Folks,

I thought this will be useful in view of the debate on the Zimbabwe issue;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6728015.stm

regards,
Omar



> From: Kabir Njaay [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 2007-06-12 00:06:56 CEST
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Zimbabwe and the Politics of Demons and Angels
> 
> Buharry,
> 
> Thanks again this and other gems that you continue to treat us to. Much
> appreciated!
> 
> Just the title itself is very apt and and captures the whole essence of all
> what we have seen recently; Demons and Angels indeed except that the Demons
> are playing Angels.
> 
> Gowan's incisive and on the spot analysis gives him an almost psychic aura.
> Did he foresee the exchange on the L taking the turn it seems to be taking?
> One wonders but then a beautiful mind like his does not need to be present
> in order to see.
> 
> The sudden jump on rooftops with smooth sounds of self-exultation verses and
> dances of 'jai becho' and 'wonneh bin-bin' that we've seen is but a new
> added dimension to his powerful 'Politics of Demons and Angels'.
> 
> But we, as always, are ready to deal with any falsehoods by imperialist
> pimps, even those clad in transvestite garb with which their originators try
> to mask them. Respect in, respect out, disrespect in, same out.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kabir.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/11/07, Momodou Buharry Gassama <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > Zimbabwe and the Politics of Demons and Angels
> >
> > By Stephen Gowans
> >
> > Soon after I wrote an article titled ?Mugabe gets the Milosevic
> > Treatment,? posted at Counterpunch.org, I received an e-mail from a
> > representative of SW Radio Africa, who said I should visit Zimbabwe
> > before writing articles about the country. This was followed by a
> > Patrick Bond reply to my article in Counterpunch, invoking the same
> > argument, though in an indirect way. Gowans? views are nonsense, Bond
> > fumed, at least, as he saw them, sitting across the Limpopo river,
> > where, he said, he had managed to establish a pretty good handle on
> > what was going in Zimbabwe.
> >
> > Had I been writing a travelogue both of my critics would have made a
> > good point, but inasmuch as I was writing about Washington and London
> > having dragooned civil society ? and in some cases, having created it
> > from the ground up ? for the purpose of ousting the government of
> > Robert Mugabe, their criticism was wide of the mark. You don?t have to
> > travel to Zimbabwe to figure out that Mugabe is getting the Milosevic
> > treatment.
> >
> > Even Bond, in his characteristically haughty way, acknowledged the US
> > intrigues in Zimbabwe with a dismissive ?tell us something we don?t
> > already know.?
> >
> > For the record, the British newspaper The Guardian revealed as early
> > as August 22, 2002 that, ?The United States government has said it
> > wants to see President Robert Mugabe removed from power and that it is
> > working with the Zimbabwean opposition? ?trade unions, pro-democracy
> > groups and human rights organizations? ?to bring about a change of
> > administration.?
> >
> > Washington confirmed its own civil society-assisted regime change
> > plans for Zimbabwe in an April 5, 2007 report, revealing that in 2006
> > ?The U.S. government continued to support the efforts of the political
> > opposition, the media and civil society,? including providing training
> > and assistance to the kind of grassroots ?pro-democracy? groups the US
> > had used to bring down the government of Slobodan Milosevic, and that
> > Bond had celebrated in his Counterpunch article as ?the independent
> > left.?
> >
> > There are three key reasons why the US is trying to oust the Zanu-PF
> > government:
> >
> > (1) The Zanu-PF government has expropriated land from white commercial
> > farmers for redistribution to the rural poor.
> >
> > (2) It has pursued economically nationalist policies at odds with IMF
> > demands.
> >
> > (3) It has been a rallying point for anti-imperialist sentiment in
> > southern Africa.
> >
> > SW Radio Africa is a UK-based radio station, funded by the USAID
> > Office of Transition Initiatives to broadcast anti-government
> > propaganda into Zimbabwe. Violet Gonda, one of the station?s
> > interviewers, has been sending me transcripts of her interviews ever
> > since my Milosevic Treatment article appeared on the Counterpunch site.
> > In an April 10 interview with Zimbabwe?s Home Affairs Minister Kembo
> > Mohadi, UK-based Gonda was challenged by Mohadi to ?come to Zimbabwe
> > and witness this for yourself and don?t be talking about things that
> > you don?t know,? turning the argument Gonda?s colleague had made to me
> > against her. Mohadi was referring to Gonda?s allegations that MDC
> > leader Morgan Tsvangirai had been beaten and that MDC supporters had
> > been tortured.
> >
> > Amusing as it was to see the same argument used against SW Radio
> > Africa, the ?come to Zimbabwe before you say anything? demand is based
> > on the startlingly naïve view that someone else?s perspective must
> > align with your own if only he visits the same piece of real estate.
> > The view of the rural poor in Zimbabwe, or of veterans of the guerilla
> > war for national liberation, can hardly be expected to be the same as
> > those of white commercial farmers, even though they live in the same
> > country. It is experience, race, which side of colonialism you?ve been
> > on, and what opportunities imperialist countries offer you, that
> > account for why the views of Zimbabwe?s rural poor and of Zanu-PF
> > supporters are different from those of comfortable white professors
> > ensconced in foundation-supported positions across the Limpopo river,
> > and of young black Africans from Harare who travel to the US on US
> > State Department sponsored trips to study civil disobedience
> > techniques.
> >
> > If my article  resonated with anyone, it  resonated with black
> > Africans, members of the African Diaspora and anti-imperialists. White
> > commercial farmers and anyone linked to the civil society apparatus
> > deployed to unseat Mugabe?s government angrily dismissed it. But why?
> > Why would opponents of Mugabe ? including Bond, who acknowledges that
> > the US is acting to drive Zanu-PF from power (that is, when he?s not
> > arguing the exact opposite) ? take exception to someone drawing
> > attention to something that is a matter of public record?
> >
> > The reason, I think, has everything to do what different groups of
> > people value more: the thwarting of imperialist designs (and the land
> > reform, redress of colonial injustices, and national sovereignty that
> > are thereby given space to come to fruition), or ousting Mugabe. If you
> > want Mugabe to go, you?ll oppose anything that reveals efforts to
> > unseat him as being illegitimate. It won?t be enough to say, ?Yes, you?
> > re right, Washington and London are engaged in intrigues to topple the
> > Mugabe government, but all the same I dislike him and his program and
> > here?s why.? Instead, you?ll fulminate, ?This is nonsense!?
> >
> > You?ll probably also practice the politics of demons and angels ? the
> > division of the world into two camps: bad guys and good guys, black
> > hats and white hats. The objective is to describe leaders, governments,
> > movements and programs you want to see the end of as demons, and those
> > who are acting to achieve this end as angels. However, because those
> > that lean to the left of the political spectrum are unlikely to regard
> > imperialist governments as angels (although this is far from being
> > invariably true) civil society groups are recruited as proxies. They
> > appear to be independent, to do good works, and they have a ?socialism
> > from below? feel that resonates with the Western left. Patrick Bond,
> > who directs a center for civil society, is a master of invoking the
> > kind of rhetoric about social movements being an ?independent left?
> > operating in spaces between neo-liberal Third World governments and neo-
> > liberal First World governments that appeals to the Z-Net congregation.
> >
> > The politics of demons and angels is terribly unsophisticated. That
> > should be enough to keep 100 paces away from it. But it should also be
> > eschewed for an even more compelling reason: because it?s used to build
> > support for imperialist interventions in other countries ?
> > interventions that have nothing whatever to do with promoting human
> > rights, building democracy, and keeping the peace, and everything to do
> > with opening up space for the intervening countries? corporations,
> > banks and investors to make a profit.
> >
> > Yugoslavia was transformed by Western intervention from a country with
> > a large socially and publicly owned sector, whose government balked at
> > IMF reforms, into a neo-liberal workshop of growing economic insecurity
> > and domination by Western capital. Iraq, brutalized by sanctions,
> > terrorized by war, and humiliated by occupation, may in time yield its
> > prize of a bonanza of oil profits to British and US oil firms. These
> > prizes could not have been won without campaigns of vilification to
> > manufacture consent for intervention. The bases for these interventions
> > ? that Milosevic was orchestrating a genocide in Kosovo and that Saddam
> > Hussein was hiding banned weapons ? were lies.
> >
> > In the real world there are three kinds of views on the struggle in
> > Zimbabwe: those that demonize Mugabe; those that angelize him; and
> > those that do neither. In the Manichean world of the politics of demons
> > and angels there are only two: those that demonize Mugabe and those
> > that angelize him. Anyone who expresses a view that neither demonizes
> > nor angelizes Mugabe is accused, by those who demonize him, of
> > angelizing him.
> >
> > A person who notes, quite accurately, and with the weight of evidence
> > behind him, that Washington, London and the EU have built and enlisted
> > civil society in Zimbabwe to oust Mugabe, will be called by those who
> > demonize him, a pro-Mugger, Mugophile, or practitioner of the basest
> > enemy of my enemy is my friend politics. And yet there is no
> > justification for making these accusations. Repeating what has been
> > said over and over by the US State Department and in newspaper reports
> > about US and British intrigues in Zimbabwe is hardly the same as saying
> > Mugabe is my friend, Mugabe is my hero, or Mugabe is a great guy, let?s
> > organize a celebration in his honor.
> >
> > When demonizers of Mugabe accuse those who point out that what
> > Washington and London admit to openly, as being Mugabe-angelizers, we
> > have to ask why? Is it because their Manichean worldview allows them to
> > see the world in no other way (if you don?t call him a demon you must
> > think he?s an angel, because there are only angels and demons in my
> > world), or is it because they?re so embittered toward Mugabe that they
> > don?t care who gets rid of him or how or what follows him, just so long
> > as he goes, and therefore anyone who would regard him as something
> > other than a demon must be stopped from doing so in case he persuades
> > other people?
> >
> > To be sure, these are not mutually exclusive alternatives. Both may be
> > true. But what?s significant is that both mesh nicely with the openly
> > admitted plans of Washington and London to oust Mugabe?s government. If
> > Mugabe is universally understood to be a demon, we can hardly marshal
> > the energy to stop plans to oust him. Why bother? You?ll only soil
> > yourself by association. And who wants to back a demon?
> >
> > The claim made by Z Magazine?s Michael Albert, that human psychology
> > isn?t this simple ? that people recognize that a foreign leader?s being
> > a demon doesn?t justify an intervention to remove him ? reveals Albert
> > to be either disingenuous or the last person on earth you would want to
> > invite into an advertising firm as a human relations expert. You don?t
> > have to talk to too many people, including readers of Z Magazine
> > (especially readers of Z Magazine?) to hear it said: ?Oh sure, maybe
> > the bombing of Yugoslavia, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the war on
> > Iraq, were done for the wrong reasons, but all the same, they served
> > the useful function of ridding the world of monsters.?
> >
> > Given a zeitgeist that favors a never-ending series of demons for
> > people to vent their moral outrage on, it comes as no shock to find
> > professed anti-imperialists combing their archives to dredge up
> > whatever dirt they can find on Mugabe. One found an article that
> > exposes Mugabe as a homophobe. But what have Mugabe?s views on
> > homosexuals to do with the struggles in Zimbabwe that connect the rural
> > poor, white commercial farmers, Zanu-PF, civil society, and the
> > imperialist machinations of the US and the UK?
> >
> > The answer, of course, is nothing. But there is a political function
> > and also a psychological function to be served in good old-fashioned
> > dirt-slinging. Politically, the object is to personify a movement to
> > discredit it by drawing attention to the revolting features of the
> > person the movement has been equated to. There?s a Pavlovian character
> > to this. The pairing of the bell with food, eventually leads to the
> > bell alone calling forth the dogs? salivation. Likewise, the pairing of
> > the person with the movement, or class, or nation, eventually leads to
> > the negative features of the person being transferred to what he has
> > been equated to. Were one to dredge up articles on Castro and Che being
> > homophobes, Cuba-supporters would immediately recognize the political
> > nature of the act. They don?t, however, seem to recognize the political
> > nature of the act of visibly parading one individual?s failings about,
> > under the guise of a making a significant contribution to understanding
> > the struggle in Zimbabwe ? or do, but go about doing it anyway because
> > their commitment to anti-imperialism is fair-weather (strong when there?
> > s no danger of being demonized by association, absent otherwise.)
> >
> > The psychological as opposed to political function of dirt-slinging is
> > to socially affirm oneself as a decent human being by denouncing those
> > who express indecent values. This is particularly attractive to people
> > on the far left, who are already mistrusted by the larger community for
> > holding dangerous and unsettling views. How better to affirm one?s
> > place in decent society than by leading the chorus in denouncing those
> > vilified by conservative forces as leftist and anti-imperialist
> > ?monsters.? See, not all of us are monsters. We hate the monsters just
> > as much as the rest of you do.
> >
> > Let?s be clear. The very fact that I?m questioning the practice of
> > personifying groups of people in order to demonize the individuals
> > equated to them will be used to denounce me as a thug-hugger,
> > apologist, and lionizer of monsters. In other words, if you?re not with
> > us in vilifying the latest Satan, you?re against us. The great irony is
> > that people who rail against those who refuse to participate in
> > campaigns of vilifying those calumniated as left and anti-imperialist
> > ?monsters? accuse people like me, of practicing a with-us-or-against-us
> > politics of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
> >
> > ?Unhappy is the land that needs heroes,? remarked Brecht. He might
> > have added, unhappy is the land that needs demons (but then, the land
> > that needs heroes, must, per force, need demons as their heroes?
> > antithesis.) The movie The Motorcycle Diaries, about Che Guevera?s trip
> > through South America with his friend Alberto Granado in the early 50s,
> > has been justly criticized for angelizing the Argentine revolutionary.
> > When those enchanted with Che the angel discover Che the human being, a
> > man with warts ? though, as is true of all larger-than-life figures,
> > uglier than those of the rest of us ? they become disillusioned,
> > embittered and, if strongly committed to a Manichean view of the world,
> > swing radically to the other pole, denouncing their fallen angel as
> > Satan incarnate, rather than recognizing him as a human being.
> >
> > The best that can be said about discussions of Zimbabwe, or north
> > Korea, or Sudan, or Iran that reduce to a set of accusations about the
> > demonic character of some leader is that they?re superficial and
> > frivolous. What can also be said is that they?re products of
> > manipulation by forces seeking to manufacture consent for interventions
> > in other countries ? interventions that have nothing to do with human
> > rights and democracy and have everything to do with securing advantages
> > for the intervening countries? corporations, banks and investors. When
> > we dissociate ourselves from ?unsavory? regimes ? and there?s not one
> > government, Western or otherwise, free from unsavory features that
> > would not allow any of them to be demonized ? we isolate really-
> > existing projects for national and class emancipation and thereby
> > undermine the potential for the success of progressive struggles in the
> > real world. It?s true that in behaving in this way we can avoid
> > demonization by association and thereby splatter-proof our own vision ?
> > a strategy that may serve the purpose of making our vision more
> > saleable to a skeptical public ? but it cannot be safeguarded from
> > vilification forever. The moment it too becomes a threat, it will be
> > vilified as vigorously as all real-world threats to imperialism are.
> > The idea that you can escape being vilified by those you oppose is true
> > only so long as you don?t oppose them in any kind of serious or
> > effective way. Utopian visions ? and those whose left politics amount
> > to nothing more than pious expressions of benevolence and goodwill to
> > men ? are no threat.
> >
> > What?s more, the view that the success of the independent (which is to
> > say, the US government and ruling class foundation supported) left in
> > Zimbabwe in toppling the Zanu-PF government is something to be wished
> > for, is naïve or (given the foundation-connections of those who express
> > this view) disingenuous. A successful civil society-executed regime
> > change operation will not produce a decentralized, participatory
> > democracy committed to egalitarianism, but a neo-colonial regime headed
> > by an Anglo-American puppet which will immediately handcuff land reform
> > and abrogate every policy at odds with neo-liberalism and ownership of
> > Zimbabwe?s assets by US and British capital.
> >
> > The models are Poland and Yugoslavia (among others.) There, trade
> > unions and civil society also managed to enchant the Western left while
> > bringing down governments that were the only serious obstacle to the
> > installation of comprador regimes ? regimes whose agenda was one of
> > shutting down shipyards, selling off socially and publicly owned
> > enterprises, and ushering in an era of growing inequality and
> > subservience to Western capital. You don?t hear much about these places
> > anymore. You should. They?re what Zimbabwe will become if civil society
> > topples another anti-imperialist government.
> >
> > ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
> > 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]
> > ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
> >
> 
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
> 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]
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
> 

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
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]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤