By Reason Wafawarova in SYDNEY, Australia
Thursday, July 24, 2008
The Memorandum of Understanding signed between Zanu-PF and the two MDC formations on July 21 has been received as an act of assiduity on the part of the political leadership of Zimbabwe on the one hand and also as an exercise shrouded in dubiety on the other.
The MoU comes at a time when many of our people are beset by intolerance and the polarity that has become synonymous with the political landscape of Zimbabwe in the last nine years. It is an MoU between a ruling party that has become synonymous with liberation and the doctrine of sovereignty and an opposition that has become synonymous with neo-liberalism and the doctrine of liberties and human rights.
In the eyes of the mainstream African public opinion, it is an agreement between a revolutionary liberation movement and a somewhat insidiously pro-Western opposition movement. Yet in the mainstream Western public opinion this is an agreement between a perceived dictatorship and an assumed pro-democracy movement.
Some radicals in Zanu-PF will view this development as an unwary compromise with reactionaries bent on reversing the gains of the hard won independence of Zimbabwe while the radicals in the MDC will maintain that the memorandum is an inadvertent trap of their leadership by a seasoned political party capable of derailing the route and destiny of their party.
To the optimistic, moderate Zimbabwean this memorandum is a gesture of goodwill. It is a compendious act of maturity so meritorious that many are already convinced that the piece of paper is the beginning of the end of the economic and social instability in the country.
To the spiritual and the religious, the mere act of President Robert Mugabe and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai holding hands is an undeniable sign of the beginning of a national healing process.
But what does this MoU mean to the politicians involved in its signing?
This is a trilateral treaty that obviously provides opportunities for these people who have opted to pursue the perplexing career called politics.
The politicians will be very busy in the next two weeks and it is very comforting to imagine that these men and women who should be the voice of the voiceless will be busy mapping the way out of Zimbabwe’s economic problems.
This is the perception of the ordinary voter and it is one many politicians are very comfortable with for their own varying reasons.
It is not a secret that the negotiations are about power sharing. Basically, this means that the half-dozen negotiators are going to be talking about sharing what democracy would call the people’s power on behalf of the generality of Zimbabweans.
This is not bad for as long as the negotiators will forever remember that they are negotiating to share the people’s power, not their own. The guiding principle in such an exercise is neither the insatiable ambition to taste power nor the jingoistic quest to protect the same.
Rather, the guiding principle is to snatch Zimbabwe from the route of perdition — to sacrifice the self for the sake of the whole. This is why the signed MoU must, by popular demand, be a meritorious document carrying the hope of Zimbabweans and not an artifice carrying the fraudulent machinations of selfish political ambition.
This writer has been wrestling with the question of what the anti-imperialist position is on the talks between Zanu-PF and the opposition.
This question is surmised on the presumed position that the MDC represents or identifies with imperialism while Zanu-PF represents anti-imperialism, if one were to draw crude guidelines.
There is no doubt that the MDC is a beneficiary of financial and moral support from the most prominent imperialist countries on the planet and the West has openly bragged about this.
On the other hand, there is no doubt that Zanu-PF thrives on the legacy of sovereignty, self-rule and African emancipation.
This does not mean that Zanu-PF has a monopoly over sovereignty or that the party is the definition of emancipation and empowerment. Equally, the MDC has no monopoly over Western friendships and alliances, whether by calculated synergies or docile puppetry.
Zimbabwe can relate and partner with the West on anti-imperialist terms just like Zimbabwe can be sovereign and self-ruling on non-imperialist but Western friendly terms.
Simply, a self respecting MDC that enters talks on the basis of empowering Zimbabweans under the collective sense of the national interest is welcome just like is a Zanu-PF that defines sovereignty in the context of fair and sustainable international relations.
In these talks the gap between rhetoric and reality must be narrowed to zero. The repugnant and inimical approach that labels opponents as evil enemies must be rooted out of the political culture of Zimbabwe by both sides of the political divide.
The mediation process has so far been excellently executed by the able leadership of President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa and this is despite the baseless and politically motivated criticisms from Western countries.
The history and reputation of Western rationality continues to be written by the West, so not surprisingly, Western opinion is portrayed as based on right and justice — upholding the highest values and confronting evil and injustice with admirable courage and integrity. The record reveals a rather different picture and this is the picture by which Western opinion on President Mbeki and on Zimbabwe must be judged.
As former US President John Adams said two centuries ago, "Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak."
That is the deep root of the combinations of savagery and self-righteousness that infects the imperial mentality — and in some measure, every structure of the imperial order as seen in the credo that drives the editorial policy of the Western media.
It can be added that reverence for that great soul is the normal stance of Western elites, who regularly insist that they should hold the levers of control, or at least be close by — whenever a process such as the current negotiations in Zimbabwe is in progress.
How does a peace loving Mbeki get to endure all this barbaric criticism from such countries as the US and the UK while Africans either stand aside and look or in some cases applaud such madness? Are we all oblivious to the atrocious aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Or is the English language so romanticising that we believe that the race that brought it to us cannot err? What morality can be preached by people who are obsessed with such cruel retribution as sanctions and military invasions?
A Mbeki who stretches a hand of peace is accused of ineffectiveness and advised to descend on his neighbours with a punitive hand that destroys what it will never be able to rebuild and some Zimbabweans and South Africans have the dishonour and indignity to chant "Amen".
The ongoing negotiations must, by definition be for the good of Zimbabweans and not for the good of their politicians or that of Zimbabwe’s Western foes. Neither should they be for the good of President Mbeki’s CV.
This is why Western interference must be fought like an intruding snake. There is simply no room for Western input into this process. It is not welcome, however noble or intended.
The context just does not allow for such interference. The tainted have no right to carry the sacrificial blood vessel of atonement just because they are not holy enough to do so.
The Western community might have heavily invested in the politics of Zimbabwe but there cannot be any hope that such an investment can make a justifiable locus standi on matters so sovereign and internal such as the current talks are. This the West must swallow without question and against such there is no law.
It is Zimbabwe’s inalienable right to determine her own destiny and all children of Zimbabwe must stand as one on the protection of this right.
Zimbabwe we are one. It is homeland or death! Together we will overcome.
Reason Wafawarova can be contacted on wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk or info@rawafawarova.com or visit www.rwafawarova.com
What do you mean 'perceived dictatorship'?
'Perceived'? 'PERCEIVED'?
ZANU PF treat Zimbabwe like George Charamba treats his wife. They beat the people until they voted the right way.
Don't give me this 'perceived' bollocks. Everyone knows what the deal is. Mugabe's a crazy old man whose wife spends state money on shoes. Dictator, dictator, dictator.
You'd defend him if he was caught with a freezer of heads like Idi Amin. You don't care.
'Perceived'.
Style suggestions
Reason,
I hope you don't mind if I make some points about your prose style.
Your command of English is certainly very impressive, and your prose is often forceful. But you also overcomplicate things, and write unclear or meaningless sentences in your effort to use impressive vocabulary. I think you should consider fixing that bad habit. It is a very simple principle for any political writer that the simpler and clearer your writing, the better.
Let me give just a few examples of what I mean:
(1)
"The Memorandum of Understanding signed between Zanu-PF and the two MDC formations on July 21 has been received as an act of assiduity on the part of the political leadership of Zimbabwe on the one hand and also as an exercise shrouded in dubiety on the other."
The phrase "act of assiduity" here is without any clear meaning. "Assiduity" means something like "persistence", in so far as "assiduous" means persistent, dedicated, hard working. But surely you didn't mean to say "an act of persistence"? Also, this is a noun that is so rare that it sounds extremely strange, especially here. My suspicion is that you actually meant something like "sagacity" or "great wisdom" or something like that. But I could only guess.
Likewise "shrouded in dubiety" is both strange and unclear, because of the highly unusual "dubiety", which most of us have probably never seen in written English of any kind. Didn't you just mean "doubt" or "uncertainty"? PUT YOUR THESAURUS AWAY and just say what you mean.
In both these cases it feels as if you knew what you wanted to say, and probably had some clear way of saying it, but then decided to use much rarer, more elevated vocabulary. The result was a sentence that is unintelligible, except in so far as we can just about guess what you meant.
(2)
"...beset by intolerance and the polarity that has become synonymous with the political landscape of Zimbabwe..."
Again the meaning is being choked out by the strange vocabulary; and in this case you have a mixed metaphor. "Polarity" refers to the divide between the two parties; but think about it for a moment, how can a divide "be synonymous with" a landscape? And this tired phrase "has become synonymous with” is just a silly way of saying "is". The use of these abstract nouns (again) also makes the sentence weird. How can someone be "beset" by a polarity?
What you've said here is this:
"Some people in Zimbabwe have to put up with the intolerance and the north-and-south-pole-ishness which has come to have the same meaning as the hills, rivers, and mountains of Zimbabwean politics."
What this shows is that you could not possibly be actually thinking about the meaning of your metaphors. They are dead metaphors and may as well not be there. You could just have said:
"People in Zimbabwe face constant hostility and intolerance from their political opponents."
If that seems boring, fine, then find some helpful or colorful metaphor; but what you actually wrote is not colorful, but cluttered and unclear.
(3)
"It is a compendious act of maturity so meritorious that many are already convinced that the piece of paper is the beginning of the end of the economic and social instability in the country."
This illustrates the same tendency as (1) and (2).
You don't mean "compendious". Whatever you did mean is a mystery. "Compendious" means "compact, brief", but in any case it is virtually never used. (In general extremely rare words will make your writing sound odd.) Perhaps you did mean "compact" but the context and the sound of the word makes it look like you meant something more like "stupendous" or "commendable" or "momentous" or something like that. Likewise "so meritorious” is bizarrely unusual. And again, the overuse of abstract nouns covers your meaning like a blanket of snow.
How about: "They see [the agreement] as a momentous act of political maturity: the beginning of the end of all the country's woes."
(4) "This question is surmised on the presumed position that..."
This is intelligible, but again strictly meaningless, because you really can't surmise (i.e., guess) a question. Again you're obviously striving for elaborate vocabulary and the result is both pretentious and incorrect. What you meant was this:
"In asking this, I assume that...” or
"In asking this, I'm taking it for granted that..." or
"I ask my question on the assumption that..."
(5)
"How does a peace loving Mbeki get to endure all this barbaric criticism from such countries as the US and the UK while Africans either stand aside and look or in some cases applaud such madness? Are we all oblivious to the atrocious aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan?"
This is way over the top, and I mean stylistically, not politically. The criticism of Mbeki is not by any stretch of the English language "barbaric". Nobody is literally boiling him in oil, or insulting him by suggesting that we should eat him, or use his children's skulls as footballs. Something like that might be "barbaric criticism."
It is impossible to work out what "such madness" refers to here. The first part of the paragraph makes it appear that it refers to the criticisms of Mbeki (first they were barbaric — now they're mad? Are they mad and barbaric?) But the second sentence makes it appear that the "madness" refers to the mad invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
The line of thought is so compressed here as to be unintelligible. It appears to be this:
"How can people in the US and UK be criticizing Mbeki [for failing as a mediator for Zimbabwe] when those countries have invaded Iraq?"
This does not seem to make any clear sense; and again I stress that this is a stylistic point, not a political one. I mean that your argument is far too quick, and hence mysterious. I have no doubt that it is somewhere in your head; but it certainly isn't on the page. Perhaps you meant something like this:
"Isn't it ridiculous for people in the US to criticize Mbeki for his supposed failure as a mediator? How can anyone believe that the people who have caused so much misery in Iraq and Afghanistan give a damn about the suffering of Zimbabweans?"
Once the argument is actually stated, by the way, it becomes clearer that the rhetorical question here is a weak device. After all, one might very well think that interference in Afghanistan and interference in Zimbabwe are two examples of the same tendency, not two contradictory policies at all. Many Americans could sincerely believe that they would like to see democracy established in Afghanistan and in Zimbabwe. In general, you should probably avoid asking rhetorical questions that might get you the wrong answer. If you say "Who can possibly believe the Americans?" you may find that 90% of readers just say to themselves "Well, I can, and I do" — and your point falls flat, like a joke that nobody laughs at. Rhetorical questions that imply your own distinct position may be OK for the Herald, but not for anything that will be read by a general audience. For that context, you need an argument, not a question that assumes we already agree.
Many of my suggestions here closely follow the manifesto of style for political writing set out in Orwell's "Politics and the English Language." It is worth noting that many of the faults he discusses arise specifically, in his view, from the bad habits of propaganda, and that some of these crop up in your writing.
I think you can make yourself an even better writer by applying some of his principles.
Thanks but
I want to thank you for taking time to critique ths piece linguisticaly.
I will say assiduity is used in te context of deligence and indeed many people have praised the talks as reflective of a deligent leadership committed to ending the current crisis.
If you use notoriety from notorious than dubiety from dubious should not be that strange. Maybe you wanted the simpler dubiousness but to me this is too long.
Compendious describes something concise and summarised and I take it this makes sense in describing the merit in the talks.
Meritoious means something with merit and I find it perfectly well used despite your not liking the term.
And yes, I ask rhetorically that anyone who does not see the barbarism and madness in the US/UK taking a go at a peaceful Mbeki is oblivious to the evil happening in Iraq and Afghanstan.
We have been on the Iraq issue for years now and I go to seminars fully aware that the majority of people on this planet are firmly opposed to this ruthless aggresion.
Not that kind of discussion
Dear Reason,
there is no point in arguing over these matters in this way.
I am reporting, as a native and educated speaker of English, that your uses of the words you have just listed (and defended) is, as a matter of objective fact, extremely strange and that the sentences that contain them are, as a matter of fact, badly written. That is how they come across to native speakers of English — period. If you want to write badly, then by all means go ahead and ignore my advice. If you want to improve your writing, then take my advice. But there's absolutely no point in arguing that your strange vocabulary isn't strange.
Thanks again
Again I thank you for the positive side of your input and I promise that will input will come in handy in future works.
Sometimes one uses old fashioned words just to steer interest and it often works. I write in a more poetic than just political manner and I think that way I have gained a few more readers.
Do it, then.
Dear Reason,
you point out that the MOU asks for an end to "hate speech":
"In these talks the gap between rhetoric and reality must be narrowed to zero. The repugnant and inimical approach that labels opponents as evil enemies must be rooted out of the political culture of Zimbabwe by both sides of the political divide."
But in your own article, you continue to refer to the MDC as "docile puppets".
Don't you realize that this is exactly the hate speech that the document is trying to prohibit? Of course, both sides have been using bad language and ugly names; but the "puppet" label is certainly one of them. To call someone a puppet is insulting to their intelligence and their autonomy; it casts aspersions on their motives and declares them to be without integrity; it declares them traitors, and it implies that the people behind the party (somewhere in the west) are evil. Thus it does exactly what you deplore: namely, it identifies the MDC as "evil enemies". It is also being calculated to offend in a childish way as much as to inform — like poking out one's tongue.
The "puppet" label is, plainly and simply, hate speech.
In line with your own appeal, will your declare and END to your use of the "puppet" label in this site — at least while the MOU remains in effect? You may well believe this particular piece of hate speech. More than that, I myself am prepared to concede that it may be accurate, for all that effects my argument here. That is not the point. The MOU does not declare all the instances of hate speech FALSE; rather, it says that they should not be used by political parties of one country engaged in a common civic venture. Tsvangirai may be a little bit ugly; but his opponents should not call him ugly in place of engaging in dialogue. Likewise the MDC may be "puppets"; but the MOU states that shall not be named "puppets" by anyone who is serious about putting aside childish insults and getting on with the discussions.
For my part, I do not believe that the MDC are puppets. But that is irrelevant. I will say, though, that a true democrat does not merely abstain from hate speech, but also from the habits of mind — the suspicion, resentment, and impulse to insult — that lies behind hate speech. Thus, a true democrat not only refrains from calling his political opponents puppets of evil forces, but also takes care not even to believe such things of his fellow citizens. Corrosive suspicions and bad habits of mind and character come before these overt hateful practices.
Incorrect
While I have solid evidence that the MDC are puppets of the British government I did not at time refer to them as docile puppets in this article. That quote is made up and obviously incorrect and that done for an article available for scrutiny is mischief in my opinon.
Secondly, I do not agree that analysing a political party as being a puppet organisation qualifies as hate language.
No, you don't/
No, you don't have 'solid evidence' that the MDC is a 'puppet', because if you did you'd have said what it is by now. Like, every day, This is a lie isn't it?
I keep reading this place, and most of the things you say are lies. I mean, really lies
No, correct
Not so. I quote:
"This does not mean that Zanu-PF has a monopoly over sovereignty or that the party is the definition of emancipation and empowerment. Equally, the MDC has no monopoly over Western friendships and alliances, whether by calculated synergies or docile puppetry."
In this sentence you quite clearly refer to the "docile puppetry" of the MDC.
It makes no difference that you do not agree that accusing fellow citizens of being puppets of evil foreign forces is not hate speech. It still is.
The subject
The subject of the matter in that qoute is that the MDC has no monopoly over Western alliances and friendship and the qualification is that this may be because of calculated synergies or docile puppetry.
Why did you not accuse me of calling the MDC Calculating synergisers? It is all in that sentence. Here I was just highlighting what people say about the two parties. Equally why did you not accuse me of calling ZANU PF A PARTY that claims monopoly over sovereignty as it is also in that sentence.
Once again I DID NOT call the MDC docile puppets at any tiem in that article.
not good enough
Reason,
as a response to my point this is slippery and dishonest. The fact remains that you do refer in that sentence to the "docile puppetry" of the MDC. True, the sentence is structured so as to make the accusation a kind of implication rather than a direct assertion, and to leave the inference to the reader's choice; but anyone who knows your stance at all will assume that your own view, implied by the sentence, is that docile puppetry is indeed a characteristic of the MDC.
Consider the following sentence, which structurally exactly imitates your own:
"Grace Mugabe cannot claim to have a monopoly on unpopularity in Zimbabwe, whether by being just slightly little insensitive to the needs of the poor, or by being a downright ghastly bitch."
Is this sentence insulting to Mai Mugabe? Why? After all, I am only reporting what people say, not expressing my own view, right?
I did not mention the fact that you also spoke of "synergies" and "sovereignty", OBVIOUSLY, because those things do not constitute hate speech. The point of my post was to note that you continue to use hate speech even in the very article in which you appeal for it to stop. This remains true in spite of your increasingly silly attempts to deny it. Be honest and admit you contradicted yourself, and do something about it. Either (a) defend hate speech or (b) own up to your fondness for it and make a real undertaking to do better in the future.
By the way, you still owe me an apology for your unfair accusation of "mischief". You must at the very least recognize that my reading of the sentence was perfectly reasonable and honest and not in any way "mishievous."
Do you
Do you then admit that you are deriving meaning to the qouted sentence from what you assume you know about Reason and not from the intended sense in the article?
Anyway to me docile puppetry as a description targeted at politicians is very acceptable language just like calling them lapdogs, neo-liberals or authritarian. It is all harsh criticism from the hardline but certainly not HATE language.
Hate language is inciting, loathsome, racial, divisive and deliberately insulting.
No
No, I don't admit that. I think that the sentence as it stands very strongly and clearly implies that the MDC are "docile puppets". I ALSO think that anyone who knows Reason will know that this is something he CERTAINLY believes, as opposed to thinking it extremely likely.
To call someone a puppet — and in particular a puppet of evil forces — is certainly "deliberately insulting". So on your terms it is hate speech.
The fact is that both you and Reason face a very basic contradiction here. The point of banning hate speech is that it robs people of dignity; it is a way of dehumanizing them. Reason wrote an article in which he applauded that part of the MOU. But the fact is that he, and you as it seems, continue to dehumanize the MDC, and to rob them of dignity. You find it impossible to stop doing this.
Look, here is a very simple, and in my view perfectly fair, criteria for hate speech.
Take a given term 'X'. Ask yourself: "Is it possible to be a good X?' That is, it is possible to be an 'X' and still a decent human being whose opinions (even if they differ from your own) are to be respected in the civic debate?
Example: 'liberal' passes the test. It is possible to be a liberal and a decent human being. A good liberal, if you like.
'democrat' passes the test.
'member of the opposition' passes the test.
'critic of the government' passes the test.
'supported by people in the west' passes the test
'lapdog' does NOT pass the test. Nobody is a good lapdog. ALL lapdogs are to be despised. It is just plain to nonsense to say 'he is a lapdog of western imperialists whose opinion should be respected'.
'puppet' does NOT pass the test. Nobody is a good puppet. ALL puppets of evil forces deserve our loathing. It is just nonsense to say 'he is a docile puppet of evil imperialist powers, whose opinion should be respected.'
If you want to behave like children and keep poking your tongue out at any fellow citizens who disagree with you, and call them puppets of evil monsters, fine. We don't really care about your silly party slogans.
But you can't have it both ways. You must at least recognise (a) that this most certainly IS what people mean by 'hate speech'. IT IS A PERFECT, PARADIGM CASE OF HATE SPEECH. And (b) that you guys ABSOLUTELY LOVE HATE SPEECH.
I think the problem here is that a foreign idea, an American idea, is being imposed on your very un-American style of politics. All this talk about 'hate speech' originated in the US. It arose in a functioning democracy where political opponents do not attack each other with iron bars or burn each others' houses down, and where, against a peaceful background, even insulting language is proscribed as damaging to civic discourse.
African Americans only started complaining about hate speech once they were able to stop complaining about lynchings, disenfranchisement, and segregation. Until then, hate speech was really a trivial matter.
Frankly, you ZANU people are just light years away from needing to bother about hate speech — sure, you speak of your opponents insultingly and dismissively and hatefully EVERY TIME YOU SO MUCH AS MENTION THEM, but that's really a minor matter. For now, you should concentrate on not MURDERING THEM and not DEMOLISHING THEIR HOMES before you turn to adressing your addiction to hateful and dehumanising language.
I just thought that since Reason himself made the point about hate speech, there was some hope that you might make some kind of reform of your appalling, persistently odious language. Alas, I now see that you intend to continue insulting your opponents in the most hateful ways that you can devise while ALSO claiming not to use hate speech, in the hope that we simply won't notice the bizarre contradiction. Well I'm sorry, but we will and we do.
apology
PS (1) Will you please apologize for wrongly accusing me of "mischief"?
(2) Given that you very clearly conceded in your last post that the accusation of "docile puppetry", had you made it, would have been unacceptable, as a form of hate speech, and given that you DID in fact make the accusation of "docile puppetry", will you please admit that, by your own judgement, you used hate speech in your article?
Fundamentalism
I fear that there will be no apology coming from Reason even though I believe he is incredible slanderous and some of his articles to contain hate speech specifically aimed at the MDC.
However, this is because Reason is a fundamentalist. Where he solely and whole heartedly believes in what he stands for and that everyone else who has differing opinions is to put it quite simply, wrong. He has a deep and totalistic committment to his beliefs in Zimbabwe. He is entitled to these beliefs but the problem arises in accepting other peoples beliefs and opinions and the need to remain objective at all times. Imposing beliefs/ideas onto a person or a group of people denies them of many of their fundamental rights. One needs to have respects for yourself first and this includes accepting all people, whether black, white, Chinese, Zimbabwean, British etc and then one can respect others.
My point is that Reason shows scant disregard for anyone who criticizes or who questions his political opinions. He does not respect other people's opinions in this forum and simply disregards them as "wrong" and that he is "right". This is the basis of fundamentalism. So no one will get an apology from Reason because in his mind he is always right.
Respect
I am no respector of evil and exploitation but I do respect all people of honour across the world. On this forum I respect everyone person that visits here and I hardly censor anyone, not even the slanderous who come here to accuse me of what they would have as my health status.
I decalre my principles and suport them with no intention of converting anyone just like I am not going to be converted on this forum.
'Honour'?
But you have no 'honour'!
you are in Australia spending Zanu-Pf money while we are starving at home, trying to make sure that Zanu-pf stay in power so someone will pay your rent and put bread on your table with a glass of wine
do not talk of honour, you are not an honourable man
MoU:Zim must shape own destiny
I continue thanking you profusely for the sound masterpieces of yours.It is very true that Zim must shape own future.You stood your ground enlightening those who were totaly lost when it comes to Zim issues.MoU should be given much respect for the benefit of Zimbabweans in particular and Africa at large.It is a new chapter that can silence foes of Zimbabwe for good and we continue hoping for the best.Zimbabweans are the masters of their own destiny and noone has the right to dictate terms for Zimbabweans because we are just like anyone on this planet earth.In most countries if the news do not include Zim then people cannot watch news.This is a culmination of the propaganda of media to support interests of Zim`s foes.I am surprised that others were not aware that your writings were only calling Zimbabweans to speak with one voice, walk at the same pace and sing the same song as Zimbabweans before a neighbour could come in.Keep up the good work.UNITED AS ZIMBABWEANS WE STAND BUT DIVIDED WE FALL.
MOU
And a few weeks back you were going on about how Zanu (PF) would never negotiate with the enemy (MDC) and the MDC would never have any form of power in Zimbabwe. here you are now, saying how great it is and how much of a man Mugabe is that they are negotiating. You are a hypocrit Reason, plain and simple. Next if the MDC get in power you'll probably change your spots and cheer them on for fighting the revolution. you are an embarassment...
MOU
let bygones be bygones.
Zimbabwe and its people moving forward.
MOU
let bygones be bygones.
Zimbabwe and her people moving forward.
Can we?
Can you give the link of this assertion. I have been advocating for a negotiated settlement since March 29.
Reason
So why do they call you Reason? Is that irony? I don't get it.
Tom
MOU
Dear Reason
Having read your article in today's herald, my comment is that you struggled to make balance. My opinion is that you should also have mentioned that ZANU PF is a puppet of Chinese imperialism in Africa and has been busy mortaging the countries mineral and agricultural resources to Chinese capitalists, with a clear colonial agenda.
The idea that Zimbabweans should not be influenced by the West in the so-called negotiations is nothing more than a ZANU PF propaganda ploy designed to hood wink Africans on the continent into beliving that ZANULITES have in their hearts the ideals of the liberation struggle and the protection of sovereignity. In reality, ZANU is a collection of thieves masquarading as nationalists, bent on looting the countries resources together with the Chinese, for purposes of self aggrandizement and enrichment. Because ZANULITES aare dihonest thieves, nothing in the form of changing the countries fortunes is expected to come out of so-called negotiations. To ZANU PF negotiations are a window for legitimization of illegal rule.
DONT put too much faith in this MOU
Cde. Chingongongo
CHINA
China cannot become the master of ZANU PF simply because the British are masterminding the MDC. ZANU PF has a long relationship with CHINA and that relationship has alawys been based on the policy of non intereference.
The West intefere and they call it intervention and the MDC are tools to that effect.
China
"China cannot become the master of ZANU PF simply because the British are masterminding the MDC."
1)Prove it.
2)The MDC are not in government, you foolish man, Zanu-pf is.
"China cannot become the master of Zanu-pf because morgan tsvangirai is ugly and does not wash."
I think that this is what you meant.
The MDC is your excuse for everything that happens in the whole country!
No need
Reason need not reply because some of you guys are just plain obnoxious and stupid to say the least. What is the problem with MDC suporters? You all seem to think its criminal for anyone to criticise your party while you drouse yourself with hate towards ZANU PF. What is good for the MDC must be good for ZANU PF too and vice versa.
'No need'
Look, if Wafawarova's going to make statements like 'I have solid evidence that the MDC is a puppet of the west' HE HAS TO BACK IT UP.
Or else he's just a big liar defending a brutal dictator.
BACK. IT. UP. OR. STOP. WRITING. THIS. S--T.
China
China is already well entrenched in Zimbabwe. Meanwhile there is no proof of the existence of imperialist forces in Zimbabwe. China is to put it simply raping Zimbabwe in front of everyone's eyes and it is quite simple to see. Chinese businesses are propping up all over Zimbabwe for your information and there are no such things as social investment or anything of the sort being done by the Chinese investment into Zimbabwe. What is being done is a Chinese self sustainability exercise. The resources they acquire are shipped quickly out the country and they don't even use the local (Zimbabwean) labour force! How is this not an Imperialist attitude? It is bizarre that you keep going on about the evil Imperialists and you don't even worry about what China is doing to the country and note i say the country. You will justify China's presence in Zimbabwe because they are not intervening with the current government. Well yes, that is because that is what suits them right now.
Oh wait that arms ship? Is that not intervention? Well, of course it is. They intervened on behalf of Zanu (PF) and even though you deny it, your support of Zanu lends your support to China.
China, Reason, and Principles
Reason is a very principled man.
He is a marxist, he believes in equality, and he believes in anti-imperialism. He is against colonies and colonization, and believes that no people should interfere in another country's affairs, let alone try to rule them.
Unless, of course, it involves Tibet. Then he supports Chinese imperialism, and lauds their attempts at homogenization.
He will, no doubt, argue that Tibet is an internal matter for China. Despite the fact that Tibet has existed as an entity for much longer than Zimbabwe, or indeed, most African states.
But this does not undermine his argument. Nor does the inconvenient fact that Tibet was invaded by China, not metaphorically, but literally, complete with an army marching in.
But this is not invasion. Tibetans and Chinese are the same, he will argue. But for one problem - they are ethnically distinct. And he will, of course, turn a blind eye to the latest unrest, wherein Tibetans violently protested the Chinese attempts at homogenizing Tibet by overrunning it with ethnic Han Chinese, who, like alll good colonialists, run the economy.
But he will continue to contend that he is against colonialism and imperialism.
Yes, Reason, we see you for what you are. A man with principles. Or lack thereof.
Tibet
What makes you come to the conclusion that I support China on Tibet? When I want to attack invaders I know one country that has done 35 invasions in 63 YEARS and I know who to criticise.
China is just an amateure at the game of invasion. Does the US not harbour ambitions of annexing Cuba?
Reason, Principles, and Facts - what do you know about china?
Come on Reason, do you expect me to belief that your hero-worship of China does not taint your view of them.
In the another thread you write that the same kind of freedom is not for all - that China is fine the way it is. Yet there is no mention of the fact that the Tibetans want their own kind of freedom - one that mirrors "western" and, apparently, "Indian" ways.
Oh and feel free to answer the questions on the other pages with yes or nos. You avoid most of the questions with sweeping generalizations. Fear of being exposed as a charlatan, perhaps?
"When I want to attack invaders I know one country that has done 35 invasions in 63 YEARS and I know who to criticise."
35 invasions. I wont ask you to list them, dont worry, but in how many of those countries do we see:
a) locals make pledges of allegiance to America, amidst blatant attempts to remove the cultural heritage?
b) a flood of white American folk to wipe out the local population?
c) Restriction of freedom of expression, religion and/or opinion?
"China is just an amateure at the game of invasion. Does the US not harbour ambitions of annexing Cuba?"
Why do you insist on discussing things you know nothing about. China does not have the projection capabilities of the US, which is why it has staged less "invasions"
But looking at a map of China, we can establish that has turned three neighbors into client states, and fought with all the others.
Russia/Soviet Union - 1969 Border Clashes
Korea - Korean War - North Korea now a client state
Vietnam - 1979 (incidentally this war was fought because Vietnam attacked the PRC supported Cambodian Khmer Rouge Regime (so much for non-interference in Cambodian affairs))
Myanmar - Client state (the military junta buys all its equipment from China)
India - 1962 war
Tibet - Gone.
Japan - China doesnt have the naval capacity to engage in war with them - it is a coastal defence navy, not an oceangoing one.
Am I missing anyone? The Chinese have tried to pull imperialist tricks wherever they can. In some cases (India, Russia, Vietnam), they got repulsed. In other cases (North Korea, Tibet), they succeeded. Hell they were even playing games in Cambodia, Indonesia and Malaysia (hence the strong anti-Chinese demonstrations in those countries in the 1990s).
And thus, Reason, one must not talk about that which one knows nothing. If you are going to make assertions, then make sure they cant be torn apart. China is as imperialist as America. Its just a whole lot weaker.
Imperialism is imperialism, regardless of the scale
I should have added above that imperialisim is imperialism regardless of the scale on which it is practiced, and thus your attempt to differentiate between US and China on the basis of the number of imperialistic ventures carried out, is invalid.
China??!!
Yeah. Non-interference. As long as you buy the latest Karakoram training aircraft. As well as some bullets. Just make sure China can get rid of its surplus inventory for money.
Otherwise China will start supporting whoever will, even the MDC. And no, its not just a Chinese trait - the Russians and Americans do it too. Its called Realpolitik.
Are you really this naive.
Dear Reason Having read your
Dear Reason
Having read your article in today's herald, my comment is that you struggled to make balance. My opinion is that you should also have mentioned that ZANU PF is a puppet of Chinese imperialism in Africa and has been busy mortaging the countries mineral and agricultural resources to Chinese capitalists, with a clear colonial agenda.
The idea that Zimbabweans should not be influenced by the West in the so-called negotiations is nothing more than a ZANU PF propaganda ploy designed to hood wink Africans on the continent into beliving that ZANULITES have in their hearts the ideals of the liberation struggle and the protection of sovereignity. In reality, ZANU is a collection of thieves masquarading as nationalists, bent on looting the countries resources together with the Chinese, for purposes of self aggrandizement and enrichment. Because ZANULITES aare dihonest thieves, nothing in the form of changing the countries fortunes is expected to come out of so-called negotiations. To ZANU PF negotiations are a window for legitimization of illegal rule.
DONT put too much faith in this MOU
Cde. Chingongongo