravi

(TALKZIMBABWE) Miliband comments: no diplomatic gaffe, but MDC snub

Miliband comments: no diplomatic gaffe, but MDC snub
Comment
Sun, 07 Feb 2010 07:43:00 +0000

IT is naive for anyone to think that British Foreign Secretary David Miliband made a diplomatic blunder when he mentioned that the MDC-T party controlled some sanctions and that Britain was waiting to take the cue from that party on whether to lift sanctions or not.

While most leaders try to achieve political unity, some do use divisive tactics to maintain control, or to expand influence by fostering disunity and mistrust. Britain is well-known for "Divide-And-Conquer" or "Divide-And-Rule" tactics. They are playing those tactics with Zimbabwe now. MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai is no longer an asset to Britain, he is now dispensable and disposable.

The way to dispense of Tsvangirai it is to create confusion. His crime is that he entered into an inclusive Government with President Mugabe against the advice of the British, now he is no longer an asset to them, nor their foreign policy.

Miliband's comments are merely a public diplomatic strategy to discredit the inclusive Government and cause problems for the new administration. He did it very well on January 19 during that Q&A session in the House of Commons.

Britain wanted someone to replace, not work with, President Mugabe. They have a regime-change agenda, and they will not rest until that's achieved.

Miliband gave Tsvangirai a rope to hang himself with, and thereby divided the new Government.

The British Foreign Secretary never issued a retraction, only the British embassy tried to explain the statement.

Britain is now looking to the next person, or group, to use in their foreign policy objective on Zimbabwe, or rescucitate Tsvangirai by discrediting the inclusive Government.

Simply put, the relationship between Britain and the MDC is finished - as long as the MDC remains in the inclusive Government.

The issue was never about the welfare of Zimbabwe or Zimbabweans, otherwise how does one explain the fact that Britain shipped, and are still shipping, Zimbabweans of British descent to Britain and left thousands of senior citizens and vulnerable groups at the mercy of their illegal sanctions?

Infact, Britain claims that the sanctions are not hurting ordinary people, so why ship out their own?

The MDC-T party, with all its naivety, aided Britain to achieve what was already a planned move: to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe so that the land reform programme can be reversed.

The Chilcot Iraq Inquiry recently found out that Tony Blair would have deposed Saddam Hussein whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction. In the same vein, Blair also wanted President Mugabe removed with or without the various arguments proffered against political governance in Zimbabwe.

The MDC was merely a pawn in the wider scheme of things. They were only duped to believe that they were taking part in a game that was already in place.

The absentee British landlords that sat in the House of Lords wanted President Mugabe to go, at any cost, so that they could keep the land that had been conferred to them by the white supremacist and racist Prime Minister of Rhodesia, Ian Smith.

The Westminster Foundation (WF) that funded the MDC works to fund "emerging democracies". What are emerging democracies? They are merely former British colonies, or places where Britain has a foreign policy objective.

Otherwise, why did Britain not fund them pre-1992 before it was established? Why was Britain not as vocal about human rights when Ian Smith and South Africa's PW Botha were brutalizing blacks?

Why does the WF, a branch of Miliband's office, only work with "partner organisations to foster democracy" and not with governments?

As they seek to strengthen civil society institutions and opposition parties, why do they not also strengthen "and help foster democracy" by working with ruling party and government departments?

Infact the name Movement for Democratic Change is found within the objects of the WF.

The Foundation's website says it aims to "establish contact with, offer assistance to, and work with individual political parties or MOVEMENTS with which they have a political affinity" to encourage "DEMOCRATIC CHANGE".

The WF only works in areas where Britain has foreign policy objectives: Kenya, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Moldova, etc. They train women, youth, parliaments, trade unions, etc. but never engage governments.

Here is a snapshot of their work: Giving Iraqi People a Voice, Citizens' Empowerment in Kenya, Women in Local Government in Sierra Leone, Engaging Sierra Leonean Youth in Politics, Sudan Mirror Sheds Light, Developing the Skills of Young Iraqi Trade Unionists, Parliamentary Committees in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Promoting Active Youth Participation in Ukraine, Training Young Political Leaders in Moldova, The Serbian Code of Conduct, Paralegal Training in Uganda, Promoting Information Sharing, etc.

Now that the MDC is in government, they are slowly being disposed of.

Morally, Britain could not have imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe without a local political group to support that process.

Afterall colonial Britain was responsible for the decades of suffering of the black population in Zimbabwe, South Africa and many other areas where they colonised. They cannot be seen as recolonising these lands, so they use pawns: the MDC is one such pawn. That pawn is no longer useful and it is being disposed of gradually.

Comments and suggestions: info *** talkzimbabwe.com

Labels: COLOUR REVOLUTIONS, DAVID MILIBRAND, MORGAN TSVANGIRAI, NEOCOLONIALISM, UK, WESTMINSTER FOUNDATION

posted by MrK @ 3:55 PM