I think it's high time Gambia-L takes another look at the policy on HTML.
Allowing only plain text is like holding on to the analogue in a digital
age.

Regards,

Kabir.


Why Africa finds it hard to support MDC

*By Reason Wafawarova*
*
September 04, 2007*

The March 31 2007 Sadc Dar-es Salaam communiqué on Zimbabwe; the July 2007
Accra AU Conference's position on the same; and the reaffirmation of the
African stance at the 27th Sadc Summit in Lusaka, Zambia; have all but sent
one clear message to the MDC:

Africa stands by Zimbabwe.

These three gatherings unanimously expressed solidarity with the position of
the Government, officially (and maybe rightly) stated as the "people of
Zimbabwe". Africa has, three times in a row; in a period of five months,
unequivocally and solidly stood by Zimbabwe in relation to the illegal
sanctions regime, the land reform programme as well as the validity of the
last three national elections in which the MDC participated and lost.

That solidarity has expressed condemnation of the Western-administered
economic sanctions on Zimbabwe, supported the land reform policy and
validated the election results for 2000, 2002 and 2005 as free and fair.

The solidarity has gone further and proposed packages to rescue Zimbabwe
from its current problems.

All this has been against expectations of a heavy-handed approach and
hard-line stance on Zimbabwe from the Western ruling elite and members of
their MDC political project.

Both the MDC and the Western ruling elite are clearly less than amused that
African leaders have not lived up to their bidding on Zimbabwe in general
and President Mugabe in particular.

The question to be asked is why Africa finds it so hard to support a party
that claims to be a champion of democracy or better still; why have these
African leaders failed to see the alleged excesses and inhumane nature of
the Zimbabwean Government?

The simple answer that has often been put forward is that all those African
leaders supporting or failing to condemn Zimbabwe are either equal
"dictators" or simply too impressed by President Robert Mugabe's credentials
as a liberation icon.

Some have even inferred that it is all because all Africans are inherently
corrupt and genetically incapable of handling complex matters related to
things like economic policies.

This, of course, is not only simplistic and reductionist thinking but also
smacks of gross inferiority complex on the part of Africans who embrace such
warped thinking.

The MDC has expressed its disappointment with South Africa, Sadc, Comesa and
the AU so many times since its formation in 1999 that one actually wonders
if political insight and free and fair political space are a phenomenon only
as young as eight years; the life span of the MDC? At least judging by the
rulings of the MDC on each and every decision taken by any of these African
stakeholders on Zimbabwe.

Every time a position is made on Zimbabwe, it turns out that the position
falls short of MDC expectations and is subsequently lampooned as "unfree and
unfair."

If there is one thing the MDC factions have always got right, it is the
assertion that the problems in Zimbabwe need a political solution. However,
that political solution does not necessarily lie in illegal regime change
nor does it lie in an MDC government.

The solution lies in resolving the bilateral conflict between Harare and
London, a conflict that has been given a semblance of multi-lateralism when
Britain lobbied the EU to back its position.

As the 19th century Prussian conflict theorist, Carl von Clausewitz put it;
conflict or war "is politics continued by other means." Marx and Engels
regarded conflict as the continuation politics of the powers concerned. In
this context it is more than important to analyse all the political aspects
of a conflict or a crisis as the Zimbabwean situation is often termed.

Here, there is need to find the real policies (not the stated ones) of which
a conflict is a continuation, and the policies of the players involved in
that conflict. There is need to examine all the belligerent powers, not just
one.

If one agrees with the policies that have led to the conflict from one side
of the conflict, then they agree with the politics of that particular side,
even when such policies are pursued through the means of a struggle,
revolution or force.

Conversely, if one is a political opponent of the policies from another
side, then they do not put aside their political opposition simply because
the side they agree with has decided to confront the conflict by forceful or
revolutionary means.

What happens is that one remains an opponent of the policies and politics
that led to the conflict itself and not necessarily to the means by which
the conflict has been pursued.

Only pacifists are opposed to conflict just for the sake of attaining peace
through maintaining the status quo and those politicians heading African
states are most certainly not a bunch of moralistic pacifists bent on
turning the other cheek each time an imperialist blow is thrown at them.
They are like every other politician worthy the name; visionaries sworn to
fight for emancipation and a legacy of positive social change.

They support Zimbabwe's land reform programme, not necessarily because they
agree with the modalities of how the policy has been implemented so far but
primarily because they support the politics behind the land reform
programme.

They support Harare's position with regard to the Western-administered
sanctions regime, not necessarily because Harare is home to fellow Africans
but because they fundamentally agree with the politics that led to those
sanctions; or conversely, they disagree with the politics that motivated the
Western allies who have imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe.

The stated politics behind the sanctions are that they are firstly not
economic sanctions but mere travel bans, a fact disputed even by the US
State Department itself, if one looks at their March 2007 announcement that
they are actually stepping up the anti-Zimbabwe programme through the
so-called Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act.

The other stated politics behind the sanctions states that Zimbabwe is
pursuing "unsound policies", that Zimbabwe is governed by a tyrannical
regime, that there is a culture of human rights violations, that the
political playing field is uneven, that the declining wealth of the country
is a result of gross looting by those in power, that elections after the
formation of the MDC have all been fraudulent and that President Mugabe is
the sole dictatorial individual making everybody in Zimbabwe suffer.

The Government, with apparent support from the African family, disputes the
stated politics and asserts that the real politics is nothing more than the
bitterness of the British and their western allies over the seizure of
white-held, not owned, farms for onward distribution to landless black
people.

After all, they seem to argue; no imperialist goal has ever been pursued in
the name of its real intentions. No imperialist army, of course, marches off
to war under the slogans "Higher Corporate Profits!" or "Blood for Oil!" on
its banners.

No, the army marches behind the massive power of the imperialist rulers'
ideological agents-its politicians and their mass media.

These work overtime to create a pretext that can convince the ordinary
people that the imperialist rulers are fighting against tyranny, for
democracy, for the defence of their families, against terrorism, for freedom
and human rights, against any evil their minds can cook up or for any
"noble" causes their imagination can muster.

It is the expectation for these super attractive happily ever after sweet
freedoms and liberties that many of the youthful Zimbabweans in the MDC have
come to a point where they now consider themselves citizens of a "new
Zimbabwe", pretty much the same way we hear religious people saying they do
not belong to their homes here on earth but to a new home in Heaven.

For 90 years, Zimbabweans were made servile citizens in their own homeland
under brutal apartheid British rule and that yoke was broken on April 18
1980. For 27 years, Zimbabweans have considered themselves citizens of an
independent Zimbabwe and they have always believed that they are African
Zimbabweans.

In comes the western money bags, thrown right into the hands of one Morgan
Tsvangirai and his MDC and we have a whole bunch of youngsters and misguided
elderly people clamouring for a new status as Western Zimbabweans, hailing
from what they call "new Zimbabwe".

In 1992, Noam Chomsky, a prolific and renowned intellectual, was asked by
Heinz Dieterich why some Latin Americans had turned themselves into
"Ibero-Americans" (after 150 years as Latin Americans) and how a bit of
Spanish money could make such a change possible after such a long time of a
solid identity.

Noam Chomsky replied, "People have a price, some will sell themselves for
five cents, others will demand a million dollars."

To this writer, it would appear like many in the MDC have given themselves
for two cents and it is because of this cheap price that Africa finds it
hard to support or stand by the MDC. The opposition has just postured as a
cheap outfit of donor mongers bent on selling our birthright for two cents
and its simply difficult if not impossible for any African worthy the name
to identify with the MDC.

Africa, through South Africa, Sadc, Comesa or the AU, has simply refused to
support the western politics behind the problems in Zimbabwe. To the
contrary, they have openly supported the Zimbabwean politics behind the
Harare-London bilateral conflict. To this end they have refused to be mere
pacifists blinded by bruises of rebels who come second best in physical
showdowns with the police.

They rather choose to view the conflict in the context of its politics,
regretting what might be considered the excesses of the conflict but never
losing sight of the just cause for which Zimbabwean politics stands.

In this context, the MDC is right in pointing out that the solution lies in
politics. It lies in the politics of the MDC realising that a Western
Zimbabwe is not going to materialise and that Zimbabwe can never be bought
for five cents.

The solution lies in the realisation that the imperial agenda of reversing
the land reform programme is not worthy supporting, regardless of the baited
silver. It is not worthy supporting because it is a tool of permanent
subjugation of one's own people. It seeks to reinstate our pre-1980 status
as servile citizens in our own motherland.

As for Arthur Mutambara; the message is very clear. There is absolutely no
need to make a fool out of oneself by trying a hopeless juggle between the
western money-bags and one's birthright.

It only makes one look plain ridiculous in the eyes of both Zimbabweans and
the Western ruling elite.

The learned Professor has to simply come home to himself and tell the
Westerners that he is no longer for sale and return every cent "donated" to
his faction after he was installed to the presidency by Professor Welshman
Ncube.

It is almost cruel to advise Tsvangirai to do the same because in all
honesty, the man deserves the money since he is basically career-less and
politically hopeless. This writer would insist that Tsvangirai should desist
from calling for more sanctions on the country and should stop misleading
his sponsors by telling them that change is in the pipeline.

However, he deserves to keep whatever proceeds of treachery he has so far
acquired, purely on the moral grounds of the uncertainty of his future.
After all, the crumbs did take Bishop Abel Muzorewa a substantial amount of
time before we began to hear rumours of destitution.

Anyway, this may be the lighter side of our Zimbabwean politics but the
serious side is that the MDC; in all its shapes, factions and formations
should seriously consider transforming itself into a home-grown opposition
party by firstly cutting its unholy ties with our country's erstwhile
oppressors.

The sooner those in the MDC realise that their politics cannot be supported
in Africa the better for all who genuinely want to promote democracy through
a multi-party system.

This writer is certain that Zimbabweans are a hopeful people and will soon
solve the current problems and shame the vultures waiting for land
re-grabbing disguised through the vehicle of freedom and democracy or maybe
property rights.

*Reason Wafawarova is a Zimbabwean writer writing from Sydney, Australia. He
can be contacted at [log in to unmask]*

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤