|
April 8, 2008 This is the first of a
two-part series in which ITAYI GARANDE examines Western,
particularly British, reaction to the elections in Zimbabwe, and
why they (the British) prematurely claimed victory over
President Mugabe. This article is reproduced courtesy of
www.talkzimbabwe.com.
LAST Wednesday I was on the overground
train in London, coming from Charing Cross, going to Belvedere,
and I saw a headline in the Evening Standard newspaper: "We've
beaten Mugabe."
I had to take a second look to see if it
was an MDC campaign leaflet or not. It definitely wasn't. I had
instant déjà vu. I remembered TIME magazine's headline of
December 14 2003. It read "We got him", referring to Saddam
Hussein. The US had been helped to catch Saddam Hussein by his
own cousin.
Both headlines were not in quotes. They
were passed off as fact, as truth. So I questioned: Who had
beaten Mugabe? Was it the Evening Standard and its journalists?
The British government? The MDC? Or some system that is a
concoction of these three bitters in a dish?
Whatever the meaning of the headline, as a
Zimbabwean, I felt sick and ashamed although no one on the train
knew I was Zimbabwean.
I had my internal protest as to why they
called the Zimbabwean government, the "worst government on
Earth, the most brutal, destructive, lawless government". I
couldn't help juxtaposing that statement with the fact that
democracies, especially Western democracies, have created some
truly evil and arrogant individuals: George W. Bush and Donald
Rumsfeld, among others. Their "shock and awe" offensive in Iraq,
meant to snuff out one person, was responsible for a body count
close to 200 000 people -- civilian men, women and children.
I felt exactly the same way I felt when
Saddam was captured and when subsequently, they found no weapons
of mass destruction -- that the media was itself becoming a
"weapon of mass distraction" -- distraction from the truth, the
real issues behind these so-called crises.
So I got home and it got worse.
BBC News 24 was on. Western media was
feeding on the process in Zimbabwe with images from the 2000
land invasions repeated, to tell the "whole picture" -- to
comment on the electoral process in Zimbabwe, and trying to
snuff out evidence that it could never be free and fair.
There was the issue -- their bone of
contention.
Yet the election passed, almost
incident-free, much to their amazement. You could sense the
exasperation and desperation in BBC's John Simpson's voice --
who was hoping for a newsworthy incident; having reported from
some "hotspots" like Iraq. Having gone into Zimbabwe illegally,
he hoped to justify why he had put his life "at risk" like he
always does; yet Zimbabwe presented no danger at all. He would
be seen walking in Harare's First Street, no one bothered him.
He couldn't understand why. Zimbabwe is the "most evil regime",
yet there are no signs on the ground, and people are campaigning
freely.
The media hyped us all up. Mugabe "was at
it again", and the "situation on the ground was volatile", yet
that volatility was a figment of their own imagination. It never
happened. This desire for breaking news, coupled with a failure
to capture "dangerous images" from Zimbabwe, created a vacuum.
This vacuum, made worse by an incident-free election, was filled
by endless MDC Press conferences, House of Commons debates,
British and US governments' calls for a free and fair election,
and new "political commentators" from within the UK, who were
recycled on every "concerned" channel. But never by violence on
the ground, as they had hoped.
In their desperate attempts to discredit
the electoral process in Zimbabwe, they even showed images of
Zimbabweans fetching water during the 2005 drought; and passed
off "acts of God" as evidence of Government mismanagement, and
that Zimbabwe was "on its knees".
For the first time the words "Zimbabwe
Election Update" were written in bold white with a red
background denoting a "high-risk incident" -- that,
unfortunately, never was. Opportunist politicians were born; who
took advantage of the process and the media frenzy. Those who
despised Tsvangirai were having a rethink, because he was
"winning". I'm sure many people regretted for a minute, why they
criticised and chastised Tsvangirai. Those who had gone with
Mutambara were left in the cold, while Western media presented
Tsvangirai as the Zimbabwean "Messiah".
Many commentators took advantage of the
thirsty and manipulative Western media to "come out of the
closet".
Forgive me, but I didn't realise we had so
many Zimbabwean political commentators; or rather political
opportunists. Others even flew from their tiny enclaves in
Kenya, UK, USA, South Africa into Zimbabwe to meet with Al
Jazeera's Kamal and Supa and take advantage of the electoral
process, by commenting from within -- trying to prove to an
unsuspecting audience that they were fighting the system head
on.
Almost overnight, Tsvangirai had new
sympathisers. No one even questioned the morality of illegally
announcing elections before the count was over. No one cared
that the opposition MDC had become a political party and an
electoral body; and that they had effectively presented
themselves as the next government.
Yet those who were pushing for election
results to be announced quickly, e.g. George W. Bush, had taken
a month to do so themselves at one point; and only after a
Supreme Court judgment, did they "win". Surely what is good for
the goose should be good for the gander. The Bush v Gore 531 US
98 of 2000 was a per curiam decision which effectively put Bush
into power. The decision stopped the Florida recount proposed by
Al Gore and allowed a Bush sympathiser, Florida Secretary of
State Katherine Harris's previous certification of G.W. Bush as
the winner of Florida electoral votes to stand. It's not as
complicated as it sounds: it's simply called rigging. Yes, it
happens in America. Bush rigged an election, with the help of
the Supreme Court -- a symbol of American democracy.
Everybody was manipulating the democratic
space to further egotistical pursuits; in the name of the
Zimbabwean people. New "intellectuals" emerged, and it was
fashionable to fire vitriol at your own government, after all
Mugabe's Government was "exiting", so why care.
Funny, I heard one MDC-inspired "political
commentator" say, "It's clear that although Zanu-PF has been in
power for 28 years they still want more, and are not willing to
give the opposition a chance."
I chuckled. Give a chance? Can you imagine
a political party getting into power with the intention of
giving up power to the opposition? It defies logic. That the
"commentator" failed to acknowledge the adversarial nature of
politics the world over is mind-boggling. It does not apply
exclusively to Zimbabwe, Zanu-PF or President Robert Mugabe; but
to all parties, even in established democracies. How ludicrous
would it sound to say, "The Labour government has been in power
for 11 years, they should also allow the Lib Dems, or
Conservatives, to rule for a while"; or say, "It's unfair that
Margaret Thatcher and John Major ruled for a total of 18 years?"
Politics is "a game of chance". Its
outcome is strongly influenced by some "randomising"
opportunities. Like any game of chance, politics involves a
certain degree of skill to survive. This is especially true
where the player or players have decisions to make based upon
previous knowledge -- complete or incomplete knowledge. The
distinction between "chance" and "skill" is relevant -- those
who manipulate the two better succeed. Those who make previous
knowledge work for them, succeed even longer. Like all other
preceding "commentators" this commentator went on, shockingly,
and said that Zimbabwe was not under any sanctions, that there
was only a targeted sanctions regime against the Government of
Zimbabwe. He almost got me retching. Targeted sanctions really?
Let's examine this statement. In 1997,
Britain's new Secretary of State (for International
Development), Claire Short, wrote to then Minister of
Agriculture and Lands, Kumbirai Kangai, and talked of a "a new
basis for relations with Commonwealth countries founded upon our
government's policies, not on the past."
She further went on: "I should make it
clear that we do not accept that Britain has a special
responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe.
We are a new government from diverse backgrounds without links
to former colonial interests. My own origins are Irish and as
you know we were colonised, not colonisers."
Almost immediately, Britain stopped
payments for land reform. At Lancaster House USA and Britain had
promised £2 billion for land redistribution, yet by 1997 they
had made payments of only £44 million in honouring their
commitment.
The "Reasons For Reneging"
Britain has given two main reasons for
reneging in their payments, or excuses. Many media reports on
the issue of compensation tend to focus on these two reasons.
Britain says the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo was too
costly for the Government of Zimbabwe, and that Mugabe was
funding that war from the land redistribution coffers. They also
say, they stopped payments because of the farm invasions. Again
this is untrue. Claire Short's letter to Kangai predates these
two events. The letter, stopping land redistribution payments,
was written on November 5 1997. The DRC offensive started in
1998 and the land invasions began, in earnest, in 1999-2000. So
how could these post-1997 events have caused the British
government to renege on their obligations before they actually
happened? Or were the British good at reading the stars?
Also the offensive in the DRC was carried
out under the auspices of the Southern African Development
Community. Zimbabwe was head of the Sadc Organ on Politics,
Defence and Security. In fact, United States, Canada, Australia
and Japan also supported the Kabila government in exchange for
business deals; so how could the UK and USA blame Zimbabwe for
what they were also doing in the DRC?
At the same time, in a clear case of
double standards, the USA also supported Uganda and Rwanda in
invading the DRC. These two countries, also supported by US
ally, Britain, had their applications approved by the IMF and
neither of them allowed opposition political parties to exist
and had no free Press. Of course, there were no land issues in
these countries. There were no white farmer displacements there.
Britain and the USA are still in the DRC today exploiting the
mineral resources (diamonds, etc). Mugabe's calls for African
economic independence do not augur well with their business
interests there.
Barrie Collins, a white South African
writer based in London, summed it up very well: "Since the end
of the Cold War, the USA and UK have got used to a high degree
of compliance on the part of African governments - and they are
no longer prepared to tolerate those, like Zimbabwe, that insist
on doing things their own way." |
