|
Writers Articles And Opinions |
|
|
|
9 March 2010 By Reason Wafawarova IT is rather
a surprise that each problem with the MDC-T is viewed
by the party’s admirers as a corroboration of the
shortcomings of the party’s political opponents, and
we are told that the calcareous plague of corruption
bedevilling the party now is all a creation of Zanu-PF,
simply because it is comforting for those involved to
speak like that, or it serves as a cosmetic cover to
the fading fortunes of the Western-backed political
outfit.
This attitude has created in the MDC-T a leadership
made up of characters that trifle in politics, all the
time trying to excite admiration from vanity. These
political flirts coquette in the comfort of the
knowledge that they have unwavering backing from a
consortium of a grossly unrefined para-media
publishing nothing but hostilities against not only
Zanu-PF, but any group of Zimbabweans seen as standing
in the way of Morgan Tsvangirai and his MDC-T.
Of course the MDC-T enjoys the full and
unconditional backing of Western elites and their
mainstream media for as long as the party continues to
advance the cause of Western- directed politics of
puppetry.
The history that is being written by the West on
Zimbabwe right now is a conquered history — a history
shaped by falsehoods and gross propaganda at the
expense of reality. The documentary "Mugabe and the
White African" is one such adulterated propaganda
designed to create a history favourable to the
character of remnants of the colonial legacy —
portraying white Zimbabweans as defenceless victims of
the vindictiveness of black independence in Africa.
The documentary is molded alongside such
documentaries like "The Last King of Scotland", a
one-sided demonisation piece of act that was directed
at Uganda’s Idi Amin.
Of course Idi Amin was a nasty piece of work, but
that alone does not make falsehoods and exaggerations
against him acceptable. Unfounded and baseless
assertions of cannibalism against the man are
irremissible acts of mischief in history making, just
like the misrepresentation that only Adolf Hitler’s
Nazis committed war crimes during World War II, when
in fact the Allied forces carried out similar acts but
were spared repercussions by a victors’ justice
system.
The Nuremberg trials selectively applied the law to
such an extent that only acts carried out by Hitler’s
forces were deemed war crimes; with similar or worse
atrocities from the Allied forces totally ignored or
even condoned.
This is why Trudy Stevenson will never have a
Western filmmaker approaching her for a role in a
documentary outlining the violent nature of the MDC-T
hoodlums who just fell short of chopping her head off
in 2006.
That piece of history has to be conquered out of
the records of Zimbabwean history in line with the
doctrine of the inviolability of the MDC-T, a party we
are all supposed to revere for its "democratic
principles".
About five dozen rowdy MDC-T characters were
arrested for beating the crap out of each other at an
unsanctioned political gathering in Beitbridge
recently and there was deafening silence from the many
MDC-T Western-based mouthpieces. This is the kind of
history that needs to be conquered out of the records.
These are facts that need silencing.
If this violence had occurred between Zanu-PF
members, there is no doubt that the whole world was
going to be bombarded with headlines of how Mugabe’s
party was imploding.
The June 2008 pre-election violence has been
recorded in the West as a one-sided affair where Zanu-PF
supporters are portrayed as villain savages that
preyed on defenceless and civilised MDC-T supporters.
This is despite well-documented evidence that the
violence was inter-party and that both sides were on
the receiving end of arsonist attacks and other forms
of inter-party violence.
The inveterate doctrine of conquering history is so
powerful that we have a concocted version that says
the illegal economic sanctions on Zimbabwe were
invited by Zanu-PF. This means Zanu-PF must be taken
as the cause of the illegal sanctions against Zimbabwe
and against the Government the same party led.
The well documented utterances by Western leaders
and by Tsvangirai when they mobilised sanctions in
retaliation to the land reform programme are all
supposed to be suppressed and conquered into oblivion
and the unbelievable and nonsensical assertion that
Zanu-PF campaigned for its own isolation and that of
the country it led must be promoted in the hope that
future generations will believe it.
The whole idea of imposing unilateral coercive
economic sanctions on another state, as was done by
the US-led Western alliance is just illegal in every
sense of the word. Many people from the MDC-T
leadership and their Western masters are incensed by
the use of the phrase "illegal sanctions". But do they
have a case?
A report prepared by Somehwar Singh on December 21
1999 in Geneva, in respect to UN General Assembly
Resolution 52/181 of December 18 1997 noted the
following:
"The group (of UN experts) agreed that the
unilateral imposition of coercive economic measures is
inconsistent with core principles and norms of
international economic law, such as (a) freedom of
international trade, investment and navigation, (b)
non-discrimination, including the so-called most
favoured nation (MFN) clause and concept of national
or equal treatment; and (c) sovereignty over natural
resources and the right to regulate foreign investment
and economic activities."
In another report prepared by Gustavo Capdevila on
April 9 1998, in respect to a UN Human Rights
Commission Resolution sponsored by the Non Aligned
Movement, a vote was carried out on the issue of
unilateral coercive economic sanctions.
The 53 member Commission voted on "non-use of
unilateral coercive economic sanctions" with 37 votes
voting for a stop to the use of such sanctions, seven
voting against such a stop and eight abstaining.
This is besides the fact that the US-EU sanctions
on Zimbabwe are in violation of Article 2(4) of the
United Nations Charter and many experts have pointed
this out, not only in relation to Zimbabwe, but also
Cuba, Libya, Iran and other countries that have been
targeted this way before.
These are the kind of facts that must be conquered
out of history, and when one argues this way they go
down in record as dissidents to the imperial world
system.
We have a history in the making that says Cde
Robert Mugabe has become a liberator-turned-dictator
just because the MDC failed to win elections ahead of
him and his party. These conquering history makers
have even publicly offered that President Mugabe could
spare himself such a terrible record if he stepped
aside and allowed the Western-favoured politicians to
preside over Zimbabwe.
There have been suggestions from the West and from
the MDC-T that if President Mugabe did that he would
"be honoured as a founding father of Zimbabwe’s
independence". Real history will never change. Robert
Gabriel Mugabe is a founding father of the
post-independent nation of Zimbabwe regardless of
when, how and why he will vacate the presidency of the
country. His legacy cannot be shaped by an exit plan
or package from the West. It is already in place and
cannot be taken away by fraudulent posturing.
His record cannot be obliterated by history makers
whose pre-occupation is to glorify the imperial
interest in world affairs.
There is no way whatsoever; just no way the legacy
of President Mugabe as the liberator can rest in the
hands or the fate of Morgan Tsvangirai, of all people.
Tsvangirai can rescue that legacy from the bondage
of Western propaganda and slander if he so wishes, but
that history is indelible in the memories of all
Zimbabweans, and for these, this is history written on
hearts and souls, not only on paper.
The treatment of the diplomatic record in the
prevailing doctrine in international relations today
is all based on the triumph of propaganda. It is all
based on subordination to corporate power — a
subordination that underlies the strength of Western
hegemony over world affairs today.
The reason Israel won the affection it commands
among Western intellectuals today was not the
attractiveness of the facts around their 1967 military
prowess. In fact this matter is rarely discussed in
the West today because the facts around it are grossly
unattractive. The Western intellectual community is in
reality expressing its affection for state-private
power through lapdog support for Israel.
They have to accept this much more useful image
that says supporters of Israel are an embattled few,
desperately trying to stem the assault on Israel by
its armies of enemies from the Arab world, by the
press and the non-Western international community.
Those Westerners who rightly criticise Israel are
amplified as an insurmountable threat and they are
often labelled friends of Israel’s enemies.
Thomas Friedman wrote that the PLO had become "the
darling of many Western liberals", meaning,
presumably, that some Western liberals regarded the
PLO as perhaps semi-human, at least. Even that was a
gross fabrication so extreme that it was not even
comical.
The Australian government is currently embroiled in
a harsh diplomatic exchange with Israel for Mossad’s
use of fraudulent Australian passports bearing names
of real Australians in assassinations of Palestinian
political opponents. It is revealing to note that
Australia has not expressed any concern on the act of
murdering itself, no condemnation of the
assassinations themselves, but only on the use of
Australian passports.
Maybe it is because Palestinians or Hamas officials
deserve to be killed, they have no rights, just like
Zanu-PF politicians — their fate is of no consequence.
It is all about how a conquered history is made.
It is like saying today those Westerners who are
opposed to the Iraq and Afghani war are darlings of
Iraqis or the Afghan people. Some commentators even
accused them of being darlings of Osama bin Laden.
Nothing can be further from the truth of course.
When Barack Obama was launching his presidential
campaign in 2007, he announced that he would withdraw
US troops from Iraq if elected because he was opposed
to that war. John Howard of Australia immediately
labelled him an ally of Osama bin Laden.
This kind of thinking is baseless and unfounded but
it is very functional for power, therefore quite
admissible in Western records of manufactured consent.
Obama survived Howard’s onslaught mainly because it
was a feeble kick from a Bush ally who was already
lying hopelessly on the ground and ready for political
oblivion. At a better time the label could have stuck
permanently.
The reality of what Obama calls "wrong side of
history" is often the right side of history.
The right side of Zimbabwean history is that land
was stolen by European settlers between 1890 and 1980,
and that Robert Mugabe led the repossession of that
land between 2000 and today.
The fact that the process is demonised only
confirms the bitterness of the losers.
The wrong side of that history is that Cde Mugabe
is a ruthless dictator for allowing his people to take
back what belongs to them.
The wrong side of history is to say the
British-formed and Western-sponsored MDC-T should be
allowed to fight from the corner of the dispossessed
Rhodesians who lost the land they held at the expense
of Zimbabwean landless masses.
We have seen vocabulary being changed to disguise
reality. Democracy does not refer to the process of
the people’s rule anymore.
Rather it now refers to whatever the US-led Western
alliance happens to be doing, often blocking the
people’s will and aspirations in many nations.
This is why we hear Zimbabwe’s Indigenisation and
Economic Empowerment Act is an undemocratic
legislation.
This is purely because the law stands in the way of
Western investment interests — nothing else. It is
therefore considered democratic to repeal it, and by
so doing surrender the control of Zimbabwe’s natural
resources and wealth into the hands of Western
investors. That is the new idea of democracy, and once
that is done Zimbabwe will officially be considered to
have "returned to democracy". This is a law that
democratically passed through Parliament with
unanimous endorsement, by the way.
Western media tell us that the coalition Government
in Zimbabwe is "troubled" when in reality it is the
West that is troubled by the presence of President
Mugabe. So Tendai Biti, Tsvangirai and Nelson Chamisa
are often pushed hard to corroborate this "trouble" by
confirming the unworkability of the whole set up.
Tsvangirai has largely been reticent over this
matter while Chamisa has been the West’s favourite
hoopla boy for this misguided propaganda. Biti just
recently refused to be manipulated this way when he
openly declared his positive working relationship with
President Mugabe.
We hear the GPA is threatened by "extremists",
"hardliners", or "radicals" from Zanu-PF, while some
people have been labelled "moderates". Moderates are
those who conform to Western plans on Zimbabwe, and
extremists are those who have their own ideas.
The "moderates" can also be called "pragmatists"
and it is therefore considered pragmatic to repeal the
Indigenisation Act in the name of attracting
investors. It is considered pragmatic by the West to
support Tsvangirai ahead of President Mugabe, or MDC-T
ahead of Zanu-PF. In fact it is not only considered
pragmatic, but also a measure of modernity and
civilisation.
The other way is extremist, radical or even
primitive. The reality we are meant to accept is that
Western views are the mainstream views for this world.
Our way or any other way is a way of confrontation, we
are told. Perhaps this is right; only when one
considers that the confrontation is with racial
supremacy and the imperial authority.
When the USSR adopted the Baker plan over the
Middle East in 1989, Alan Cowell announced that the
USSR had "moved away from a policy of confrontation"
with the United States.
He said this brought the Russians "closer to the
mainstream of Middle East policy".
South Africa is being pressured daily to move
closer to the West’s policy on Zimbabwe, and this
would be considered the "mainstream of Zimbabwe
policy".
This is why the lips of Mandela, Jacob Zuma and any
other high profile South African are watched
attentively each time they talk.
Any of the slightest sign of difference with
President Mugabe in particular is seized with awesome
zeal and it is amplified to mislead the public.
This is how the concept of mainstream opinion is
built. Any little bit of information that can be
considered harmful to the targeted enemy is amplified
and magnified so much that it begins to look like
mainstream, not the peripheral comment that it may in
reality be.
Zimbabweans are the sole custodians of the
country’s history and future and we must not allow
this history to be conquered by propaganda and slander
as may be happening right now, many times with tacit
support from fellow Zimbabweans often lured by the
power of the dollar.
We have thousands of these mercenary propaganda
peddlers in the civic society, some in the media
fraternity, and Wilf Mbanga comes to mind pretty fast,
and we also have some from the political community;
the infamous puppets in our midst.
These people must consider a public apology to
Zimbabweans and most certainly they must cease being
willing tools for the destruction of our country.
EsinIslam.Com
|
Save
Add Comments To This Story