WE are supposed to sustain our firm belief in the exceptional leadership qualities of Barrack Obama when the black man in the White House retraces American history 64 years down the line and discovers that US public health researchers once deliberately infected unknown numbers of Guatemalans with syphilis and other deadly sexually transmitted diseases.

Obama's spokesperson, Robert Gibbs, believes what the Americans did is "shocking, tragic and reprehensible" and the current Guatemalan President, Alvaro Colom recently declared the whole act must be treated as a "crime against humanity".

Obama has already apologised profusely to Alvaro Colom and he promised that the United States would make sure that all research done today will be according to international ethical and legal standards.

There is no reason to doubt whatsoever Obama's sincerity on this matter, for as long as we isolate this sad historical happening from American foreign policy, something that Colom has already done by putting a disclaimer to his otherwise furious outbursts.

He said, "We are aware that this is not the policy of the United States . . . this happened so long ago."

He is better off without angering the Chicago Boys at the Pentagon.

The research was an unethical medical crime based on an agreement between Guatemala's 24th President, Juan Jose Arevalo and Harry Truman's administration, way back in 1946.

We can only be dispassionate about US acts of atrocities such as the above described if we make the fundamental assumption behind the imperial grand strategy, often considered unnecessary to interrogate because its truth is taken to be obvious, as propounded by the Wilsonian tradition of idealism.

The assumption is that the US provides leadership to the world, that the intentions of the United States are always good, even noble.

So the interventions of the United States are always necessarily righteous in intent, if occasionally clumsy in execution.

Woodrow Wilson said the US has "elevated ideals" and are dedicated to "stability and righteousness" and naturally the US "interests must march forward, altruists though we are; other nations must see to it that they stand off, and not seek to stay us".

When it comes to US hegemony, we all must in awe revere America as the "historical vanguard", all because the US is so unique that it is the only state blessed with the ability to comprehend and manifest history's purpose, and even the Europeans must swallow that.

In US foreign policy lexicon, what history achieves is for the common good, the merest truism, so that empirical evaluation of US actions is unnecessary, if not faintly ridiculous.

The primary principle of US foreign policy, rooted in Wilsonian idealism and carried over from Ronald Reagan, through the Bush legacy of the two Bushes, all the way to Barrack Obama, is "the imperative of America's mission as the vanguard of history, transforming the global order and, in doing so, perpetuating its own dominance," guided by "the imperative of military supremacy, maintained in perpetuity and projected globally", (Noam Chomsky, quoting Woodrow Wilson).

By virtue of its unique comprehension and manifestation of history's purpose, the US is entitled, indeed obligated to act as its leaders determine to be best, for the good of all, whether others understand it or not, or whether they like or not.

The United States should not be deterred in realising democracy's transcendent purpose in Zimbabwe even if the Empire is held up to obloquy by the foolish and the resentful, as should not be its junior partner and former empire, Great Britain, though hardly great these days.

This is the prevailing rhetoric from the most prestigious advocates for Western hegemony, be they the intellectual worshipers at the shrine of the Empire, or the insidious puppet politicians controlled by Washington within Africa and within the Zimbabwean political system itself — here they call themselves the "real change team", and Nelson Chamisa knows what that means.

We are meant to still any qualms that might arise by reminding ourselves that providence summons Americans to the task of reforming global order, and we must understand the Wilsonian tradition to which all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of party or skin colour, will always adhere.

We need to reassure ourselves that the powerful Western elites are motivated by elevated ideals and altruism in the quest for stability and righteousness, and for us not to fail to comprehend this very important concept we need do adopt what Noam Chomsky called "intentional ignorance", himself borrowing from a critic of the terrible atrocities in Central America in the 80s.

When we adopt the stance of intentional ignorance we are capable of tidying up the past, conceding the inevitable flaws that accompany the US's best intentions when they go out bombing so many nationalities abroad with reckless abandon.

We can surely come to understand that the US leaders mean so well when they kill so many children through a ruinous sanctions regime on Zimbabwe; that George W. Bush meant well when he and Tony Blair lied that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and that the innocent women and children killed by indiscriminate aerial bombings in Afghanistan today are unintended and unfortunate collateral damage of Obama's good intentions of establishing a democratic government for the otherwise incapable and almost unthinking Afghans; who obviously are foolish enough to have a government like they had in the Taliban before 2001.

It is like those bucolic and directionless Palestinians voting for the terrorist Hamas in 2006.

That of course has to be corrected by the ever glorious civilised Westerners.

When we adopt the doctrine of intentional ignorance, we will understand so well the advent of the new norm of humanitarian intervention, and we can even successfully portray US foreign policy as noble and even fronted by a saintly glow.

How can we fail to understand the unique idealism of American leaders?

How can we do such a thing without missing the merest truism?

Max Boot has an answer for us critics of the United States, us the bunch of unthinking and obnoxious conspirators.

He says that we are often "driven by avarice" and that we cannot comprehend the "strain of idealism" that animates US foreign policy.

Robert Kagan adds and says those of us who criticise American foreign policy are consumed by "paranoid, conspiratorial anti-Americanism" which has "reached a fevered intensity".

Boot and Kagan are neo-Millians retracing the footprints of Stuart Mill who in his classic essay on humanitarian intervention urged Britain to undertake the enterprise vigorously — specifically to conquer more of India.

Mill wrote and explained that Britain had to pursue this high minded mission, even though it would be "held up to obloquy" by the whole of Europe.

Mills said Europeans were just "exciting odium against us", because they dismally failed to comprehend that England was truly "a novelty in the world", a remarkable nation that acted only "in the service of others".

Britain, like its Senior partner the US, is dedicated to democracy and peace, though the unsound actions of barbarians like Zimbabwe's war veterans, who took away land from "productive white commercial farmers"; will always force the West to impose ruthless sanctions — sanctions at which the US and Britain will selflessly bear the cost of averting, as they come after the dying masses with humanitarian food aid.

The US and its Western allies are such a righteous lot that they bear all the cost of democratising this planet while sharing the fruit of their efforts in fraternal equality with the whole human race, including the barbarians and uncivilised tyrants they invade and conquer and destroy for their own benefit — as was the mission to liberate Iraq by invading and bombing to ashes its assets and infrastructure — all to liberate Iraqis from themselves.

As Mill wrote about Britain, Western policies are free of "aggressive designs" desiring "no benefit to (themselves) at the expense of others". Western policies are "blameless and laudable", Mill asserted.

Stuart Mill wrote at a time when Britain was engaging in some of the worst crimes of its imperial reign and he distinguished himself as a truly honourable intellectual — providing a legendary and unprecedented clear example of apologetics for terrible crimes.

He was not too different from Francis Fukuyama's euphoric celebrations of the US's Cold War victory over the Soviet Union — a clear example of unprecedented apologetics for the US' excesses of the Cold War in Central America, Africa and other troubled parts of this world.

Thomas Jefferson made an incisive observation of what determines the interests of Western leaders on matters of foreign policy.

He said, "We believe no more in Bonaparte's fighting merely for the liberties of the seas, than in Great Britain's fighting for the liberties of mankind. The object is the same, to draw to themselves the power, the wealth, and the resources of other nations."

It is this very object that drives Western policy: to draw to themselves power, the wealth and the resources of other nations.

The US wants the world to view Washington as a centre for democracy and a source of liberties for mankind.

This is why Morgan Tsvangirai cannot utter the word sanctions in the same sentence with the US.

He knows how to do his job as the image keeper of his employer and master.

The phrases he freely associates with the United States include "democracy", "freedom", "progressive", "civilised" and any other such worshiping lexicon practised at the shrine of the Empire.

Tsvangirai finds it a lot easier to call Sadc "a club of dictators" and to label South Africa "dishonest", much as terms like "dictator", "tyrant", "despot" or "totalitarian" flow naturally from his mouth when he talks about President Mugabe.

Tsvangirai rhapsodises endlessly about the commitment of his Western masters to democracy and human rights and the Westerners return the favour by proclaiming that they are helping him to establish "a free society" in Zimbabwe; perhaps free of control of their own wealth and resources, as we were free of arable land prior to 2000.

Of course we have to adopt the stance of intentional ignorance to see the US as a centre for stability, peace, democracy and freedom.

We must blind ourselves to the aggression that saw the illegal invasion of Iraq, the ruthless murders carried indiscriminately on Afghan civilians since 2001, the economic strangulation that saw Zimbabwe squeezed to a land of less than hand to mouth, thousands and thousands of people succumbing to preventable diseases, starvation, HIV and Aids, while millions were displaced by the economic deprivation caused by a shrinking economy at the onslaught of illegally imposed Western sanctions.

Tsvangirai is paid to cover the backs of his masters by pushing the blame for what Zimbabwe went through on to "unsound policies" by his political rivals in Zanu PF.

Of course by "unsound policies", Tsvangirai is simply saying policies unendorsed by Washington cannot be sound, if only for the wrath they invite from the throne of the Emperor, wrath aimed at punishing the people for popularising anti-imperialism policies — squeezing their stomachs through starvation until they start stoning their own leaders; the whole idea behind the illegal sanctions on Zimbabwe.

Supported or merely unopposed, Zimbabwe's land reclamation policy is so sound in that it is the only policy that can uplift the standard of living of the poor masses.

The greatest challenge so far faced by this policy is the sabotage from Western countries and the crippling effect of the illegally imposed sanctions on the country.

It is this onslaught from Western countries that makes the policy "unsound" in the eyes of would be followers, and Tsvangirai is employed to reiterate this message for the likes of South Africa and Kenya, places where the land issue still stands unresolved.

The message is very clear: try it and we will make you look like Zimbabwe.

The two people who funded the formation of the MDC-T the most, Tony Blair and George W. Bush; are undoubtable in their standing as ruthless murderers and unrepentant liars, but we are meant to forget all about them because "democracy", removed them from power.

We need a lot of intentional ignorance to be able to fully forget about the atrocities of George W. Bush and his British sidekick, Tony Blair.

Blair writes a book to make light of his murderous policies that saw over a million Iraqis killed and millions displaced.

The book is meant to regularise the barbaric acts into the archives of acceptable history as written by Western history makers, in this case self written history.

It is the legacy of true liberation fighters and stalwarts against colonisation and imperialism that is often rubbished and tainted by Western rhetoric experts so that the upright may be condemned while the vile and the evil are exalted.

This is why all efforts targeted at Zimbabwe from the West right now are centred on one man and one man only, Robert Mugabe — a man so hated for his ‘‘sins'' against Western supremacy that his legacy has to be destroyed to make sure that future white generations will be spared the possibility of any neo-Mugabes in the future.

So the man is a target of unprecedented and unlimited slander and vilification, so obsessive a venture in the West that Mugabe is undoubtedly the most known leader in the world today, alongside the likes of Barrack Obama — the former known far more than Zimbabwe itself.

President Mugabe's proclaimed sins are deeper than the oceans and higher than the mountains; and the hoax is not without takers even among some Zimbabweans.

The errors and excesses of the post-independence conflict that afflicted Zimbabwe in the mid-eighties are revisited, revised, exaggerated, spined, and tailor made to create a monster out of Mugabe.

We are even lectured on this new topic, "30 years of total failure" as is now the description of Zimbabwe's post independence life — a span that propelled the country to the top of Africa's literacy index, among a lot more other notable achievements.

Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga are spared media blame for a post election violence that reportedly claimed 1 500 people in Kenya and Robert Mugabe is portrayed as the Devil incarnate for the inter-party election violence that claimed over a 100 people in 2008, the same year with Kenya.

When Western interests are not threatened lives of 1 500 Kenyans are far less important than the lives of 100 Zimbabweans whose leader is an enemy of the superior breed in the West.

When our lives can only assume value as pretexts for Western acts of aggression against ourselves we have to adapt to the stance of intentional ignorance so that we do not get too angry with reality.

When one writes like this, intentional ignorance will tell us that the writer is a Mugabe apologist and not a revealer of the untold reality. So the persecution and victimisation begins unabated.

There is just no relationship between exposing Western spin and playing apologetics for the target of that spin. So we will not be deterred.

Zimbabwe we are one and together we will overcome. It is homeland or death!

Reason Wafawarova is a political writer based in Sydney, Australia and can be contacted on wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk or reason@rwafawarova.com or visit www.rwafwarova.com

©  EsinIslam.Com