By Reason Wafawarova in SYDNEY, Australia
Thursday, July 10, 2008
THE 2007 Lisbon EU-Africa Summit will go down in history as a historic diplomatic victory for Africa in general and for Zimbabwe in particular.
To many, this was a moment when the continent resolutely stood in defiance of the now notorious political benchmarks forced down the throats of world leaders by Washington and London.
While many in Zanu-PF look at Lisbon as a diplomatic victory against what was clearly an act of arrogance by Gordon Brown, the West seems to have learnt something from the bitter experience.
Lisbon clearly showed the US and Britain that Africa did not identify with their political project in Zimbabwe.
Rather, Africa sent a clear message to the West that they stood with Zimbabwe and they were far from being used against one of their own.
The opposition here did all it could to ensure that Harare was excluded from the summit but Africa rested the case by declaring that an EU-Africa Summit without Zimbabwe was not a subject for negotiation at all — that way delivering the unequivocal message that Africa was not going to be dictated to by Western powers.
The beginning of 2008 was a turning point of sorts for the MDC’s foreign policy.
Morgan Tsvangirai started to gravitate towards African states and even began a tour of the continent.
Many people were taken by surprise when even Nelson Chamisa suddenly stopped calling Sadc a club of dictators and started talking of "our allies" in the region.
The MDC language shifted from the "international community" euphemism to the "regional community" slant.
The grating attitude by the MDC towards the African Union has suddenly toned down and to many the MDC appears like a party that has suddenly had its Damascan experience.
The pre- and post-March election period showed a Morgan Tsvangirai with a newly found vision of touring homeland Africa ahead of his favoured Western capitals.
He even had the luxury to stage-manage exiled life in neighbouring Botswana and South Africa for the whole of April and the better part of May this year.
It had to take a James McGee visit and instruction to get Morgan Tsvangirai out of Thabo Mbeki’s South Africa as the June 27 run-off was fast approaching with Tsvangirai busy pretending to be running away from illusional assassins.
The MDC masquerade has obviously drawn favour from a few African leaders who have either confused the posturing for African patriotism or are only too aware of the game at play and are just too keen to prop up the opposition
When Tsvangirai went on his campaign trail in June, he obviously noticed the political ground upon which he was treading was now way different from the last episode where he had gone around saying "Gwendo guno hazvikoni", literally meaning "This time we cannot fail".
Now it was more of "Gwendo guno zvazogozha", and that is Shona for "This time the going is really tough".
Initially, Morgan Tsvangirai reckoned that a 47,9 percent vote simply meant getting another 2,2 percent in order to win the second round of elections.
With this mentality, Morgan Tsvangirai boldly shrugged off suggestions for a postponement of the run-off election arguing that no one had the power to cancel the election at law.
He even declared that no amount of intimidation or violence would reverse his "pending victory".
And that was exactly three days before he announced that he was pulling out of the race on account that he did not see himself winning the election, this time because some amount of "intimidation and violence" had actually pre-determined the election result.
In other words, an election whose result was irreversible regardless of whatever amount of intimidation and violence on a Thursday was suddenly not winnable on the Sunday.
The BBC repeatedly reported that Morgan Tsvangirai was lobbying the African community for support in his efforts to oust President Mugabe and Tendai Biti began his jaunt across Africa.
The MDC has been told to talk Africa and to keep walking West in order for the West to divide Africa on the one hand and to provide cover and legitimacy for some of their traditional client regimes in Africa.
There are some African countries that simply could not come open in support of the MDC because of Morgan Tsvangirai’s open disdain for Africa in the past nine years.
Tsvangirai has recklessly called African leaders "dictators" in the past and he has also done very little by way of synergies with African countries until recently.
It is this recent posturing as a willing fellow African ally that has provided some states the platform and cover they need to help the attack on Zimbabwe.
A number of African countries have held what are really sham elections in the not too recent past.
Nigeria itself admitted to this fact while in Kenya violence claimed over 1 500 lives.
Kenya got independence on British terms and was Britain’s biggest arms trading partner in Africa, earning visits from the likes of the US’s Henry Kissinger.
Nigeria did not only get its independence on British terms but actually refused independence ahead of Ghana arguing that they were not ready to govern themselves.
When they finally agreed to take up independence, Nigeria was ruled by a succession of military strongmen who still take turns to run the country up to this day.
That is not a problem in the least to the most democratic and civilised West who see a lot of democracy in Shell’s free reign over the oil resource of Nigeria.
Now we are told the former British protectorate of Botswana is dismayed by the way Tsvangirai has been politically treated in Zimbabwe, and so is post-Kaunda Zambia.
The question is not why these countries are unhappy with what is happening in Zimbabwe but on whose behalf they are this angry.
Surely, Nigeria’s Umaru Yar’Adua does not believe that his election to office was anywhere near an example of democracy. It is a joke to imagine that Raila Odinga believes that what happened in Kenya in January this year has something to do with the topic of democracy.
Of course, Odinga pretends to see in Zimbabwe what he was blind to in his own Kenya.
Yes, someone from Africa must speak out against Mugabe for the West and the untainted Thabo Mbeki is just but refusing to do the Western bidding.
In this scenario it is just as good to spruce up the dirty fellows and get them to do the job.
Now Morgan Tsvangirai calls for talks with President Mugabe and does a somersault right in the face of the negotiator who is understood to have come at his instigation.
Tsvangirai’s string-puller is fast becoming too clever by half.
The Western juggernaut has activated its African machinery, it is time for vigilance on the part of the children of Zimbabwe.
History has shown that the West does not worry over stirring turmoil and instability in Africa.
They are responsible for whatever Jonasi Savimbi did to Angola, for all the atrocities that Afonso Dhlakama did to Mozambique and many other atrocities.
This writer is not writing this piece in defence of Zanu-PF or the Government of Zimbabwe. Neither is this piece blind to the misery caused by the violence that preceded the run-off election.
Arrests and trials for those who have perpetrated violence on fellow countrymen must not stop with the announcement of the election result and all criminals must be brought to book.
This writer proposes that the talks must address this issue of stability; the lifting of all forms of sanctions, with MDC-T coming open against sanctions and, of course, the talks must address issues of power sharing. This is good for our nation.
Zimbabwe we are one. Together we will overcome. It’s homeland or death!
I am confused
A lot of the things you say are irrelevant in light of what has been said by African leaders post-elections. I didn't see much solidarity there. It suggests that African leaders are not going to ignore the suffering of the Zimbabwean people just because the leader of Zimbabwe is a fellow African. An African murderer is still a murderer and will not be absolved by virtue of being African. .
"He even had the luxury to stage-manage exiled life in neighbouring Botswana and South Africa for the whole of April and the better part of May this year."
This coming from a man who lives in Australia over his beloved Zimbabwe. Farcical. Why did you leave Zimbabwe? To study? Does Zimbabwe not have universities? Or is it because you realised that even in "obedient" America-friendly Australia, life is far more comfortable than it ever will be back home. The country is not doing well - it needs its young and educated and motivated, yet you choose to sit outside and provide sermons about events that took place last year? Why are you not in Zimbabwe?
"untainted Thabo Mbeki is just but refusing to do the Western bidding."
You can be quite daft at times. Mbeki doesnt care about Africa or African unity one bit. He wants stability. If he endorses the MDC, he knows he can contribute to more unrest - and more unrest = more refugees in South Africa. To put it mildly, he doesn't want to say or do anything that can result in unrest in Zimbabwe, mostly because he doesnt want refugees, not because he thinks Mugabe is legitimate. Mugabe is the tyrant on top who is keeping things quiet - remove him, Mbeki fears, and the whole house will collapse. And South Africa does not want to feed its African brothers from up north. He doesnt give a hoot about Africa or African unity. All he cares is about not adding Zimbabwean refugees to his economic problems.
"They are responsible for whatever Jonasi Savimbi did to Angola, for all the atrocities that Afonso Dhlakama did to Mozambique and many other atrocities."
You forgot Mugabe's ZImbabwe and Matebeleland. Or did that not happen?
"Zimbabwe we are one. Together we will overcome. It’s homeland or death!"
Is Mugabe "homeland" or "death"? Shrill rallying cry for someone sitting in Australia, I daresay.
20 Aussie dollars say this post will disappear pretty damn soon.
NO CENSORING
I do not censor any such reasonable posts as the above, only the vulgure ones and also those delibrately posted in slander.
I am doing a piece on why I am in Australia but I have said before that there is no contradiction when one criticises either the West or the MDC from a Western country.
Yes the economy here is superior to that at home just like they also have a skills shoratge here and they need us to do some of the work they themeselves cannot do.
It is a mutual contract and it does not include tempering with how someone sees the world.
Yes, African leaders MUST condemn Zimbabwe on matters that are out of line with legality and humanity, matters such as the violence we saw in the last two months.
That is an honourable thing for Africans to do. What is not honourable is to see this crisis the same way the ousted and bitter formwer white farmers see it. Those guys are gone and are part of history and there is no point trying to aid the efforts to revive their supremacy by playing politics with a matter that is better dealt with at regional level.
Fair play, mate. I will turn
Fair play, mate. I will turn down the polemic.
"I am doing a piece on why I am in Australia but I have said before that there is no contradiction when one criticises either the West or the MDC from a Western country."
The problem lies in the fact that Zimbabwe is floundering but you continue to support the regime - the same regime which is responsible for turning the country into an economic basket case. One can justifiably suggest that your support for Mugabe is ill-founded because you do not have to experience the difficulties now faced by the Zimbabwean people.
Sanctions make a great scapegoat, but as I have noted in a post in another topic, the sanctions target Zanu PF officials - indeed the latest round of G8 sanctions come with a list of names of Zanu PF folk. Now if these people have no offshore accounts and arent involved in every aspect of Zimbabweans economic life, then both they and the common people will not be affected. However if their control over the Zimbabwean economy is so deep that these sanctions will impact the overall economy, then you must ask yourself why, in matters concerning trade, do sanctions come into play, given that they are aimed at individuals. Do these individuals have blatant interests in everything to do with foreign trade? And if so, are they not incompatible with your notions of social justice?
I have noted that you had nothing to say in terms of my comments about Mbeki's stance. I intepret that as quiet agreement.
I look forward to reading your reasons for moving to Australia. I am from a foreign colony and I too immigrated to a western country. I wonder how much we have in common in this regard.
"It is a mutual contract and it does not include tempering with how someone sees the world."
Another problem, in addition to the one mentioned above, is that your credibility is called into question when you can say what you want about who you want without facing repercussions (by virtue of your foreign location), while the folk in Zimbabwe are reportedly deprived of this right, particularly MDC folk. It reminds me of the pro-China groups in western cities when the Olympic torch was doing the round. There is something profoundly disgusting about watching Chinese people make use of western freedom of speech to support a Chinese government that deprives its own people of this particular right. You see what I mean?
"Those guys are gone and are part of history and there is no point trying to aid the efforts to revive their supremacy by playing politics with a matter that is better dealt with at regional level."
This, as always, remains open to debate. They are not part of history. If your car were stolen yesterday, it would not make your claim to your car history. You would still have a claim to it for a certain period of time. The white farmers were not compensated for their land. This is done ostensibly on the grounds that it was African land being returned to its rightful owners. This same logic suggests that tomorrow, your private property can be reposessed by the Australian government and handed over to the aboriginals without you being compensated. How would you react to that?
That aside, Mugabe has, in a fit of populist stupidity, done something exceptionally stupid. It reminds me of the India Pakistan war of 1948 when the Indian and Pakistani armies clashed barely a year after independence. The war came to a quick end for one very simple reason - all the top officers in the Indian and Pakistani Armies were English.
Why were English officers running the two armies a year after the two countries won independance? Pragmatism. High caliber Indians and Pakistanis had only begun entering the officer corps during WWII, when they realised that their prospects would benefit from the impending independence. But they were young and inexperienced, and needed to learn the ropes. Both governments thus saw it fit to keep Englishmen around to make the transition smooth without irreparably harming the armed forces. Now the Indian and Pakistani militaries boast some of the best officer corps in the world.
Mugabe should have taken this same approach. The farmers know their farms, and they know how to farm. War veterans and non-farmers typically don't. Mugabe should have kept the white farmers around to teach the Zimbabweans the ropes, and given them compensation for the services they rendered. Instead he carried out shock therapy and the food situation is, indeed, dire. One suspects that it could have been handled better. What say you?
Mbeki
I think President Mbeki sees Zimbabwe from an independent point of view and I TEND TO TRUST HIS APPROACH wehn one looks at the pressure he is subjected to by the likes of Britain and the US.
I DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE NOTION THAT Zimbabweans are lesser farmers than Europeans and I take it is a racially motivated rhetoric.
The land is gone and there is no turning back on that one.
President Mbeki operates from
President Mbeki operates from a South African point of view and his big concern is total collapse of Zimbabwe, which will result in even more refugees. I think you are aware of the violence recently directed at Zimbabwean refugees in South Africa. There is nothing altruistic or pro-Zimbabwe about his motives - he just doesn't want the economic and social problems that refugees pose. He sees Mugabe's Zimbabwe as a big ugly problem waiting to spillover.
Nobody suggested that European farmers are better than Zimbabwean farmers. They are not. But farmers are, in all things agriculture, superior to non-farmers. Why should they struggle to learn when someone could have taught them and then, after recieving compensation, left. Zimbabwe is suffering heavily because of your apparent support for Mugabe's lack of pragmatism. You would rather see the Zanu PF folk send their kids abroad to study at expensive schools than you would compensate a white farmer for taking everything he owns. I find this a bit short-sighted.
If tomorrow your bank account were mysteriously empty, I don't think you would simply sit back and say "the money is gone. There is no turning that back". Don't return the farms to evil whitey, but at least give him something to work with - a little compensation for taking everything he owns. I don't think you would sit quietly if everything you owned was repossesed wihtout compensation.
Who was not compensated?
Any displaced white farmer who was interested in compensation got it. Those who were to angry to wait for that can come back and be compensated for the developments on the land. The policy was and is very clear.
I think its unfair to allude that Mbeki is selfish over Zimbabwe. If anything his stance is not at all stopping the refugee influx by any measure. In fact many think he is fuelling it although I again do not agree.
Mbeki is scared
Correct me if I am wrong, but did the War Vets Association not simply occupy land, forcing farmers to leave. And did the Zimbabwean government simply watch from the distance when this happened - rather than provide compensation? I would appreciate it if you could provide me with some links stating the policy and the willingness to compensate, because, frankly, I have never seen anything that suggests that the government will compensate farmers for this latest round of land grabs.
" If anything his stance is not at all stopping the refugee influx by any measure. In fact many think he is fuelling it although I again do not agree."
I disagree. He is playing realpolitik. The refugee influx right now is controllable. His fear is that if he undermines Mugabe by favoring the MDC, chaos will ensue including the possibility of a brutal repression by the military, which typically follow this kind of chaos and typically result in millions of refugees. And then there is the issue of South Africa being used as a staging post for the opposition in the even of a civil war. His attempt to mediate talks is essentially the only option he has. If he favors one over the other, he risks compromising Mugabe, or the opposition folk amongst the refugees in his own country. Tis a complicated mess for him.
I just laugh when I read
I just laugh when I read about land policy in The Herald and in places like this.
Mugabe had twenty years to address land inequality. Everyone knew it was unsustainable, just like it’s unsustainable in South Africa right now. While Zimbabwe was profitable it didn’t really suit Mugabe to address it. There was food in the shops, Grace could go shopping in Harrods, there was a Green Arrows concert and a cricket test for everyone to think about.
It was only when the economy began to hit the skids and the people began to question the corruption and the incompetence of government, particularly at the local level, that he began to get worried. The land grab was overdue, but it happened at the last minute in an utterly desperate attempt to win popular support for a government in trouble. And even that was botched.
Instead of instituting combined programmes of training and phased re-allocation like they’re proposing in South Africa, the government just said “WHITE PEOPLE EVIL THIEVES!!!!!!!!!” grabbed the lot and then gave the farms to cabinet members and their families with no interest or experience in farming. Now the farms are fallow, the export sector has collapsed— and they’re blaming sanctions.
A pretty perfect blend of incompetence, racism, political desperation and corruption. But hey, it’s ZANU (PF), so we won’t hear a word of condemnation on this score from Wafawarova.
compensation
The Zimbabwe government offered compensation. Yes, they did but at severely deflated prices. Further to this no compensation was given for farm equipment some of which at the time was some of the most advanced equipment in the world. I don't blame the farmer that tried to hang on to his investment when in some instances they were going to get paid as little as 20% of the actual value of the asset (the land) and nothing for his equipment.
It will be argued that the prices were fair market values but lets not kid ourselves, the farmers were offered money in Zim dollars for compensation and those values were calculated at the bank rate not at the equitable black market rate. And yes we all know the majority of quotes are done in US$ and then it is converted to the black market rate for fair valuation. This was not done for the land. And in the instance of agricultural equipment that was just simply taken.
So your compensation story just doesn't hold up. While the land policy was needed it was unfair.
WHO CHALLENGED
I ask for the citation of one court case where a farmer contested compensation and not acquistion of their land. If the compensation was not enough then its unfortunate that the issue was not raised with the vigour we saw with court appeals on acquistion.
Do what in court?
I think it is fair to say that the Judiciary in Zimbabwe is not exactly independent, even though there are pockets of independence within it. A lot of members of the judiciary rely on patronage. Others are simply scared of losing it all if they dont tow the government line.
Furthermore, War Veterans were KILLING people and the government was turning a blind eye. How can you expect a White farmer to challenge the government in court in the face of such intimidation tactics (including death threatss), especially when it is apparent that the government is uninterested in your plight (at best) or is really against you (as appears to be the case)?
Indeed, did the Zanu PF not attempt to pass a law allowing for lnad appropriation without compensation? It was defeated, if I recall correctly, but I think it is fair to say that that represented Zanu PF (though not ZImbabwe government) policies.
Challenge?
So you measure the fairness of the compensation packages offered in light of the court challenges made against them? Your logic and reasoning absolutely astounds me!
I think you need to go into your records/history here. Hardly any farmer accepted the compensation offered because what was offered bordered on a joke, in fact it was a joke. So they never even got close to accepting it, and they rather sided with the hope of keeping their title deeds and that one day Britain will pay compensation. Can't blame them for that. Oh but the Zim government is fine because, well, at least they offered something hey? Farcical...
If it was a joke
If it was a joke the more they needed to seek legal recourse in my opinion. Yes you are right the Zim gvt was at least civilised enough to think of something like a compensation given the emotions surrounding the taking away of the land in the first place.
ZANU PF
But the ZANU PF did not want to give compensation - it even tried to pass a law to that end.
The Legal Recourse option is a joke. There was none. The White farmers faced War veterans outside court, and the Zanu PF within it. Zanu PF policy was to offer no compensation. And the Zanu PF ran the government. It would take a brave judge indeed to stand up against them, but you know this.
This entire issue has been about the failure to compensate the farmers. Nobody gives a damn about them if they left voluntarily or were compensated properly. Forced land reallocations with compensation take place everywhere - in America too, but they do not become a big issue because the compensation is in line with the value of the land.
And when it is not, one does not have to worry about facing a ruling party that is decidedly against them, or War Veterans who have shown that they can kill.
ZANU PF
Who pushed ZANU PF into the defensive mode? The farmers or The West. Who suspended Zim from the Commonwealth? Who did Zidera?
When you do such things on a people do not expect them to reward you with reasonable compensation. It does not work that way.
You are racist.
First you say tehy were compensated properly. Now you say they werent compensated properly.
I believe it was the economy that pushed Zanu PF into the defensive mode. Suddenly everything started going wrong and they played their trump card - the most populist card in their arsenal. They blamed whitey for it and took his farms away.
"When you do such things on a people do not expect them to reward you with reasonable compensation. It does not work that way."
It is not a reward. IT IS THEIR RIGHT AS CITIZENS OF ZIMBABWE. You have opened my eyes to something I never thought of. Racism in Zimbabwe. In your eyes, they (white farmers) are second class citizens because they are white. I disagree. I argue that they are equal citizens of a non-racist Zimbabwe, and thus should be entitled to the same compensation that a black farmer would have gotten. Their being white should NOT factor into the equation in a country that is against racims.
Nothing to do with colour
Land reclamation had nothing to do with whiteness but all to do with colonial dispossession. Even if it were gOD'S ANGELS that had colonially disposseed Zimbabweans of their land they would have been kicke out perfectly too.
It has EVERYTHING to do with colour
Au contraire, mon amis, it is all about their whiteness. Your logic suggests that any black farmer who got his land through the British or during British rule should also have it repossessed. But this has not been the case. Only white farmers have been targetted. Part of thier crime is their being white.
As Zimbabwean citizens they are entitled to the same compensation that would have been offered to an African farmer. You apparently disagree.
Land
Some objections:
(1) There is nothing racist in the suggestion that someone with long experience in a particular farming method (e.g., large scale, mechanized farming) might be better at it than someone who lacks that experience. There are some people who speak Shona much better than I do, because they have long experience of speaking Shona. If I want to learn Shona I will go to those people to learn it. Racism doesn't come into it. The analogy he carefully provided — of the Pakistani military — made it abundantly clear that the writer is speaking of technical expertise, not innate talent or ability. I have no doubt at all that black Zimbabweans could be supremely good large scale farmers. But a good start would be to learn the techniques of that kind of farming rather than torturing its practitioners and destroying their equipment. Likewise, if I want to learn Shona, I probably shouldn't start by whipping my potential teacher with a bicycle chain and then ripping out his tongue.
(2) Vast tracts of land in Zimbabwe has been taken over by a very small clique of corrupt politicians. Mugabe himself owns three HUGE farms, and most of his cronies have similarly fat estates. His wife alone swallows up huge amounts of land and public money with her extravagant building projects. This is part of the land that is 'gone'. It certainly is gone. Gone into the bottomless pockets of the Zanu emperors. There is no turning back? Is your point that this stolen land must remain in the possession of these thieving plutocrats forever? Shall it never be returned to its rightful owners, the Zimbabwean people?
(3) On the subject of racism, it certainly IS racist to claim, constantly, that the MDC is a puppet of the west. The perfectly obvious assumption behind this claim is that Zimbabweans are not capable of forming political opposition without white people in the background. "People like Tsvangirai" (read, all those ordinary Zimbabweans who voted MDC) "are being told what to do by the Anglo-Americans". So what you mean is that ordinary Zimbabweans MUST be too stupid to make their own minds up, and MUST be incapable of organizing themselves politically, and MUST be incapable of protest on their own initiative, and MUST be easily manipulated by clever white people, and MUST be told what to say and do by white people, because.......well, why? Because being mere black Zimbabweans they are just TOO STUPID and TOO DOCILE to be capable of doing any of these things on their own?
Your accusation of puppetry is a racist rant, plain and simple, and you make that rant again, and again, and again. If you want your claims about racism to have any credibility AT ALL, then you must renounce these 19th century myths; this absurd idea that all political machinations (because they imply cleverness) and all political organization must originate from those clever white people. This is a deeply racist attitude that Mugabe seems to genuinely hold. We should not be surprised by that — he almost IS from the 19th century, after all. But that kind of blatant racism surely has no place on your site. Every time you scream "puppet", we all read "stupid black person under the thumb of clever whitey". Hideously insulting to black people, every time.
No doubt
No doubt there are a lot of land beneficiary who have limited skills in growing certain crops. No doubt these people do need further training. No doubt that some politicians have corruptly and unfairly benefited from the land reform programme. I cannot indpendently verify the number of farms Robert Mugabe has.
Coming to the crux of the matter. It is better the indegionuos people struggle to acquire farming skills on the acquired land than never to have the land in the first place.
It is not racist to say the MDC is a puppet party. It is a fact. When did the Westminister Foundation remove the stuff about funding the MDC and why?
Did not the US Department acknowledge working with and funding the MDC. Did NOT Tony Blair say the same right in the House of Lords. What does that mean to you. That the MDC is working with the British as two equal neo-liberal parties? Even George Orwell would not have know whether to cry or weep over this.
PS Dear Squealer, spokesman
PS Dear Squealer, spokesman of Comrade Napoleon — sorry, of comrade Mugabe, your point about George Orwell is utterly unintelligible.
Why so
Because you feel so Sir. Anyway George Orwell would have weeped.
No, really.
No, really, I don't have the faintest idea what you mean.
George Orwell would have wept because some politicians in England say that they support the goals of a progressive political party in a foreign country, against a brutal dictatorship?
He supported the Republicans in Spain, and was fully in favour of the British sending them arms and money. He actually went to Spain and personally shot members of the ruling party. If he was alive he'd probably be in Zimbabwe right now shooting at the police.
Your point is just totally mysterious. What exactly would he have wept about?
World Order
He would have wept at this world order where a super power wants to impose a regime on a sovereign people.
True
True. And by "super power" I assume you mean Mugabe, who imposes his regime on the sovereign people of Zimbabwe?
I guess that makes some kind of sense.
Super power
You know who the current world super power is don't you?
No. George Orwell would have
No. George Orwell would have 'wept'.
Also, he wrote 'Animal Farm' disenchanted with the Soviet Union, which he had supported, when he saw that under Stalin the government was acting identically to those people the proletariat had fought and died to rid themselves of. They had betrayed the revolution, so to speak, and were treating the people of Zimbab... er, I mean, the animals of the farmyard, with contempt.
The pigs ended up walking on two legs. In Grace Mugabe's case, all the way to Harrods to buy a flatscreen TV.
"It is not racist to say the
"It is not racist to say the MDC is a puppet party. It is a fact."
This shows a profound misunderstanding of what it is to have racist beliefs (like yours) and to make make constant racist slurs (as you do).
My point is that your whole line of attack on the MDC commits you to the view that black Zimbabweans are fundamentally incapable of forming their own ideas, acting on their own initiative, running their own party, etc. and that they need white people in particular to help them.
Your only response is to say that these racist slurs are TRUE??? That doesn't mean they aren't racist!
This is like saying "It isn't racist to say that black people are stupid and easily manipulated by clever white people. It's a fact."
It is your very conviction — your utterly absurd conviction — that this Zanu lie is a "fact" that IS the very racist assumption of which I speak. You haven't refuted it, you have wholeheartedly confirmed it.
The fact that some western governments SUPPORT the MDC is frankly neither here nor there, and that certainly does not justify your constant racist insults against the people of Zimbabwe, these supposed feeble-minded, intellectually inferior black "puppets" of the white masters.
China supports Mugabe. That doesn't make Zanu a Chinese party. You support Chavez. That doesn't make Chavez a puppet of black Africans.
I will say it again. The only reason you can slide into these tedious and insulting accusations of puppetry is because of deeply racist assumptions that you and many of your readers happily make about the relationship between black Africans and white people.
PS We don't need you to "confirm" that Mugabe owns three farms!! It is a matter of fact and public record. You might as well say that we can't "confirm" that he has two feet and one liver.
Racism, must stop
Can we have a reply or response to this post, please?
I think something needs to be done about Reason's constant racism on this site.
Can you explain
Can you explain yourself please? If at all you will ever revisit this comment of yours.
It is difficult
It is easier for a camel to enter through the eye of a needle than for a blackman to attack imperialism without being lablled a racist and xenophebic person.
What is a 'niddle'? What is a
What is a 'niddle'?
What is a 'blackman'?
What is 'xenophebia'?
I can't find them in my revolutionary encyclopaedia.
I can find Chris Hani, Steve Biko, Nelson Mandela, Kwame Nkrumah, Govan Mbeki, Oliver Tambo and Desmond Tutu in there (under the heading 'Black People Who Have Attacked Imperialism Without Being Called Racist') but I can't find 'niddle', 'blackman' or 'xenophebia'.
Weird.
Reason, this is a profound
Reason, this is a profound misunderstanding.
I am NOT calling you a racist because of your attacks on white imperialists.
I am saying that racist attitudes underlie your constant attacks on BLACK ZIMBABWEANS, whom you accuse of being stupid, and docile, and of taking orders from white people in almost everything they say. So far you have not denied this. You have only confirmed it, and confessed to it.
By the way, your weird misuse of the Gospel quote makes no sense at all. It's actual point is that power and wealth corrupt individuals, a sentiment that could be better employed elsewhere on this site.
you talking africa and
you talking africa and walking west.HYPOCRITE.Zvichapera and tichaona kwamuchahwandira...............icho