(NEWZIMBABWE) US-Africa Summit: Obama excludes Mugabe
22/01/2014 00:00:00
by AFP
PRESIDENT Barack Obama will invite 47 leaders to a landmark US-Africa summit in August, seeking to widen US trade, development and security ties with an increasingly dynamic continent to which he traces part of his ancestry.
Obama will send out invites to all African nations that are currently in good standing with the United States or are not suspended from the African Union - meaning there will be no place for states like Egypt or Zimbabwe. Obama will hold the talks on 5 and 6 August, seeking to cement progress from his trip to Africa last year.
A White House statement said the trip would "advance the administration's focus on trade and investment in Africa, and highlight America's commitment to Africa's security, its democratic development, and its people."
The idea for the summit, which takes place with Washington increasingly aware of China's attempt to enhance its diplomatic profile in Africa, was first announced by Obama in a speech in Cape Town in June.
Egypt, which has caused the Obama administration to thread a foreign policy needle with an erstwhile ally after a military takeover, is not eligible to attend as it is currently suspended from the African Union.
The United States maintains sanctions against President Robert Mugabe and key officials over suppression of democracy and what Washington sees as politically motivated violence.
Other notable absentees on the invite list include Sudan and Madagascar.
One notable inclusion is Kenya, where President Uhuru Kenyatta is currently awaiting a delayed trial at the International Criminal Court on charges related to violence after an election in 2007 that left 1 000 people dead.
The indictment has been one of the reasons why Obama is yet to visit the homeland of his late father as president.
But Obama has spoken to Kenyatta on the telephone, and the Kenyan leader has enjoyed more interaction with the outside world since a massacre at the Westgate Mall in Nairobi in September claimed by Somalia's Al-Qaeda-linked Shabaab insurgents.
Labels: BARACK OBAMA, ROBERT MUGABE
Read more...
(STICKY) (NEWZIMBABWE) Vote flawed, sanctions to remain: US
19/08/2013 00:00:00
by Staff Reporter I Agencies
COMMENT - The Conversation We Need To Have
This is completely anti-democratic. The Zimbabwean people have spoken, and they don't want De Beers to steal their diamonds. If the US government can choose to ignore the outcome of democratic elections abroad, perhaps SADC should ignore the outcome of American elections.
In other words, the United States Government is full of sh*t. Either you abide by the expressed will of the Zimbabwean people, or you come out and openly say that you only accept an outcome that is in agreement with your Rothschild (Anglo-American De Beers, Rio Tinto, etc.) and Rockefeller (ExxonMobil, Chevron, JPMorgan Chase, Chiquita/United Fruit, etc.) paymasters.
It is extremely ironic, that one of the consequences of being placed under sanctions, is that you lose your right to bribe American politicians. I quote from (NEWZIMBABWE) US congressmen tied to illegal $3.4m Mugabe lobby: "It's not illegal for public officials to meet with sanctioned Zimbabweans, but individuals cannot provide lobbying services to those subjected to U.S. sanctions, prosecutors said."
This is not democracy, this is about exploitation of African resources by the old Rothschild (De Beers) owned corporations that stole African (and South American and Asian) resources under colonialism and Apartheid/UDI. - MrK
THE United States said Monday that
it believes the July 31 elections were flawed adding it does not plan to loosen sanctions against Zimbabwe until there are
signs of change in the country.
"The United States stands by our assessment that these elections, while relatively peaceful, did not represent a credible expression of the will of the Zimbabwean people due to serious flaws throughout the electoral process," said State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki.
So I guess the United States is the ultimate arbitrator of whether countries can have access to the IMF and World Bank and other banking functions. Why not just declare the American president presidetn of all countries in the world. Democracy, 'American style'. - MrK
"We have made clear to the government of Zimbabwe and the region that a change in U.S. sanctions policy will occur only in the context of credible, transparent and peaceful reforms that reflect the will of the Zimbabwean people."
Unlike violence free democratic elections. - MrK
The statement appeared to be a response to an appeal by regional leaders during a SADC summit in Lilongwe, Malawi, where they backed President Robert Mugabe’s re-election.
The veteran leader, who has ruled the country since independence in 1980, is set to be sworn in on Thursday, extending his 33-year rule by at least another term.
Opposition MDC-T leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, refused to concede defeat, dismissing the vote a huge farce. He has also dropped his court challenge saying he doubted he would get a fair hearing.
And taking their, cue from the out-going premier, Western nations, which maintain sanctions against the country, also said the election was not credible although observers from the African Union and the SADC region passed the vote as peaceful and free.
Speaking after the Lilongwe meeting, SADC chair and Malawi President Joyce Banda urged the West to drop the sanctions which Mugabe and his Zanu PF party blame for Zimbabwe’s economic problems.
"I believe Zimbabwe deserves better, Zimbabweans have suffered enough," said Banda.
But Psaki said for now the sanctions would remain although it was "feasible" that the U.S. could review them if conditions in the country improved.
The US imposed sanctions on Mugabe in 2003 alleging vote fraud and human rights failings. The sanctions, which ban more than 250 Zimbabwean individuals and companies from doing business with the United States, were extended in 2009.
However, soon after his nomination as Secretary of State, John Kerry wrote to Mugabe outlining the U.S. position on elections and the opportunities it provided for the country.
The U.S. had said it was willing to roll back sanctions and expand trade and investment if elections were conducted in a free and credible environment.
Labels: BARACK OBAMA, HILLARY CLINTON, NEOCOLONIALISM, RUSS FEINGOLD, SANCTIONS, ZDERA
Read more...
(SUNDAY MAIL ZW) Ngozi and Obama’s mission to Africa
Saturday, 13 July 2013 16:17
My July 7 2013 instalment suggested that the purpose of US President Barack Obama’s visit to Senegal, South Africa and Tanzania in late June 2013 was to try to tie together Euro-American economic interests threatened by Chinese, Russian and Indian initiatives across Africa. Zimbabwe (especially because of its impending 2013 elections) was an important target. But Obama in 2013, like George W. Bush in 2002, could not tackle Zimbabwe directly. Zimbabwe had to be approached in terms of what might be called the Anglo-Saxon objectives of “Sadc integration,” as opposed to the Pan-African understanding of the same.
From a Pan-African point of view, Sadc integration means the reclamation, transformation and unification of Sadc, based on the indigenous aspirations and interests of the majority of the people who have been marginalised by apartheid and settlerism since the 1870s in South Africa and since the 1920s in Zimbabwe, for instance. Sadc regional integration from a Pan-African perspective means using the liberation aspirations of the majority in the 14 Sadc states to drive economic transformation, asset reclamation, ownership and control. This vision is best articulated in Zimbabwe and it is a major factor in the 2013 elections. China, Russia and India are welcome in this scenario because they are seen as respectful of this vision. The opposite imperial objectives of the Anglo-Saxon powers can best be explained by an EU document called “Towards an EU-South Africa Strategic Partnership.” There are similar documents on the US-South Africa partnership as well.
For the European Union and the United States the approach to Southern Africa was expressed by US Ambassador to Tanzania Robert Royall in 2003. This is Professor Issa Shivji’s account of that approach.
“Addressing the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee of my country, US Ambassador Robert Royall commended Tanzania for the change in its foreign policy from one based on principles of African Freedom and African Unity to one based on economic diplomacy.
The liberation diplomacy of the past, when alliances with socialist nations were paramount and so-called Third World Solidarity dominated foreign policy, must give way to a more realistic approach to dealing with your true friends - those who are working to lift you into the twenty-first century, where poverty is not acceptable and diseases must be conquered.”
Professor Shivji gave this account in a paper significantly called “The rise, the fall, and the insurrection of nationalism in Africa.” That nationalism is what Bush, Obama, Blair and David Cameron have come to Southern Africa to exorcise.
Focusing more on South Africa and Zimbabwe the Euro-American or Anglo-Saxon agenda which brought Barack Obama here after Bush and Blair is based on the following assumptions:
* That the historical solidarity of African liberation movements with India, Russia, China and Latin America should not be allowed to transform itself into meaningful economic co-operation on a new footing which is mutually beneficial. This was Robert Royall’s message in 2003. This was MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai’s message on July 7 2013 in Marondera when he told Madzimbahwe to vote MDC because it has rich Western friends who will now bring beneficial investments which they have never been able to bring to this region since 1870!
* That the (crime) ngozi of the white settler and that of his Euro-American cousins and supporters was permanently wiped away when former South African President FW de Klerk and his former prisoner (also former President) Nelson Mandela jointly received the Nobel Peace Prize on the same white platform.
* That the joint Nobel Peace Prize for Mandela and de Klerk, just like the Nobel Peace Prize which the EU gave itself in 2012 despite Nato aggression everywhere, should now remain the permanent emblem for post-nationalist and post-racial politics which Obama preaches. Such an image or emblem should be capable of wiping out from the native mind the ongoing Euro-American atrocities in Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Guantanamo, and Iraq (Abu-Graib). The capacity of that post-national and post-racial myth to wipe out even the ongoing and evolving atrocities of the West is what enabled Obama to fake a stricken conscience at Robben Island, thinking that the world was no longer awake to or aware of the live concentration camp on Cuba’s stolen soil at Guantanamo Bay. Obama is also a recent recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize despite his murderous record.
* That once the white empire’s ngozi in apartheid, in Portuguese fascism and in Rhodesian UDI was wiped away through bogus awards - then the white business class of South Africa (with Euro-American assistance) would heroically co-opt African political and business elites and march together into the rest of Africa, recreating and fulfilling for imperialism what PW Botha once called the constellation of states around the new South Africa and against the Russian, Chinese and Indian initiatives. This renewed constellation of states would then be able to support and mould the MDC formations into a grand coalition which would defeat the liberation movement in Zanu-PF in Zimbabwe and install a post-racial and post-national capitalist system which would then reverse Zimbabwe’s land revolution, stop economic indigenisation and scuttle African majority empowerment.
* That the infusion of Euro-American capital, media and culture into the region would mould a new post-racial and post-national political economy: with the new Constitution of Zimbabwe incorporating many features from the rainbow constitution of South Africa; with Ian Khama of Botswana, the MDC formations and some elements in the ANC of South Africa declaring that Sadc is no longer the frontline states or that we are no longer in the bush war; with gay policies being promoted through new media and constitutional provisions; and with Rhodesian whites, Anglo-South African whites and Boers melting into one neoliberal bloc; and with some “new” African leaders in the region helping to condemn the Zimbabwe revolution in the hope that their own people won’t notice the real difference that Third Chimurenga has made in the lives of Madzimbahwe. That was the imperialist dream driving the Obama mission; and it was a tall order!
Obama, Ian Khama, the MDCs and Ngozi
Ngozi as an African philosophical concept concerns protection of the human bloodline, the protection of inheritance, of heritage, dignity and memory against imperialist terror by forgetting. Ngozi is the antithesis of amnesia.
Colonialism, apartheid and slavery produced generations of Africans who could no longer bequeath any meaningful material inheritance to their children and children’s children. Without land, without an economy to bequeath, African elders also found themselves with little memory to bequeath.
The African liberation movement in Zimbabwe is the first in our time to craft and enforce a deliberate policy to reverse that colonial reality by empowering a whole race of mothers and fathers so that they can again possess land and other resources to bequeath to their children and children’s children. It is scary to reverse a white racist practice dating back more than 300 years. Even more scary is the long memory which that Third Chimurenga is going to bequeath to the region and continent.
That is why all the children of terror by forgetting, all the children of white amnesia, all the modern-day Oedipus characters, would want to destroy, to wipe out, this African liberation movement and its long and deep memory, because it reminds them of a great crime that won’t go away, a crime which even digital lights cannot remove unless it is requited in terms of unhu.
But who are these children of terror by forgetting? Obama is one. Ian Khama is another. There are many.
Ian Khama spoke at the Maputo Sadc summit in June 2013 about the need to remove the liberation war heroes from our security sector and from Zimbabwe’s public life because we are no longer in the bush war which ended 34 years ago: But as he was speaking in Maputo, Mozambique, as Sadc was being influenced by the Rhodies and the white West to see Zimbabwe as a country in crisis because of its proud and living war heroes - Alfonso Dhlakama’s Mozambican Resistance Army (Renamo) was moving back into the bush, attacking military bases and armouries and stealing weapons, ambushing soldiers and civilians and blocking some transport corridors vital for Mozambique’s and Sadc’s economic revival. And who had helped to stop Renamo in 1991-1992? It was the very same proud and living war heroes of Zimbabwe which Ian Khama condemned as stuck in the stone age! Imperialist terror by forgetting is on the rampage via sponsored media.
NewsDay for June 17 2013 made the Khama remark a front page story: “Generals under Sadc fire” which headline went way overboard by making the remark appear to be a Sadc summit position. The paper went on to say:
“Sources revealed that Botswana’s President Ian Khama … was taken aback by the statement from securocrats that they would not salute anyone without liberation war credentials. ‘Khama asked why people were still talking about a bush war that ended 33 years ago’. He pointed out that when the liberation war was fought it was not against the MDCs…”
Yet that was precisely the generals’ point. First, Zimbabwe’s war vets are not opposed to all those who were not in the war for not being in the war. They have said they will not salute any traitor.
That is all. Secondly the MDCs hate liberation war heroes precisely for defeating UDI and apartheid. They do so on behalf of white settlers and their Anglo-Saxon sponsors whom they asked for illegal sanctions to be imposed upon the entire population of Zimbabwe. Now, that MDC posture means far more than not having fought in the war of liberation.
The same can be said about the spectacle at Rudhaka Stadium in Marondera on July 7 2013, where the MDC (a whole conference dressed in red) displayed its Youth Assembly leader Solomon Madzore and cheered him as he attacked and insulted not only the proud and living liberation heroes of Zimbabwe but also their mothers and grandmothers in a manner far worse than what Ian Khama had said in Maputo on June 16 2013.
Madzore is a classic case of the validity and effectiveness of ngozi. He raved about shedding blood while dressed in red in a conference where everyone was dressed in red. Yet he is out on bail on allegations of the brutal murder of Zimbabwe Republic Police Inspector Petros Mutedza.
He feels compelled to attack Zimbabwe’s liberation war heroes and their mothers precisely because our heroes came home and feel at home even after shedding blood in a war which was justified in terms of the ngozi concept. Madzore does not feel at home and accepted during or after what the MDC wants to elevate and legitimise as a struggle brought only through rhetoric to the same level as the Second Chimurenga. His own soul is not convinced that what the MDCs have done is equal to the Second Chimurenga.
Even the crowd at Rudhaka was not convinced. That is why MDC spokesperson Douglas Mwonzora is still rationalising the Madzore spectacle and rhetoric ad-nauseam. Ngozi is powerful, more powerful than all the judges and laws based on a Euro-centric constitution.
Madzore dressed in red, in a conference all dressed in red. Do MDC leaders know what red means in African symbolism?
Let me provide the reader with a picture of the situation in which a person believes he is free, innocent, uninvolved, clean and removed from ngozi when he is not.
The following passage depicts Oedipus, after he murdered his own father without knowing that Lauis was indeed his father and after Apollo said that all the murderers of Lauis should be identified and banished from the city of Thebes in order for the plague and famine to stop:
Creon: May I tell you what I heard from the god? Drive out and not leave uncured a pollution (crime) we have nourished in our land.
Oedipus: How?
Creon: Banish the killer or killers or have them executed.
Oedipus: Who was the victim of murder whom the god has revealed?
Creon: Lauis, my Lord, who used to rule this state
Oedipus: I know him by hearsay, but I never met him.
Where are they (his murderers) on this earth?
Creon: They are in this land, said Apollo.
Oedipus: Did Laius fall (die) at home on this bloody end or in the fields or in some foreign land? ... Was there no messenger, no fellow wayfarer who saw, from whom an inquirer might get aid?
Creon: They (those who were there) are all dead, save one, who fled in fear and he knows only one thing sure to tell.
Oedipus: What is that?
Further on, the murderer of his own father swears in front of the entire city to become the avenger, to become the human rights crusader, to become the equivalent of ICC against Laius’s murderers.
Oedipus: Not for the sake of some distant friend but for myself, I will uncover this evil. Whoever it was who killed the man (Laius), with the same hand may wish to do vengeance on me and so avenging Lauis’s death I avenge myself.
At the end, the ngozi is made clear and the one leading the crusade for hunting down the guilty murderers is confirmed as the murderer of King Laius who is also his own real father!
Oedipus can crusade against the abstract murderers of an abstract King Laius by turning his own history also into an abstraction. Obama can weep at Robben Island only by turning Guantanamo, Abu Graib, his drone war victims and Libya into abstractions.
The original African concept of ngozi
The original African meaning of ngozi is a conception of the relationship between the individual soul and its bloodline and heritage.
Its main operational mode is revelation, which is to say the soul of the departed relative recruits spirit possession, memory, telepathy, extrasensory perception, intuition, guilt and the confessional against erasure, against amnesia, against lies, against false alibis, against obsolescence. Oedipus says of his own father whom he murdered in broad daylight: I know him by hearsay, but I never met him.”
What the ngozi protects against erasure, against amnesia, against disappearance, against lies, against robbery and dispossession, against false alibis, against obsolescence and against obscurity are the circumstances in which the individual died or was killed; the bloodline (blood relations) of the individual; and all the possessions of the individual (nhaka) which belong to the bloodline and are the material basis for continuing the bloodline.
The key purpose of ngozi is the continuity and continuation of the interrupted bloodline of that deceased individual, especially if he or she dies without leaving behind children.
The African concept of ngozi teaches that every human being is a soul which lives after the body is no more. This spirit communicates with living communities of its descendants or relatives.
The spirit of Nehanda is celebrated in Zimbabwe because it is the spirit of a national ancestor taking the entire colonised Zimbabwe as its lost assets and therefore coming back to Zimbabwe both in the 1890s and 1970s and finally succeeding in mobilising the youths of Zimbabwe to join the armed struggle until liberation in 1980.
When Ian Khama says 33 years ago is too far back to matter, he is turning African living law and living history into an abstraction.
Labels: BARACK OBAMA, COLONIALISM
Read more...
(BLACK AGENDA REPORT) Obama And Kikwete Want Uganda And Rwanda To Halt Their Congo Bloodshed
Kambale MusavuliJuly 03,2013
After visiting Senegal and South Africa, President Obama's last stop on his African tour was in Tanzania where he visited President Jakaya Kikwete and concluded his trip to Africa on Tuesday, July 2, 2013.
Both President Obama and Kikwete have made auspicious statements regarding the crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).
Last week, President Kikwete called on both Rwanda and Uganda to enter into dialogue with their respective rebel militia who are present in the Congo instead of continuously utilizing rebel presence as a rationale for repeated interventions in the Congo.
On Monday, July 1, 2013 during his state visit to Tanzania, responding to a question from a Congolese journalist, President Obama said "The countries surrounding the Congo, they've got to make a commitment to stop funding armed groups that are encroaching on the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Congo."
President Obama's response is fascinating in two respects. First, in spite, of sixteen years of intervention in the DRC by U.S. allies Rwanda and Uganda, which has triggered the deaths of millions of Congolese, President Obama still did not mention either country by name; he merely uttered the phrase "Congo's neighbors." Secondly, while U.S. has repeatedly acknowledged that its allies, Rwanda and Uganda are funding armed groups in the Congo, it continues to arm, train, finance and provide diplomatic and political cover for both countries.
Philippe Bolopion of Human Rights Watch says it best when he observed in a New York Times commentary: "So how do you get away with arming a rebel force that attacks U.N. peacekeepers, rapes women and recruits children? You need powerful friends, and Rwanda has had one. Born from the guilt of the Clinton administration's inaction in the face of the Rwandan genocide, and a recognition of Rwanda's relatively efficient use of development aid, the United States has proven to be one of Kigali's staunchest allies."
It would stand to reason that as the U.S. calls on its allies to cease funding of armed groups in the Congo, the U.S. itself would cease funding of Rwanda and Uganda as long as they continue fueling the conflict in the DRC. In fact, U.S. law calls on the Obama Administration to do as much. Section 105 of Public Law 109-456, the law that President Obama sponsored as senator and co-sponsored by Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, authorizes the Secretary of State to withhold aid from Congo's neighbors, should they destabilize the country. The Obama Administration has yet to fully implement this law.
Pressure has been mounting around Rwanda and Uganda's support of militia gangs in the Congo. In light of the UN Group of experts reports published in 2012, the United States government has said that "there is a credible body of evidence that corroborates key findings of the Group of Experts' reports - including evidence of significant military and logistical support, as well as operational and political guidance, from the Rwandan government to the M23."
The administration response to the report has been a suspension of $200,000 of Foreign Military Financing provided to a Rwandan military academy and a phone call from President Barack Obama to Paul Kagame to discuss Rwanda's role in the destabilization of the Congo. Unfortunately, these small steps have not been enough to stop Congo's neighbors from intervening in the Congo, nor are they commensurate with the level of suffering the people of the Congo face daily due to the brutal killings perpetrated by militia gangs.
One of the key changes needed in U.S. policy in the Great Lakes Region of Africa is to cease its support of U.S. allies who are fueling conflict in the DRC. As he did in his 2009 trip to Ghana, President Obama repeated again during his Cape Town speech that "we are interested in investing not in strongmen but in strong institutions." However, the US government's continued support of strongmen in Rwanda, Uganda and DRC, stands in stark contrast to President Obama's declaration in Cape Town.
A second key change required in US policy is for the U.S. to in fact support strong institutions and democracy both in the Congo and the region. The lack of democracy and democratic institutions and the militarization of the political space in the region have been a major driver of the instability in the DRC, Uganda and Rwanda. These structural changes in U.S. Foreign Policy are vital steps needed to advancing peace and stability in the Congo and the Great Lakes region of Africa.
Despite the millions of Congolese who have perished in the past 16 years in what the United Nations says is the deadliest conflict in the world since World War II, the response from the United States in particular and other global leaders has been lackluster at best in the face of what is arguably the greatest human tragedy at the dawn of the 21st century. The recently initiated "Peace, Security and Cooperation Framework for the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Region," is one such example; as it fails to hold Rwanda and Uganda accountable, lacks a serious justice component, did not include the Congolese people in its development and mistakenly argues that legitimizing Rwanda and Uganda's looting of the Congo under the guise of trade and economic integration will bring stability.
The degree to which action has been taken, to hold aggressor countries like Rwanda and Uganda accountable has been a result of global pressure on world leaders by ordinary people. We have repeatedly seen the constructive role that global pressure can play in advancing peace in the Congo. Recently, the UN Group of Experts on the DRC leaked a report documenting reduced support for Rwandan and Ugandan militias in the Congo. This is a clear sign that the pressure on the U.S. and its allies Rwanda and Uganda needs to be sustained and stepped-up.
Musavuli is Spokesperson for Friends of Congo
Join the global movement in support of the Congo.
Keep abreast of the latest updates via Twitter.
Participate in the Swim for Congo and support women and youth in the Congo.
Sign-up for Congo Week VI, October 20 - 26, 2013.
Labels: BARACK OBAMA, JAKAYA KIKWETE
Read more...
(HERALD ZW) Obama, Zulu court controversy
Monday, 01 July 2013 00:34
Hebert Zharare and Lloyd Gumbo
US President Barack Obama has come under fire for abusing his visit to South Africa to meddle in Zimbabwe’s internal affairs while President Jacob Zuma’s international relations advisor Ms Lindiwe Zulu, invited brickbats for parroting the MDC-T mantra of a month-long postponement of harmonised elections scheduled for the end of this month.
Mr Obama, whose presidency is mired in international barbarism from drone assassinations to massive spying on US citizens and the world along with a bounty on whistle-blowers Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, tipped his hand when he emerged from a meeting with Mr Zuma saying ‘‘reforms’’ should precede harmonised elections.
Ms Zulu also weighed in yesterday, calling for a postponement of elections by at least a month to accommodate “basic reforms” to ensure free and fair elections, a stance in tandem with the MDC-T position.
Zimbabweans, yesterday, told Mr Obama - whose visit was greeted by demonstrations from South Africans - to look in the mirror and deal with the mess in his own backyard, including advising his hosts to rein in the South African Police Services who have been implicated in clamping down on foreigners.
The analysts said it was ironic that Mr Obama could talk of the need for free and fair elections in Zimbabwe when his country maintained its illegal sanctions regime through the so-called Zimbabwe Transition to Democracy and Economic Recovery Act that was imposed to influence voting patterns in favour of the MDC.
During hearings on ZDERA in September 2001, the then US assistant secretary of state for African affairs Chester Crocker told the US Senate that “to separate the Zimbabwean people from Zanu-PF, we are going to have to make their economy scream, and I hope you, senators, have the stomach for what you have to do”.
It was unfortunate, the analysts said, that President Zuma allowed Mr Obama to abuse their meeting to trash Zimbabwe when the SA leader was supposed to remind his guest that the just-ended GPA abhorred foreign meddling in Zimbabwe’s internal affairs.
“Harassment of citizens and groups needs to stop and reform needs to move forward so that people can cast their votes in elections that are fair and free and credible,” said President Obama.
Mr Obama also attacked the new Constitution claiming it does not have term limits for presidents, a claim made authoritatively from a position of ignorance given that section 91(2) of the new Constitution provides for two five-year terms for a president.
War veterans leader Cde Jabulani Sibanda said Zimbabwe is a sovereign nation governed by its laws not the opinions of foreigners.
“Our elections are in accordance with our laws and not according to American laws. We are a free nation and a sovereign people. We are governed by our Constitution and not opinions of other people.
“When we were a colony, an opinion from an American or British leader could change our lives in an instant but we had to fight a bitter tenaciously on those mountains of our country.
“A lot of our people lost their lives and limb but we never fought outside our country but from inside so that we could govern our country by the rule of law and not by the opinion of an American president who is not a Zimbabwean constitution.
“We respect America but we don’t want interference with the internal affairs of our country,” said Cde Sibanda.
Political scientist and Zanu-PF Politburo member Professor Jonathan Moyo yesterday described Mr Obama’s statements as insults to Zimbabweans and progressive South Africans.
He said that the US President was not supposed to bother himself about developments in Zimbabwe, adding the two leaders failed to take advantage of their meeting to discuss negative events unfolding in their countries.
“President Zuma was supposed to have told Obama that as Africans, they were embarrassed because he has violated human rights and the international law and killed people in countries such as Iran, Somalia and Afghanistan. He should have told him that the Africans were not happy with the use of cyber war against Iran. Should have told him that people were not happy with his use of the Internet to spy on the people… he preaches about the freedom of expression while he spies on everyone.
“On the same token, President Obama should have told President Zuma that there was no need for him to talk about reforms in Zimbabwe, while there was massive police brutality perpetrated on Sadc citizens by South African police as well as the massacring on defenseless workers at Marikana Mines,” he said.
“The truth is no amount of propaganda can hide the fact that Zimbabwe is enjoying peace, unity and development…Zimbabweans are the most empowered Africans, thanks to the policies of Zanu-PF. The term of office for the President ended yesterday (Saturday) and that Zimbabwe is now due for harmonised elections according to the country’s constitution, not according rule of Obama or Zuma.
“If they believe in their shared notion that there should be reforms in Zimbabwe first before elections when Parliament’s term has expired, them God should help them…Their notion is unprecedented, uncivilized and unconstitutional,” he said.
The country has reached a point of no return given that the term of parliament has come to an end, the poll dates have been set for July 31, all GPA parties have filed their papers with the nomination court, marking the demise of the inclusive Government.
“This is what Obama and Zuma should have discussed and acknowledged, not to be Zuma’s megaphone. He should not allow himself to be megaphone of things opposed to the rule of law in Zimbabwe,” he said.
Prof Moyo also lashed out at Ms Zulu for making reckless statements on Zimbabwe that the Constitutional Court should extend poll dates by at least a month from July 31.
“Honestly, Zulu should leave us alone; they have enough of their own problems that are worse than ours. This nonsense that the country should be sensitive and give one more month is unheard of because Sadc just said two weeks,” he said.
Prof Moyo said Ms Zulu’s statements since 2008 were bent on causing problems in the country because she kept on referring to some developments many Zimbabweans have forgotten. Former Zimbabwean ambassador to China, Cde Christopher Mutsvangwa said Mr Obama was ill-informed about the Zimbabwean situation.
“He is talking out of terms. He is so near to Zimbabwe yet so far from the reality on the ground. Our nomination process went well with all political parties satisfied with how the process was conducted. The event (nominations) on Friday was incident-free.
“Then we get an American president talking about reforms. From what basis is he talking about those reforms? The eagerness by Zimbabweans to register as candidates demonstrates the measure of confidence in the democratic and electoral process in the country.”
Cde Mutsvangwa said the repossession of land from whites by the Zimbabwean Government was the reason why Britain and America would never see anything good happening in Zimbabwe.
A senior lecturer in the Media and Society Studies Department at the Midlands State University, Dr Nhamo Mhiripiri said, one can draw parallels between yesterday’s statement by President Obama and the one by Mr Johnnie Carson (US Assistant secretary of State for African Affairs) in Kenya just before elections in that country.
“You could draw parallels between what President Obama has said and what Mr Carson also said on the eve of the Kenyan election.
“But international relations etiquette denotes that governments should be discreet when making their allegiances public as they deal with elections in foreign lands,” he said.
Dr Charity Manyeruke from the University of Zimbabwe’s Political Science Department said it was wrong for President Obama to comment about issues that he had no full knowledge on.
“As a statesman it is wrong for Mr Obama to comment about the so-called reforms in Zimbabwe without full knowledge about the situation on the ground.
“The Americans should respect sovereign states in line with the principles of the United Nations Charter and not take sides in internal affairs of other nations.
“It’s a pity that Mr Obama is taking sides, but his statements can be taken in the context that he wants to foment civil strife in the country especially in the security sector.
“What he wants is to see Zimbabwe turn into another Somalia so that the Americans can come in and plunder the country’s resources.
Labels: 2013 ELECTIONS (ZW), BARACK OBAMA, LINDIWE ZULU, MDC
Read more...
(SUNDAY MAIL ZW) Obama pokes nose in Zim affairs
Sunday, 30 June 2013 00:00
Munyaradzi Huni and Lincoln Towindo
US President Barack Obama yesterday blatantly displayed his support for the MDC-T after telling a South African audience that Zimbabwe has to undergo “some reforms’’ if it is to hold a credible election. While clearly singing from the same hymn book as the Western-sponsored party, President Obama also claimed that some Zimbabwean citizens and groups were being harassed during the build-up to the elections set for July 31.
America is believed to be one of the biggest sponsors of the MDC-T with the agenda of effecting regime change in Zimbabwe.
However, analysts have criticised the US leader for “poking his nose” into the affairs of Zimbabwe.
This is not the first time that the Obama administration has shown support for what is believed to be its puppet projects in Africa a few weeks before elections are held.
Just before the Kenyan elections early this year, the US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Johnnie Carson, tried to influence voters to support one of the candidates who eventually lost, Mr Raila Odinga.
However, that move backfired spectacularly as Kenyans voted overwhelmingly for the now Kenyan leader Mr Uhuru Kenyatta.
In his speech in South Africa yesterday, President Obama showed his country’s support for the out-of-sorts MDC-T leader, Mr Tsvangirai, in the July 31 elections, by repeating calls for reforms ahead of elections and making the harassment claims.
“Harassment of citizens and groups needs to stop and reform needs to move forward so that people can cast their votes in elections that are fair and free and credible,” said President Obama.
During question time, the US President went on to attack the country’s Constitution for not having term limits for Presidents. This however, surprised many as Zimbabwe is not the only country without presidential term limits.
Analysts yesterday said what makes President Obama’s statement sound even more sinister is that before he left the US for his African visit, his Deputy National Security Advisor, Ben Rhodes, had made reckless allegations about what he called “deeply undemocratic practices,” taking place in Zimbabwe.
Mr Rhodes went on to alleged what he termed “very questionable elections, crackdowns on independent media and civil society” in the country.
This is despite the fact that Zimbabwe recently adopted a new constitution which was passed by all parties in the inclusive Government, paving way for the July 31 elections.
Commenting on President Obama’s statement on Zimbabwe, a Sadc diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonimity said: “After the statement by President Barack Obama, there was a flurry of concerned phone calls among diplomats especially those from our region.
“Many diplomats expressed concern over the statement which was unfortunately made right in the backyard of not only one of our own, but the facilitator in Zimbabwe. What concerns most of us in the region is that the statement by President Barack Obama sounds almost the same with the position that was given by the MDC parties during the recently held Sadc summit in Mozambique and was also contained in the facilitator’s report which was awash in your media here.
“As diplomats from the region, we are concerned because we don’t think what happened in South Africa yesterday was procedural in international relations.”
Dr Charity Manyeruke from the University of Zimbabwe’s Political Science Department said it was wrong for President Obama to comment about issues that he had no full knowledge on.
“As a statesman it is wrong for Mr Obama to comment about the so-called reforms in Zimbabwe without full knowledge about the situation on the ground.
“The Americans should respect sovereign states in line with the principles of the United Nations Charter and not take sides in internal affairs of other nations.
“It’s a pity that Mr Obama is taking sides, but his statements can be taken in the context that he wants to foment civil strife in the country especially in the security sector.
“What he wants is to see Zimbabwe turn into another Somalia so that the Americans can come in and plunder the country’s resources.
“As a result the country and indeed the security sector should remain on the lookout.”
While commenting on the same issue,the chairman of the National Constitutional Assembly, Professor Lovemore Madhuku said: “While reforms are welcome it is sad that for this election it is too late for that and such a call is out of place.
“We can only expect to have reforms after the election when we have a a new government in place. Though we cannot stop a foreign leader from commenting on our situation what it is important at the end of the day is what is happening here in Zimbabwe and not in foreign countries.
“It would have been a different situation if the Americans were to deploy their army here and demand reforms first before the elections.”
A senior lecturer in the Media and Society Studies Department at the Midlands State University, Dr Nhamo Mhiripiri said, one can draw parallels between yesterday’s statement by President Obama and the one by Mr Carson in Kenya just before elections in that country.
“You could draw parallels between what President Obama has said and what Carson also said on the eve of the Kenyan election.
“But international relations etiquette denotes that governments should be discreet when making their allegiances public as they deal with elections in foreign lands.
“Therefore the question today for most Western governments is how to articulate their preferred candidate especially when it comes to elections in Africa.
“There is always a fear that backing the “wrong” candidate may result in loss of future business opportunities with African governments.
“Let it be said however that they are free to support their candidates of choice, but what is important is that they do not interfere with sacrosanct political processes of sovereign states.
“Reforms are a continuous process and Zimbabwe has been carrying out reforms since 1980 and even before that. Therefore to insist that reforms be implemented over a two or three week period is not at all practical. Calling for reforms on the eve of such a crucial election is expecting too much from a system that has been dysfunctional since its formation,” said Dr Mhiripiri.
In February this year, Mr Carson caused quite a stir in Kenya when he made remarks which were seen as trying to influence Kenyans to vote against Mr Kenyatta.
When he was asked about the possibility that Kenyans would vote for Mr Kenyatta and his deputy Mr William Ruto who have been indicted by the International Criminal Court, Mr Carson said:
“Choices have consequences. Individuals have histories, images, reputations and when they are selected to lead nations, those images, histories and reputations go on with them. But I will not speculate on our approach to whoever will be elected.”
The statement by Mr Carson infuriated many Kenyans who saw it as a ploy to force them to reject Mr Kenyatta and vote for America’s blue-eyed boy Raila Odinga.
Unfortunately for the Americans, the statement by Carson created a strong national sentiment against Odinga leading to President Kenyatta’s victory in the elections.
Labels: BARACK OBAMA, MDC
Read more...
(BLACK STAR NEWS) Is Obama talking to Kagame through Kikwete about Congo?
Ann Garrison June 02,2013
Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete sparked the outrage of Rwandan President Paul Kagame and other prominent Rwandans last week when he said, at the African Union’s 50th anniversary summit, that the UN combat intervention brigade cannot be the only solution to the long running armed conflict in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. President Kikwete’s remarks were significant because the UN combat brigade is to be composed of Tanzanian, South African, and Malawian troops with a Tanzanian commander.
To achieve peace in the Great Lakes Region, he said, the Ugandan and Rwandan governments must negotiate with eastern Congolese militias composed of their own former citizens, whom they characterize as a cross border threat to their security. Rwandan President Paul Kagame and other prominent Rwandans responded angrily that they would never negotiate with the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, or FDLR , a militia composed of Rwandan Civil War refugees and their children in Congo.
On May 30th, the Rwanda New Times quoted Jean-Pierre Dusingizemungu, President of the Ibuka genocide survivors group saying that, “Ibuka strongly condemns President Kikwete’s statement as no negotiation is acceptable with a known terrorist group that is responsible for the death of more than a million Tutsis in Rwanda and continues its blood-thirsty activities in the eastern DR Congo.”
Dusingizemungu's description of the Rwanda Genocide has been widely disputed by genocide survivors, ICTR defense lawyers, and academics. University of Michigan Professor Alan Stam pointed out, in his presentation “Understanding the Rwanda Genocide,” at the Gerald Ford School of Public Policy, that the 1991 Rwandan census reported a population of 7,590,235, including 645,170 Tutsis, and if that’s true, then this reference to “the death of more than a million Tutsis in Rwanda” isn’t plausible. The National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda’s website includes a page titled Second Rwanda General Census of Population and Housing - 1991, but, on June 2nd, there were no statistics there. Perhaps they’ll be there tomorrow, or perhaps they've been removed because they’re the subject of painful contention between Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa survivors of a horrific tragedy in which approximately a million Rwandan people died.
Did The New Times, in their outrage at President Jakaya Kikweke, misquote Jean-Pierre Dusingizemungu? Perhaps, but more importantly, misquote or no, a statement that the Rwandan government “will never negotiate” with the FDLR is not promising for peace in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or the wider region.
President Obama himself wrote, in his Senate legislation, the Obama Congo, Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2006, that “the real and perceived presence of armed groups hostile to the Governments of Uganda, Rwanda, and Burundi continue to serve as a major source of regional instability and an apparent pretext for continued interference in the Democratic Republic of the Congo by its neighbors [Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi].”
Rwanda, Uganda, and Burundi have claimed to be pursuing these hostile groups of their own refugee citizens in the Congo since 1996, and in the process, instigated two regional conflagrations, including the “African World War” of 1998 to 2003, which drew in all nine countries bordering the Democratic Republic of the Congo. By 2008, the International Rescue Commission completed an epidemiological study concluding that 5.4 million people, most of them civilians, had died of the fighting or of consequent hardship between 1998 and 2008 alone.
But despite nearly 20 years of war and human catastrophe in Congo, the Rwandan government continues to argue that Rwanda’s tragedy, not Congo's, and the FDLR’s threat to Rwanda from within Congo, is the fundamental and most important reality in the region, and says that it will not negotiate.
On Friday, June 1st, Ibuka survivors president Jean-Pierre Dusingizemungu, published a response to Kikwete, titled, “Rwanda can’t talk to FDLR; they’re stone cold killers.”
However, on the same day, the Tanzanian press reported that President Jakaya Kikwete has said he will not apologise to Rwanda or change his stand that the Rwandan government should negotiate with rebels.
The White House recently announced that President Obama will soon make his second trip to Africa South of the Sahara, including stops in Senegal, and in South Africa and Tanzania, two of the three countries contributing troops to the UN combat intervention brigade. He will not travel to the capitals of longstanding U.S. allies and military partners Uganda and Rwanda.
Is President Obama speaking to President Kagame through President Jakaya Kikwete? Or is President Jakaya Kikwete speaking simply on his own? It seems most likely that President Kikwete at least knows that President Obama will agree with him that, after almost 20 years, the Rwandan Civil War in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo must end.
Labels: ANN GARRISON, BARACK OBAMA, DRC, JAKAYA KIKWETE, PAUL KAGAME
Read more...
COMMENT - Does anyone remember 'Mugabe And The White African'? Ja, the Afs, they just don't know to do with land, aye? They just wouldn't know how to do something as complicated as farming, right? UZ, Oxford, Rhodes scholar, director and Senior Partner at McKinsey & Co. Which just happens to be one of the world's leading consulting firms.
Obama taps Zimbabwean for top job
24/12/2012 00:00:00
by News Day l JewishTimes
A ZIMBABWEAN academic, James Manyika has been appointed into the United States President’s Global Development Council in a major milestone for the University of Zimbabwe graduate.
Manyika, who is currently the director of the McKinsey Global Institute and a senior partner at McKinsey& Company, was among 12 people appointed by President Barack Obama into key administration posts.
“These dedicated and accomplished individuals will be value additions to my administration as we tackle the important challenges facing America,” Obama said.
“I look forward to working with them in the months and years ahead.”
According to a report in yesterday’s edition of the Baltimore Jewish Times, prior to joining McKinsey, Manyika served on the engineering faculty at Oxford University and was elected research fellow at Balliol College at the same institution.
In 2001, Manyika was appointed to the Innovation Advisory Board at the Department of Commerce.
He is a trustee at the Aspen Institution and the World Affairs Council of California and serves on the advisory boards of the University of California at Berkeley’s School of Information and Harvard University’s Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research.
Manyika was a Rhodes Scholar and received a BSc from the UZ and MA. MSc and D Phil from Oxford University.
Labels: BARACK OBAMA
Read more...
Some Black Obama Critics Are Worse Than White Racists
By Eric L. Wattree
12-12-12
I don’t agree with everything President Obama does, or fails to do, myself. But there are those in the Black community who need to come to terms with the fact that there are some things that even the president can’t do - and signing a bill abolishing ignorance is at the very top of that list.
That's what it would take to accomplish some of the objectives that they're trying to force upon him. That’s also what lets me know that much of the ranting and raving of some of these so-called Black intellectuals are disingenuous at best, and blatant intra- racial bigotry at worst.
The president can’t just wave a magic wand and instantly make everyone upwardly mobile. It doesn’t work that way.
There’s an educational process that goes along with upward mobility, and that goes for whether the person is Black, or White. While there are many in the Black community who have the skills to hit the ground running, there are others who need to be trained, motivated, and refocused in order to simply maintain a job that pays wages high enough to lift them out of poverty, even if it was given to them.
So if these educators, intellectuals, and pundits were serious about their concern for the poor, instead of holding televised seminars and book signings, they’d be in the community with their sleeves up, helping to upgrade the skill sets of those who need it. That’s what Barack Obama did.
As the first Black president of the Harvard Law Review, when Obama graduated from law school he could have gone to work as a law clerk for the Supreme Court, or pursued wealth by going into any one of the top law firms in the country.
He could have also tried to make a name for himself by running all over the country selling books, doing lectures, and trying to sound profound. But he didn't do that.
Instead, he quietly went back into the community and went to work helping people to get their heaters fixed. That's the way to show that you care. Words are meaningless. It's deeds that count.
So for that reason - and yes, because he's a lone Black man struggling to carve out a new chapter in our history - I'll always give him the benefit of the doubt over lesser men who criticize him. No, he's not perfect, but neither am I - and neither was Washington, Jefferson, or Lincoln - but why does a Black man have to be perfect to be accepted as a man worthy of respect?
Many of the very same Black "intellectuals" who can barely contain themselves today, just sat back and allowed Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and the GOP in general, to cut our throats for the past 30 years with nothing more than a whimper in most cases, and a profound silence in others.
So why do they now try to hold Barack Obama to a different standard than they hold other men? The sad truth is, America has conditioned them to view this Black man with a jaundiced eye.
Their attitudes and motivations are exactly the same as with White racists - whenever a Black man demonstrates exceptional excellence, they see it as diminishing their own accomplishments.
So the fact is, the very existence of Barack Obama represents an assault on their self-esteem, and it's killing them. He represents a pie in the face of their delusions of grandeur. I suspect President Obama knows this, but he's precluded from saying it, so I am saying it.
These critics didn’t lift a finger in the 2000 election when the Black community, and others, were literally disenfranchised to elect George W. Bush, and they were all but mute in the last election while, once again, the GOP passed laws all over the country in an attempt ,to obstruct the Black vote.
Yet, after enduring all of that, just like their White racist counterparts, the mere idea of having a Black man living in the White House seems to be just more than they can stomach.
From the way some of these people are screaming, you’d think someone appointed the Grand Dragon of the Klan to head the NAACP. No other group of people in the world suffers from that kind of stupidity, and that’s a much more serious problem in the Black community than anything that President Obama can possibly address.
Surely these "intellectuals" have enough education to know that the United States Constitution states that the House of Representatives controls all spending, and they also know that the House of Representatives is controlled by the Republican Party.
So exactly what do they expect President Obama to do other than what he's been doing - trying to hold together a fragile coalition of Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, gays, women, the young, and the old, and design policies that are broad enough to help all of these groups in order to put enough pressure on congress to loosen the purse strings?
These “public intellectuals” know that. Nevertheless, they continue to rant, rave, and insist that Obama attempt to play poker at a blackjack table.
They should also know enough about history to remember what brought down the ,Civil Rights Movement. Many people don’t realize it, but Republican Richard Nixon helped to promote and sign important parts of Affirmation Action into effect - but he had his tongue firmly implanted in cheek as he was signing the memorandum.
You see, he knew that many of the White folks who supported the civil rights movement and marched with Martin Luther King would have a change of heart once Black people started taking their jobs and replacing their children in college admissions across the country - and that’s exactly what happened.
We made a huge mistake while formulating affirmative action legislation. We should have insisted that it be based on need rather than race. That way, Black people would have still been at the head of the line, but we wouldn’t have given the GOP the leverage to convince poor and middle-class White people that it was an assault on their rights.
So shortly after it went into effect, White people started to protest, and hordes of formerly moderate White people raced over to the Republican Party.
That ushered in the Ronald Reagan era, with his “trickle-down economics,” the assault on Fair Labor Standards Act, and the abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine. That in turn led directly to the rise of Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, the policies that led to the Wall Street collapse, and directly to the dire straits that we find ourselves in today.
Yet, once again, many of these Black “intellectuals” are criticizing President Obama for having the good sense not to repeat history by refusing to throw his fist in the air.
While they say it’s all about advocating against poverty, just like with White demagogues, they’re conflating the term “poverty” with race, in spite of the fact that they know full well that even the scent of racial politics is grist for the Republican mill.
That's exactly why Obama has to avoid the issue, because the Republicans can use it to drum up support to block anything he tries to do for the people at all.
So if these "intellectuals" were actually concerned about the best interest of the Black community, while President Obama is trying to navigate the Republican minefield they’d be in the community organizing, educating, and discussing what we can do to improve our own condition in the meantime. But of course, that's too much like real work.
Such people should be educating Black people to understand that more money passes through the Black community than through most countries, so we could create our own jobs. But we don't, and I’ll tell you why - because Black people are the product of the very same racist environment as White people, so we’re just as reluctant to patronize Black businesses as any Hillbilly.
Unlike any other community in the world, we’d rather take our money and patronize other people - any other people - as long as they aren’t Black. That’s a hard pill to swallow, but it is, what it is.
So our bigoted attitude towards other Black people is the primary reason why we’re lingering at the very bottom of the social and economic ladder - and it’s that very same bigotry that’s being reflected in the attitudes of Tavis Smiley, Cornel West, and others of their ilk, towards President Obama. Essentially, all they’re saying is, “Obama ain’t nobody - he’s just another nigga, just like you.”
Think about it. Think about the kind of respect that these people afforded George Bush and Dick Cheney, and those two were trying to cut our throats - in fact, they did.,
But in spite of that, many of these Black critics limited their criticism to mumbling under their breath. But now, with Obama, they've pulled out their bullhorns. And Cornel West, in his typically attention-seeking ,fashion, has even resorted to playing the dozens - with the president of the United States.
That's not only highly disrespectful of the president, but in my opinion, speaks volumes regarding his lack of respect, and his arrogant disdain, for the Black community as a whole. But doesn't West "love his people"? Sure he does, just like a pimp loves his hoes.
So it’s time for Black people to come to terms with our racist attitudes toward one another. If we’re going to hold a seminar on poverty, the major topic of discussion shouldn’t be Barack Obama: the topic should be why we’re so willing to pass by hundreds of Black businesses in the community to take our money to Walmart.
Now, I’d be a hypocrite to say never shop at Walmart. ,I realize that sometimes our finances force us to do that; but we should, at the very least, balance our spending. Because, until we come to terms with what is essentially a boycott of Black businesses, whining about high unemployment is silly.
So, again, one of the many things that President Obama can’t do is to sign a bill bestowing common sense upon the people.
Learning to love and respect other Black people, and acting with common sense, are two things that no one else can give us.
"Speaking Truth To Empower."
Eric@blackstarnews.com For more commentary by columnist Wattree please visit wattree.blogspot.com
Labels: BARACK OBAMA, CORNEL WEST
Read more...
Tsvangirai draws Zanu PF fire over US trip
05/09/2012 00:00:00
by News24
ZANU PF party has taken a swipe at Prime Minister
Morgan Tsvangirai for
abandoning a critical principals meeting to attend the Democratic Party Convention in the United States, a report said on Wednesday.
Tsvangirai was invited by the US President Barack Obama to the Democratic Convention where Democrats are expected to endorse Obama as their presidential candidate for the elections set for November.
But the Herald newspaper claimed Tsvangirai had hurriedly left for the US, ignoring a meeting where political principals were expected to, among other things, discuss amendments made to the country’s draft constitution by Zanu PF.
According to the report, MDC-T spokesperson Douglas Mwonzora confirmed Tsvangirai was in North Carolina at the invitation of the Democratic Party, which he said shared the "same interests and principles" as the MDC.
"He is there with the full mandate of the party as he is on a drive to strengthen our international relationship with other countries.
"The constitution-making process was completed and we now have a draft constitution.
"It is President Mugabe and his Zanu PF party who are trying to rewrite the Global Political Agreement and refusing that document to go the second all stakeholders’ conference."
Mwonzora said there was no need for principals to meet to discuss the draft constitution.
However, presidential spokesperson George Charamba rubbished Mwonzora's claim, saying it was clear Tsvangirai favoured foreign interests ahead of national issues.
"It is clear where the priority of the MDC president lies. He values his spectator status in front of the mini drama of the Democratic Party more than he does issues to do with the future of his country.
"His interest is always outward, it is never inward. There is also a compelling reason for him to do so. He is going to assure the Americans after the Freedom House survey, which projected him as a bad political investment for the Americans," he said.
Zanu PF secretary for administration, Didymus Mutasa, said Tsvangirai confirmed the widely-perceived view that he was a loyal servant of the west.
"This confirms what we have always been saying that his [Tsvangirai] interests are not here. He is a servant of those countries that used him and this is where my uncle Morgan Tsvangirai has gone to.
"It is a shame and people should put a clear distinction between politicians with good leadership qualities and those politicians who are occupying public offices without substance," he said.
Labels: BARACK OBAMA, MORGAN TSVANGIRAI
Read more...
US Desperation Surfaces in Syria
Obama's bizarre threats indicative of losing strategy and increasing desperation.
by Tony Cartalucci
Global Research, August 20, 2012
US-led NATO forces armed, funded, trained, and even provided air support to Syria for Libyan terrorists emanating out of Libya's eastern Cyrenaica region - most notably Benghazi which had served as the premier international terrorist recruiting ground in the world, according to the US Army's Combating Terrorism Center, producing a percentage per capita of militants outstripping even that of Saudi Arabia.
Operating under the banner of the "Libyan Islamic Fighting Group" (LIFG), a US State Department, British Home Office, and United Nations-listed international terrorist organization, and officially merged with Al Qaeda in 2007, its commanders including Abdul Hakim Belhaj and Mahdi al-Harati led NATO's military proxy forces on the ground as US, French, and British planes destroyed the nation from the air.
These very same commanders of this very same listed-terrorist organization would then turn its cash, weapons, and fighters on Syria, as early as November 2011, arriving on the Turkish-Syrian border to enjoy yet another NATO safe haven and logistical networks overseen by Western intelligence along with US funding and arms laundered through Gulf Cooperative Council (GCC) members such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
Image: Libyan Mahdi al-Harati of the US State Department, United Nations, and the UK Home Office (page 5, .pdf)-listed terrorist organization, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), addressing fellow terrorists in Syria. Harati is now commanding a Libyan brigade operating inside of Syria attempting to destroy the Syrian government and subjugate the Syrian population. Traditionally, this is known as "foreign invasion."
....
In essence, just as Al Qaeda had served as an "Arab Foreign Legion" for the US in Afghanistan in the 1980's during its inception, it once again is serving as a foreign legion inside Syria, fighting Washington's proxy war against the Syrian government.
It appears however that unlike in Afghanistan where Al Qaeda fought alongside a sizable indigenous force against foreign Soviet troops, the tactical environment is revered - where Washington's proxy terrorist forces are foreigners facing a highly motivated, well organized, and better armed indigenous Syrian Army.
US Machinations Unraveling - Shareholders Face Liquidation
Coordinated attempts by NATO and its proxy forces to invade and overrun the cities of Damascus and Aleppo in July and early August have failed, with proxy forces being expelled after suffering sizable loses. An attempt to decapitate Syria's leadership in a bombing in central Damascus also fell flat, with high ranking officials quickly replaced, followed quickly by a cohesive military counter offensive.
The bombing was also followed by the mysterious disappearance of Saudi Arabia's Bandar "Bush" Bin Sultan, who if confirmed assassinated, may indicate that NATO's plans are suffering at even the highest levels of organization.
Compounding the West's attempts to overthrow the government of Syria, is the increasing support Syria has been receiving due to Iranian efforts to assemble international forums representing half of the world's population, condemning the support of foreign interference and promoting alternatives to the violent destabilization being carried out by the West. A 30 member conference was held ahead of the annual Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) meeting in Tehran, Iran - and another meeting will be held again on the sidelines of NAM toward the end of August.
Image: An impressive counter to the so-called "Friends of Syria" confabs held by Wall Street and London corporate-financier interests in an attempt to sway global opinion toward a repeat of Libya's destruction at NATO's hands, the International Consultative Conference hosed by Iran seeks to end the flow of foreign arms into militant hands and resolve political differences through more civilized means.
....
With the tactical situation inside Syria deteriorating for Western proxies and international consensus shifting in unprecedented directions against Washington and London, shareholders in the West's latest adventure appear to be making tacit moves to divest their support and protect their own interests, lest they be left with the ignominious results of an increasingly compounding failure.
Obama's Recent Threats
With this in mind, the US has been making increasingly unhinged "Bush-esque" remarks regarding "weapons of mass destruction" in Syria and attempting to expand the pretexts under which it could "militarily intervene." Even the very "movement" of Syria's "unconventional weapons" in a "threatening manner," US President Barack Obama claimed in a recent statement, would constitute a "red line."
Obama claims that the US "fears" Syria's unconventional weapons "falling into the hands of the wrong people." If the US is willfully arming, funding, and threatening to back militarily, listed Al Qaeda terrorist organizations, then whose hands is the US referring to? And while the US struggles to foment victory in Syria, it seems to have stretched its support for terrorism all the way to Russia's Caucasus Mountains, reigniting violence there, linked to Al Qaeda as well.
http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/content/2012/0224-friends-of-syria-conference/11843662-1-eng-US/0224-friends-of-syria-conference_full_600.jpg
Image: The Washington Consensus' shrinking legitimacy is proportionally matched to its increasingly untenable perpetuation. Its unjustified, disastrous military adventure in Libya seems to have resulted in a Pyrrhic victory, hobbling the institutions and legitimacy it needed to likewise undermine and overthrow the Syrian government in a timely fashion. Overstretched, it appears the West is even trying to strike at Russia with terrorist proxies that now span from North Africa all the way to the Caucasus Mountains.
....
To say that the US is overstretched is an understatement. It is overstretched politically, economically, and tactically. It risks a historically unprecedented collapse that would destroy all shareholders invested in its increasingly unhinged and transparently illegitimate ambitions. Nations, in particular GCC members, are beginning to realize with acute alarm that their support of Washington's agenda is now threatening their very self-preservation. A victory even at this point would still likely be Pyrrhic.
No matter how well Syria goes for the West from this point on, the mechanisms it has used to get here, including its "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine, the legitimacy of the UN, the West's so-called commitment to "human rights," and the narrative of the so-called "War on Terror" have been undermined beyond salvage.
One can only imagine the mountains Washington is promising to move in order to keep its allies lined up behind them, particularly the ruling governments of Turkey and the GCC. For an elitist clique that has prided itself in "realist" political discourse, it has become increasingly surrealist. Whether or not Washington's allies mirror this surrealism all the way to their own demise, remains to be seen.
Tony Cartalucci is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Tony Cartalucci
Labels: BARACK OBAMA, LIBYA, SYRIA
Read more...
The Zambian Declaration: It’s Time For Change
TIME PUBLISHED - Saturday, December 10, 2011, 4:38 pm
By Jacqueline Musiitwa
Michael Sata and supporters echoed Barack Obama’s mantra of ‘change’ during the 2011 election.
As a child growing up, I recall the fervor and momentum around Zambia’s first democratic multi-party election which took place in 1991. I remember running in the streets chanting, “The time is now…It’s time for change” and other chants focused on the people’s hope for a better future. Little did I understand politics, much less political evolutions or revolutions.
In the last 20 years both Zambia and the world have changed, becoming more loosely bound. We continue to witness the globalization of ideas, politics, economics, social systems, culture, technology and disease. If the Arab up rising has taught us anything, it is that leadership is about responsibility and not power.
Failure to be responsible results in removal from power. This year I have witnessed another change of sorts in Zambian politics. In a relatively peaceful election Zambians made it known that once again it was time for change. The election process demonstrated to me Zambians’ choice to hold leadership accountable for its actions.
The one thing that has remained constant in the lives of all Zambians is the desire to make a better life for themselves. The ever present consensus in African political discourse is that our leaders are the cause of our problems. Although in part true, leaders alone must not take all the blame. As Aldous Huxley said, “People get the government they deserve.”
Considering many African countries’ battle with national self esteem, questionable degrees of patriotism and nationalism, as Manchester United, Arsenal and Chelsea games have a larger following than parliamentary proceedings, one can only be cautiously optimistic. Based on the assumption that Zambians are committed, inspired and willing to work hard together towards national development, it still begs the question, how can ‘we the people’ ensure the leaders are for the people, of the people and guided by values and ethics (including, but not limited to, transparency and accountability)?
The first step is to consider the words of Barack Obama, “We must educate our children to become like young Egyptian people….” This does not mean taking to the streets, it means uniting young people together for a common cause despite existing differences. The days of silent children who are seen and not heard are gone – younger generations now know that they are an influential and growing part of ‘the people’.
It also means understanding and demanding civic rights, obligations and privileges under the law while using the appropriate means to express grievances. People’s rights need to be taught in schools and other community fora.
The second step is to foster independent institutions buttressed by a strong civil society, free press and unrestricted access to social media. It is through open debate of the issues that people effectively contribute as active and responsible citizens.
People need to express and advocate the views of a diverse cross-section of the population without fear or threat of prosecution. A good example of this is Rwanda’s ‘National Dialogue’ – a process that invites people to converse with government through phone calls, text messaging and email (domestically and from the diaspora) about national challenges, successes, lessons learned and future plans.
Often in Africa political leadership is disconnected from the realities of the people. Being surrounded by a convoy of security in a vehicle with tinted windows or a helicopter because there are no roads to the region for the rare opportunity to visit a village, (that prepares for weeks on end for the visit), is hardly a depiction of the people’s reality.
President Sata, was in part voted because he appears to be ‘a man of the people’. In his first ninety days, people have been watching with anxiety the reforms the government is making. So far the new government is demonstrating its commitment to unifying past political fractures – renaming the airports with names of the founding fathers, whilst demoting military officials that were allegedly unqualified for their posts suggests that a meritocracy could be developing, thus minimizing corruption and nepotism in hiring practices.
Clearly outlining and enforcing the terms and conditions for investors entering into Zambia, especially the Chinese, thus protecting Zambia’s greatest resource, its people, at the forefront of the agenda demonstrates the government’s commitment to sustainable development.
All of the above are great starts, however, the development agenda, be it Vision 2030 or the Millennium Development Goals, need to be accompanied by an active and realistic plan of how to accomplish them. Such a plan is not yet clear. Additionally, the needs of the people change over time, and government must take that into consideration whilst still focusing on such visions. There need to be checks and balances, monitoring and evaluation of leadership performance. And ultimately it is up to the people to gauge when it is time for change and be the necessary agents of change.
Jacqueline Musiitwa founder of Hoja Law Group is a Mo Ibrahim Leadership fellow, a World Economic Forum Young Global Leader and an Archbishop Tutu fellow.
Labels: BARACK OBAMA, MICHAEL SATA, PF
Read more...
Capitalist democracy: Promise peace and deliver war
Wednesday, 07 December 2011 21:31
Hillary Clinton backer, Adolph Reed Junior was dismissed by Barack Obama's supporters after he said: "He's a vacuous opportunist. I've never been an Obama supporter.
"I've known him since the very beginning of his political career, which was his campaign for the seat in my state senate district in Chicago.
"He struck me then as a vacuous opportunist, a good performer with an ear for how to make white liberals like him. I argued at the time that his fundamental political centre of gravity, beneath an empty rhetoric of hope and change and new directions, is neoliberal.
"His political repertoire has always included the repugnant stratagem of using connection with black audiences in exactly the same way Bill Clinton did -i.e., getting props both for emoting with the black crowd and talking through them to affirm a victim-blaming "tough love" message that focuses on alleged behavioural pathologies in poor black communities.
"Because he's able to claim racial insider standing, he actually goes beyond Clinton and rehearses the scurrilous and ridiculous sort of narrative Bill Cosby has made infamous."
Of the four Democrats that voted in favour of the draconian Republican cuts on child welfare during Barack Obama's days as an Illinois state senator, only Obama was non-white.
Rickie Hendon, an African American fellow senator was infuriated over the actions of the four democrats, and he was particularly disturbed with the action of Obama. This is what he had to say about Obama:
"He was running for the United States Senate at the time, and when I asked him with my sad eyes and perplexed, torn heart, he told me he did it because ‘we have to be fiscally prudent.'
"I said ‘Huh?' and he explained to me that we had to show fiscal responsibility during tough budget times . . . Finally, I heard the bill number for a cut in the South Side in Senator Obama's district.
"Barack rose to his feet, and towering over the senate, gave a heart-wrenching speech condemning this particular cut . . . he asked for compassion and understanding . . . his fiscally prudent vote took place only about 10 minutes earlier and now he wants compassion!"
When Obama lost the vote, sharp words were exchanged with Hendon. This was Hendon's narration:
"Barack leaned over and struck his jagged, strained face into my space and told me in an eerie, dark voice that came from some secret place within the ugly side of him, ‘You embarrassed me on the Senate floor and if you ever do it again I will kick your ass!"
"I said ‘What?' He said, ‘You heard me, and if you come back here by the telephones, where the Press can't see it, I will kick your ass right now!'"
Hendon agreed to the duel and he walked to the telephones before another senator rushed and dragged the two apart.
This is according to The Sun Times account.
Hendon concluded later, ". . . in this incident, he proved himself to be bipartisan enough and white enough to be president of the United States of America."
At one time Hendon said Obama was so ambitious that he would run for "The King of the World" position even ahead of Colonel Gaddafi.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has an amazingly massive grip on Washington.
Pro-Israel money plays a significant role in every US election, and AIPAC's approval can be decisive where the race is close.
For this approval there is only one criterion: blind loyalty to Israel and blind denunciation of those who are critical of its policies as bigots and anti-Semites.
Candidates for the US presidency, the House and the Senate from both parties queue obediently at AIPAC gatherings to pledge support and receive largesse.
In 2002, Obama opposed the attack on Iraq and this was possible because he was then a low-profile state senator, and it was politically inexpensive to do so.
By the time Obama was elected president, the US had occupied Iraq for six years, and the new president's first act on Iraq was to retain George W. Bush's defence secretary, Robert Gates, a long time CIA functionary and veteran of the Iran-Contra affair in the Pentagon.
This was a brazen signal of political continuity: one coming from someone who had pledged to end the Iraq war in his campaign and ascendance to power.
Obama had successfully preached and promised peace; only to deliver war.
While Bush promised to pull out all US combat soldiers by December 2011, Obama promised before his election to pull out all US combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of his taking office, ie, by May 2010.
Being the clever Obama he is, he adorned this with a safety clause that this pledge could be "refined" in the light of unforeseen events.
The clause was effected in February 2009 when Obama announced an extension of the withdrawal to September, something that was never fulfilled.
The legacy of the Iraq invasion is on public record: the destruction of the country's cultural patrimony, the brutal dismembering of its social infrastructure, the theft of its natural resources, the sundering of its mixed neighbourhoods, and not least the death or displacement of countless of its citizens, all noted by author Tariq Ali in the book "The Obama Syndrome: Surrender at Home, War Abroad".
It is a staggering million plus murdered Iraqis, three million refugees, five million orphans, according to conservative government figures.
Obama is still struggling to put in place a reliable puppet government in Iraq while he manoeuvres his way towards a possible war with Iran.
Iran is America's problem state, one that has always posed a conundrum. Here is an "Islamic Republic" always publicly breathing fire against the Great Satan while sometimes quietly extending assistance to the same wherever and whenever most needed, like it did with the collusion with counter-revolutionaries in Nicaragua, or with the invasion of Afghanistan, or more predictably and prominently, with the invasion of Iraq.
Iran's abrasive and ferocious rhetoric is more directed at the rulers of Israel and at the Little Satan in London than it is directed at the two's patrons in Washington.
Israel has for some time now been galvanising its assets in the United States into a campaign to ensure that Washington commits to striking down Iran's nuclear programme.
As usual Israeli objectives are always internalised as little less than nature by US policymakers; and as such Obama has to be at his best in countering Iran's oratorical tirades by dishing out his own, and of course by tightening US sanctions on Teheran.
It does not matter that Obama came into office just short of explicitly saying war against Iran was not an option, when he vehemently preached the idea of a diplomatic settlement in the interest of all parties; denuding Iran of nuclear capability in exchange for an economic package and a political embracing from the West.
This was made hard by the June 2009 presidential election in Iran, when Washington had to opt to prop up the openly pro-Western wing, hoping the puppets would take power on the wave of mostly middle class Western sponsored protest; itself comprehensively defeated by a counterstrike of alleged electoral fraud and militia violence - allegations that were rarely backed by any verification or evidence, as has been the case with each election the Western sponsored MDC-T party fails to win against the Western-hated Robert Mugabe.
The Iran election, just like that of Zimbabwe a year earlier, gave Barack Obama the opportunity for perfect ideological posturing.
In a moving and emotive peerless display of sanctimony, he lamented with tearful grief the death of a demonstrator killed in Teheran on the same day his drones wiped out 60 villagers in Pakistan, most of them women and children.
Obama repeated this ideological posturing when he awarded Zimbabwe's Magodonga Mahlangu and Jenni Williams with the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award in November 2009, kissing the two women passionately, and declaring "You deserve a kiss."
Apparently the two women were being awarded for their outstanding performance in implementing the Western sponsored protests against the rulership of President Robert Mugabe, and more directly against the law enforcement details of the country.
As usual, Obama's ideological cries are fully backed by Western media; and it was comical to see the thwarted candidate in the Iranian contest elevated into an icon of the Free World; that despite that the man has a terrible history of being one of the most brutal butchers of the regime, at least by Washington's own standards, having been responsible for mass executions in the 1980s.
Obama's grand plan for reconciliation between Teheran and Washington was washed away by the misadventure of his backing of Amahdinejad's June 2009 election rival, itself being the initiative of AIPAC on behalf of Israel.
Now Obama has had to borrow and continue Bush's attempts to corral Russia and China into an economic blockade of Iran, in the hope of so strangling the country that the Supreme Leader will either be overthrown by hungry masses or be obliged to come to terms.
Failure of this leaves open the option of an air strike by Israel or American bombers on Iranian nuclear facilities, but this largely looks more like a back up threat than a practical prospect.
Those who argue for this possibility have a strong point in saying that once the West at large, in this case factoring the brazen and violence-loving Nicolas Sarkozy, and his smooth-faced murderous British sidekick David Cameron, and other Western leaders, has pronounced any Iranian nuclear capability intolerable, it is hard to imagine a rhetorical retreat in the event of Iran insisting with its nuclear intentions.
This writer is well aware of British and US intelligence agencies' habitual stoking of dissent and divisions in targeted client states in general, but also highly privileged to have fairly sufficient detail of such efforts in the politics of Zimbabwe, particularly the stoking of tribal dissent pretexted on the imagined and real differences between the Shona and the Ndebele.
We have white authors stumbling upon each other to install themselves as custodians of Ndebele memory over the atrocities that happened between 1980 and 1987 in the country, pumping up humanitarian fury and whipping up emotions in a narrow direction pointing the way of Robert Mugabe - that "land grabbing dictator" whose unforgivable crime is of course the audacity to take away land from "skilled white farmers" and giving it to "unskilled black famers."
Zimbabwe we are one and together we will overcome. It is homeland or death!!
Reason Wafawarova is a political writer based in Sydney, Australia.
Labels: BARACK OBAMA, HILLARY CLINTON, IRAN, NEOLIBERALISM, REASON WAFAWAROVA, TRIBALISM
Read more...
Building a Justification for Waging War: Hillary Clinton's Deceptive Bluffs on Iran's Nuclear Program
by Kourosh Ziabari
Global Research, November 12, 2011
When Hillary Clinton doesn't make sense
U.S. President Barack Obama will be a lame duck next year and the officials in his administration, especially his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are hilariously doing their best to make sure that they haven't spared any effort to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries and sabotage the stability and security of those whom they call "enemies", like Iran.
On October 27, Hillary Clinton gave an exclusive interview to the UK's state-funded, state-run BBC Persian TV and in an attempt aimed at reaching out to the Iranian nation, made bombastic remarks which have certainly infuriated the Iranian nation and demonstrated that the hostile behavior and antagonistic stance of the U.S. government toward the Iranian nation is a manifestation of the idiom "the leopard can't change its spots."
At the beginning of the interview, Clinton referred to the sanctions imposed against Iran by the U.S. and its European allies and said that these sanctions are targeted at forcing the Iranian government into abandoning its nuclear program which she called is an effort to construct nuclear weapons and not for civilian purposes.
Forgetting the detrimental impacts of economic sanctions against the ordinary people, Clinton talked of the United States as a friend of the Iranian people, and said that she wanted to reaffirm her country's "very strong support for and friendship toward the people of Iran."
She further added that the behavior of the United States towards the Iranian government is different from its behavior toward the Iranian people, and by saying that, she clearly paraded her diplomatic naiveté and artlessness. How do you justify enmity with a government which is democratically elected by a group of people which you claim of being supportive of?
Secondly, maybe Mrs. Secretary has forgotten that the U.S. itself is the largest possessor of nuclear weapons in the world. How can such a police state which has so far killed millions of people around the world, from Nagasaki and Hiroshima to Baghdad and Kabul, boast of its concerns about the development of nuclear bombs by a country which is the most pacifist country in a boiling and tumultuous region such as Middle East and hasn't ever invaded nor attacked any country in the past century?
A Reuters report quoting U.S. officials revealed in May 2010 that the U.S. has an arsenal of 5,113 nuclear warheads. It is the only country which has used nuclear weapons in the warfare and the only nation that has conducted around 1,054 nuclear tests and developed many long-range weapon delivery systems. So, who is really entitled to be concerned? Shouldn't the international community be anxious about the nuclear arsenal of the self-proclaimed superpower, the U.S.?
Who may guarantee that the U.S. won't use its nuclear weapons in the prospective wars which it will be waging in the future? If the criterion of imposing financial sanctions is the possession of nuclear weapons and pursuing the development of them, why shouldn't the U.S. or its Middle East client state, Israel, which is the sole possessor of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, be the target of sanctions?
A report by Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis showed that between 1940 and 1996, the U.S. spent at least $8.15 trillion in present day terms on nuclear weapons development. Which country can be pinpointed on the world map which has invested in nuclear program, even for peaceful purposes, so enormously?
But it was not only Clinton's deceptive bluffs on Iran's nuclear program that seemed perplexing and ridiculous. She lived beyond her means by claiming that the international community is angry at what Iran is today and wants a better future for its people!
"But I would ask you to put yourself in the position of the international community and those who seek a better future inside Iran. If you do not want to have a conflict, if you do not want to just give way to behavior that is very reckless, as we saw in this recent plot against the Saudi ambassador, potentially dangerous, sanctions is the tool that we have at our disposal to use," she said.
Clinton went on to raise the issue of the alleged terror plot against the Saudi ambassador in Washington and attributed this plot to Iran. She, however, certainly remembers that they were the agents of CIA, MI6 and Mossad in Iran that assassinated four Iranian nuclear scientists immediately after their name was put on the UNSC sanctions list.
Wasn't the assassination of Dariush Rezaei, Massoud Alimohammadi or the foiled assassination plot against Fereydoon Abbasi a conspicuous sponsorship of terrorism by a government which calls itself the number one defender of democracy and peace? Wasn't awarding the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to the President of such a country which murders and kills people with impunity some kind of degrading and humiliating this prestigious award?
But an interesting juncture in Clinton's interview with BBC was where a recorded video containing a question by one of the viewers of BBC was aired. The viewer asked Hillary Clinton about America's perpetual adherence to double standards, its support for repressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, its backing of the dreadful coup d'etat against the democratic government of Iran's then Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953 and its heinous shooting down of the Iran Air Flight 655 on July 3, 1988 which claimed the lives of 290 innocent passengers including 254 Iranians.
Clinton was apparently taken aback by the question as her awkward response showed that the U.S. government has never found any way to account for its hypocritical policies and actions:
"we have consistently spoken out about Bahrain and we have pushed the government to do more, and we support the independent investigation… We know that everything we have done in the course of our 235-plus year history is going to appeal to or be supported by everyone, and we take our history seriously. So, for example, we've expressed regret about what was done in 1953… And then we also have tried to point out that the tragedy of the shooting down of the airline is something that we deeply are sorry for, and we have said that repeatedly."
Isn't it ludicrous? Shooting down a civilian aircraft, killing all the 290 people aboard and then simply saying that we are sorry? Overthrowing a democratic government which reflected the communal will of a nation and then simply saying that we are sorry? Waging wars and imposing sanctions which hurt the daily life of the ordinary people and saying that we are sorry?
Of course Hilary Clinton's interview with BBC Persian was a fiasco and a political debacle. She just showed her lack of political finesse and once again brought to mind that the wolf may lose his teeth, but never his nature. Clinton is the representative of a country which throughout the history has repeatedly betrayed the Iranian nation. Perhaps expressing deepest apologies to the Iranian nation and changing their hostile attitude can be the first step which the American politicians should take in order to have the bitter memories of their mischievousness wiped off the minds of Iranian people.
Kourosh Ziabari is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Kourosh Ziabari
Labels: BARACK OBAMA, HILLARY CLINTON, IRAN, WAR CRIMES
Read more...
