(NEWZIMBABWE) Goodbye Deborah, Goodbye Bruce!
27/01/2014 00:00:00
by Amai Jukwa
I AM reliably informed that the eager British Ambassador, Deborah Bronnert, will soon be leaving us. I am inconsolable. The same is rumoured of her American colleague, Ambassador Bruce Wharton.
These two have worked especially hard to take us for a ride, insisting that their hatred for President Robert Mugabe is motivated by nothing more than their love for Zimbabwe’s blacks. This is patronising nonsense.
I have always said that Britain cannot claim to sanction Zimbabwe for supposed democratic failings whilst their Queen enjoys tea and biscuits with the Saudi despot, King Abdullah, under whose despotic rule women are denied basic human rights (they can’t even drive a car), religious freedom is violated by statute and democracy is not even enshrined in the constitution.
It takes a special kind of hypocrisy to sustain such a glaringly contradictory foreign policy dance. Surely what is good for the goose is good for the gander? No?
Bruce Wharton is another shameless hypocrite. The United States sends billions of dollars in aid to Egypt. That country has suffered a violent coup in which a democratically elected leader was deposed and imprisoned. A few days ago at least four-dozen pro-democracy demonstrators were shot dead by that military junta. Aljazeera’s journalists are currently being held on trumped-up charges of “joining a terrorist organization”. Shall I speak of that sham of a referendum in which the opposition was not even allowed to put up posters?
I can’t hear you ambassadors. I call Bruce’s name. Where is your democratic sting? What has calmed the democratic fury with which you penned ZIDERA? I call Deborah’s name. Summon your human rights convictions oh fair lady. Egyptians are in need of your white bosom and the love you have so generously showered on us Zimbabweans.
The logical mind must ask why there is no talk of sanctions from those who eagerly prescribed them for Zimbabwe’s democratic illness? Where is the lofty talk of democracy and human rights? Surely what is good for the goose is good for the gander? No?
This shameful duplicity is born of nothing but white supremacy in which Bruce and company feel they have the right to define and change the rules of international relations as they go, and as they see fit, because their discretion is somehow inspired and can be trusted. Who is Amai Jukwa to ask these civilised white ambassadors to explain these contradictions? We don’t explain our actions to little people. We are white and we dine with whomsoever we please.
This is the attitude of white supremacy, a feeling of superiority and entitlement in which one need not explain their actions, they need not justify such violent contradictions. They are white and they are powerful. The rules of accountability do not apply to them.
It is against this intolerable background of white arrogance that I have rejected British and American intervention in Zimbabwe. It is clear their motives are unrighteous and self-serving. As the professor once said, their hands are dirty, their mouths are dirty and they must shut up. We see their dirty hands offering weapons to Egypt. They have no moral authority whatsoever to lecture us on matters of democracy and human rights.
Are we really to believe that Bruce and Deborah love Zimbabwe’s blacks more than they do the people of Egypt? How is it that they are so concerned about us that they are willing to draft sanctions to protect us from this despotic ogre called Mugabe but have no such love for the people of Egypt, Qatar, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia?
It is clear that the British and the Americans, despite their democratic pretensions, are merely operating as part of a vengeful white clique that wants to make an example of the land-grabbing Mugabe. The only sanctions that have been imposed against him are white sanctions by white countries. Why are there no Africans, South Americans, Asians or Arabs who have imposed sanctions? It surely cannot be that these white countries, our former colonisers and enslavers, love us more than the rest of the world.
As we bid farewell to these two ambassadors let it be made clear that their failure will equally befall those who will come after them. This is because Africans are not as stupid as white people believe. We see your duplicity. We see your hypocrisy. We see you self-interest.
In fact, this meddling by Western nations has actually served Zanu PF well as it has discredited otherwise valid complaints by the MDC. As long Britain and America continue to fund, support or sympathise with the MDC, that party will continue to lose elections. They will always be viewed as puppets. This is no different to the disposition Americans and Britons would have to a Chinese or Russian funded party.
Farewell good ambassadors.
Ndatenda, ndini muchembere wenyu Amai Jukwa.
Labels: AMAI JUKWA, AMBASSADORS, BRUCE WHARTON, DEBORAH BRONNERT
Read more...
(HERALD ZW) Baba Jukwa, Edward Snowden, WikiLeaks
July 14, 2013 SuperAdmin Mai Jukwa
A FEW months ago, I wrote on Deborah and Bruce, the British and American ambassadors. It was my charge that they were shameless hypocrites; not of conscious or deliberate effort but by an involuntary and subconscious superiority complex that has permeated their collective white psyche over a number of centuries.
They have
an odious sense of entitlement, poking their noses into the affairs of others and doing this with
a troubling self-righteous air though their own compound is filthy beyond compare.
They are a law unto themselves
I used to believe the Western world was deliberately objectionable — that they chose to be unjust.
I have since entered a different regime of thought. The contradictions of the Western world are so obvious, so egregious, as to be obvious to even the offender. At least one would think so. Quite clearly this is not the case.
The West does not think itself unjust; if anything it sincerely believes itself to be the salt of the earth.
I now have no doubt in my mind that the British and American ambassadors believe their own nonsense about regime change efforts being motivated by a desire to further human rights and democracy.
Instead of seeing themselves for the gratuitous racists, slave drivers, colonisers, segregationists, Iraq invaders, sanction mongers and greedy capitalists that they are, the British (and their white imperial comrades) see themselves as paragons of virtue.
Not only so, they are puzzled when their acts of global “generosity” are rejected by Africans, Asians and Latin Americans.
The white world sees nothing unjust in Australia or New Zealand.
They were welcomed by the indigenous peoples of those lands and rewarded this generosity with subjugation.
Today Australia and New Zealand are living examples of the wickedness of unchecked white imagination.
They take, take, and continue to take.
Their own lands are not enough for them.
Baba Jukwa and WikiLeaks
Baba Jukwa claims that he is a member of Mugabe’s inner circle.
He is not.
However, let us assume that he is and that all he said thus far was indeed true. Let us assume that Baba Jukwa is indeed leaking State secrets. The contradictions are obvious.
Consider how PayPal, an American online payments processing engine, and VISA, all came together and pulled the plug on WikiLeaks’ funding when Julius Assange began releasing American diplomatic cables and the War Logs.
It was alleged that by exposing American soldiers shooting innocent civilians from a helicopter gunship that Julian Assange was compromising American national security.
Today Assange is holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London; his co-conspirator has not been equally lucky and is languishing in an American military facility.
Consider how Facebook seems to very much support the posting of pictures of individuals, their names and phone numbers, together with the encouragement to “phone them and give them no rest” (harassment) as not being in violation of their terms of service.
Would Facebook hold the same position if an anonymous profile began posting the phone numbers of David Cameron’s children and threatening to kidnap them as Baba Jukwa has done to Kasukuwere?
The page would be shut down in minutes.
It is not only that they have offered tacit approval; they have actively encouraged Baba Jukwa.
The Economist and even the BBC carried adoring articles on Baba Jukwa.
It is inconceivable that these organisations would lend support to a page that calls for the abduction of children.
The cunning whites will hurry to say that Mugabe is, in their view, a dictator so the rules that apply for him do not apply to them.
I hate to put things in such prosaic terms but this is precisely how white people think.
It is for this reason that the Americans do not hesitate to drop a bomb to target an alleged insurgent even if he is in bed with his wife and children.
Imagine the outrage if the Russians — pursuing a Chechen rebel — sent in a missile into Manhattan and killed 20 Americans and defended their action by arguing that they had sought the cooperation of the Americans in bringing the rebel to justice but had received no assistance and thus felt compelled to “eliminate” him by any means necessary.
This seems inconceivable because it is grossly unjust but it is happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The white world feels that its blood is more precious than the blood of other non-white nationalities.
This is why the West wails itself sore over Sandy Hook, where a mere two dozen kids were killed, but speaks very casually about Iraq where it’s soldiers and the sectarian militia it formed butchered hundreds of thousands.
All this is born of an inherent sense of supremacy that is characteristic of white society. It is not so much born of race but culture.
Mainstream political rhetoric in America unabashedly refers to “safeguarding American interests.”
In their view if a dictator (read Saudi Arabia and Bahrain) serve American oil interests then he is to be supported and supplied with fighter jets.
This sick state of mind is pervasive within the Western world.
Bolivia’s ‘cheap’ President and Edward Snowden
Edward Snowden exposes the depth of Western supremacist thought.
On discovering that the Americans were spying on them, the French and Germans were dismayed.
Allies should not spy on each other, they complained.
Notice that their objection is not to spying against the rest of the world.
Their view is clearly that the Americans can violate the rest of the non-white world with total impunity as long as they do not spy on their fellow “civilised” Europeans.
If it was the case that the Americans had been spying on Bolivia, Nigeria or India then that would have been perfectly acceptable even in view of the fact that none of these nations is at war with America or has expressed any aggressions against it.
But notice that this, the French and Germans are not complaining about spying in general, what has upset them is that they have been put in the same category as niggers for whom they would have expected such activity to be targeted against.
Again the duplicity is obvious to anyone who is not white but the Europeans themselves are entirely oblivious.
One could describe it as intellectual blind spot.
It is blind spot that allows Western ambassadors to jump up and down in synthetic rage at what they call abuses by Mugabe yet their Queen dines with the Saudi despot in whose country women are second class citizens and thieves have feet cut off for having stolen motorbikes. They are oblivious to the violence of their contradiction.
The forced landing of the Bolivian presidential jet outraged Latin America, rightly so.
It is inconceivable that the very nations that routinely scream themselves hoarse over the rule of law would have so flagrantly violated established conventions.
But the message from Europe was clear: you are not one of us and we do not consider your presidency as being of equal weight with that of a European leader.
This is what the Europeans communicated when they forced the Bolivian jet to the ground.
Zero respect.
Their talk of equality is empty and those who take it seriously are to be pitied.
China is hacking us
The Snowden saga exposes the duplicitous nature of Westerners.
Over the past six months the Americans wasted no time to tell the world how nasty the Chinese were.
They were hacking into American computers and the civilised Americans found this unacceptable.
The Chinese had to be put in their place.
This is how cunning and manipulative these people are.
Though they knew that they were actually hacking the Chinese at a greater scale they still thought it right to dishonestly present themselves as an angel of light.
It is the height of deception, but one must not consider this conduct to be out of character.
This is just how they operate.
They manipulate and they deceive.
I view Westerners in quite ungenerous terms.
Their history is littered with slavery, colonialism, and war mongering. It struck me the other day that the only nations that ever talk about sanctioning any other nation on earth are white.
No other race is interested in sanctioning anyone.
It is just the whites. They must ask themselves why this is so.
Ndatenda,
Ndini muchembere wenyu Amai Jukwa
Labels: AMAI JUKWA, AMBASSADORS, BABA JUKWA, BRUCE WHARTON, DEBORAH BONNERT
Read more...
(HERALD ZW) Duckspeak and the predatory Professors
Sunday, 16 June 2013 21:57
“Our present state of mind is that you are now our enemies,” these words said by Morgan Tsvangirai would mean little given his signature flip-flopping, but spoken by a stubbornly consistent Robert Mugabe it spelt doom for the white farmers.
The declaration was followed by mass land occupations by ostensibly unruly war veterans, disgruntled farm labourers and hired thugs while Mugabe disingenuously pleaded a lack of political power to restrain them.
Observe the use of words, which now seem chillingly portentous: “ . . . you are now our enemies.”
This kind of language is distinctly fighting talk; rarely do head of states use words like “enemies,” especially not those who choose their words carefully like RG.
Whilst many imagined that this was merely negotiation rhetoric to strengthen his position and that Mugabe could be pressured into backing away from Land Reform, the old man meant exactly what he said.
The relentless assault on white farmer land ownership rights, which culminated in the unprecedented dissolution of the Sadc tribunal and is now irreversibly cemented in the new Constitution, is evidence of just how serious he was.
His words had been carefully chosen to herald a shift in ideological approach, a complete rejection of the notion of lawful ownership by way of colonial legacy.
Those specific words — “our present state of mind is that you are now our enemies” — were a declaration of war on widely established doctrines of property rights. Read today, with the white farmers now completely subdued, it is clear it was not mere hyperbole.
What do we draw from this?
Quite simply that Robert Mugabe does not make frivolous use of words. He does not say you are an enemy when he means to say you are an irritation. He does not say you we are looking east when in fact he is quietly hoping for a Western embrace.
It is against this background that the howls of protest following his declaration on Thursday that elections will be held on the 31st of July sound all the more silly.
What did people expect?
Mugabe had made it clear in Japan that he was going to abide by the Constitutional Court judgment. Legally, Mugabe had all the instruments necessary to unilaterally declare an election date. The moment he said he was going to abide by the judgment it was pretty clear what he intended to do.
One is surprised by Tsvangirai’s surprise.
It is at this point that I question Morgan Tsvangirai’s politics. Who exactly is advising him? Does Magaisa not take time to apply his legal doctrines of precedence as regards Mugabe’s behaviour?
Apparently not.
A reading of Mugabe’s past behaviour should have been education sufficient. Where is Gideon Gono today? Is he not enjoying the comforts of Samora Machel Avenue despite MDC protestations?
Is Tomana wandering desperately in search of employment as the MDC hoped a few years ago?
Not so.
The grounds on which they protested then are no different to the grounds on which they are attempting yet another futile resistance as they contest the election date declaration.
Consider the time and political capital wasted by Tsvangirai and his MDC-T in fighting a decision that any other reasonable actor would estimate as already foregone.
Once Mugabe had spoken in Japan it was clear what he was going to do.
A pragmatic mind would start firing all campaign cylinders but Tsvangirai’s team is hopelessly inadequate and will waste a good 14 days before accepting what became inevitable when words were spoken in Japan.
But the election declaration and the war waged against white farmer ‘enemies’ are merely incidental, let us draw greater lessons on the use of words.
We do not recognise Mugabe
“We do not recognise Mugabe and Zanu PF, they are CRIMINALS . . . ” Arthur Mutambara, sporting a rather juvenile beret, barked in 2007.
Juxtapose the choice of words with Mutambara’s current circumstances in which he finds himself in quite a comfortable union with the same Mugabe he once described as a criminal.
I doubt Mutambara ever really estimated Mugabe as a criminal. It was merely a frivolous use of words. This is not uncommon in Zimbabwean politics.
If I can borrow from the learned Professor who describes this state of being as an “open-mouth and shut-mind.”
This can be broken down to describe one who opens his mouth not to express deeply held convictions or a contemplated conclusion, but in a spontaneous and reactionary manner. George Orwell, perhaps a bit crueller than the professor, calls it “duckspeak.”
Surrendered sovereignty and boycotts
An excellent example is Tsvangirai’s words some days ago in which he argued that Zimbabwe had surrendered part of its sovereignty to Sadc.
The learned professor, being the political vulture that he is, pounced on this and tore Tsvangirai to shreds in a series of predatory articles featured in The Sunday Mail and The Herald daily.
This much is unfair because I am quite sure Jonathan Moyo knows that this was not an expression of a genuinely held belief but merely duckspeak.
Tsvangirai was just making frivolous use of words. It is inconceivable that Tsvangirai actually believes that Zimbabwe has surrendered part of its sovereignty to Sadc. I say this in the generous assumption that Tsvangirai understands what sovereignty actually is.
Another Professor, Arthur Mutambara, whose stock has been on the rise since he ditched his bombastic and theatrical style, wasted little time and, opportunistically rode the political wave created by Tsvangirai’s sovereignty duckspeak.
Never ones to disappoint, The Herald editors led with a generous headline, “Mutambara breathes fire”.
I suspect the young Professor was not displeased.
Not to be outdone, Professor Lovemore Madhuku also joined the fray.
The ZBC, cheerful at this uncommon confluence of opinion, dutifully reported his chastisement of Tsvangirai’s poll date rejection in which he pointed out the supremacy of the Constitutional Court and its role as the final arbiter in all disputes.
The three professors had found curious common ground and took turns to savage Tsvangirai. What is unfortunate is that this fall-out was entirely unnecessary in view of the fact that Tsvangirai did not even mean what he had said.
His mouth was open but the mind was shut. There is now talk of a boycott. More duckspeak. Tsvangirai will not boycott this election. He is just making frivolous use of words. Zanu-PF knows this. Sadc knows this.
Even Tsvangirai’s followers know this. This is because Tsvangirai does not have a reputation for using words to express deeply held convictions. His words come cheap.
Not entirely apropos
On the issue of these elections and of electoral reforms, I am quite puzzled by the approach that Tsvangirai is taking. He argues that he wants reforms to be implemented before the country can go for elections. A few issues arise.
Is it Tsvangirai’s view that if there are no media reforms then he must remain Prime Minister and Mugabe President indefinitely?
If he could not manage these reforms in the past four years what makes him think that they can be put in place in four months?
In any case, the same GPA that Tsvangirai seeks to rely on was very clear on sanctions. Tsvangirai violated that aspect of the GPA.
There is documentary evidence of this.
In a conversation with the American ambassador he made it clear that he wanted sanctions to remain in place and told the Americans to ignore his public demands for their removal as this was merely for show. Thank you WikiLeaks.
Let us turn this around and expose the absurdity.
Zanu-PF could equally refuse to go for elections arguing that they want these reforms to be implemented before the election can be free and fair.
Until sanctions are lifted Mugabe would remain President.
There would be widespread outrage.
So why does Tsvangirai feel that he has the right to remain Prime Minister on the basis on the same absurd argument?
Stern-faced Mugabe
On Saturday the 15th as the SADC summit in Maputo proceeded, I was following the progress on Twitter and one journalist’s simplistic observations caught my eye. “The summit has broken for lunch, Mugabe emerged stern-faced while Tsvangirai was smiling,” he says in optimistic tone.
A few people retweet, seemingly in affirmation of the substance of his observation.
I found this amusing because it so perfectly captures how Mugabe has managed to manoeuvre past the MDC all these years. He is foxy whilst they are naïve, making for an unfair contest.
The journalist and others of weak imagination see Mugabe looking stern-faced and immediately conclude that this means he is unhappy, the negotiations are going in Tsvangirai’s favour.
They assume he uses facial expressions to sincerely communicate feelings. It is more likely he uses them to lead on and rightly so, anything less disqualifies a politician.
Imagine you walk into a car showroom expecting a vehicle is selling for an exorbitant sum. If the salesman advises you of a price below your initial estimation it would be quite tactless to grin in open delight. A skilled negotiator would remain stern-faced and seemingly unexcited.
A fool will be unable to hide his joy and as a result will not manage to negotiate the stated price any lower. These are elementary techniques.
The naiveté displayed by the said journalist is pervasive in opposition types. A few examples would be helpful.
The MDC has stated that all diamonds companies operating in Marange should be on eviction notice.
If they (MDC-T) win the elections they (mining companies) will be kicked out and the diamonds nationalised. Fair enough, that is their wish.
In declaring their intentions the naïve MDC-T politicians sabotage themselves.
Even if they had such actions in mind they would have done well to remain hush.
Instead, what they have done is to terrify those mining companies, who now believe their continued operation can only be guaranteed by Zanu-PF, into great generosity. They will donate millions to protect themselves. An otherwise dormant party is now an active financial adversary.
The same is true of indigenisation.
Many communities are seeing the fruits of community share schemes and are drawing a direct benefit from the same.
By threatening to reverse the indigenisation programme the MDC simply ensures that otherwise apathetic voters turn up with their families on Election Day to prevent him from reversing what they find beneficial.
If the 300 000 resettled families feel in any way threatened by an MDC-T ascendency, they too will report to polling stations in record numbers.
Opposition politicians are not very clever.
I say that not to mock them but in sincere concern at what I perceive to be dangerous naiveté, especially when dealing with Machiavellian types like Robert Mugabe, Emmerson Mnangagwa, Jonathan Moyo and others.
Ndatenda, Muchembere wenyu Amai Jukwa.
Labels: AMAI JUKWA, MORGAN TSVANGIRAI
Read more...
