When West Thinks Zim is Ripe for the Picking

20 February 2008

Reason Wafawarova
Sydney

FOR the fourth time in eight years Zimbabwe is being viewed by the Anglo-American alliance as ripe and ready for the picking, notwithstanding the fact that their 2000, 2002 and 2005 predictions were all way off the mark.

The March 29 harmonised poll has once again been subjected to presumptuous predictions of the fall of Zanu-PF in general and President Mugabe in particular. In 2000 it was hoped the MDC would win the parliamentary election and they fell short by a respectable margin of five seats. In 2002 the West concluded that Morgan Tsvangirai would win the presidential election and he, again, came short by more than 400 000 votes, and it would appear he will never recover from the shock and denial that came with that defeat. In 2005 it was hoped against hope that the MDC would make up for the four seats and win the parliamentary general election but they lost a further 16 seats when they slid from 57 seats in 2000 to 41 seats in the 2005 plebiscite.

This year, the West hopes Simba Makoni will play David and defeat Zanu-PF from within its own ranks and yet some argue that Simba will only play spoiler against Zanu-PF by splitting its vote in favour of Tsvangirai. Others argue that, in fact, Makoni has joined the opposition and as such can only get his share of votes from Tsvangirai and thus can only split the opposition vote in favour of Zanu-PF.

Yet others wish to blissfully subscribe to the notion that Makoni is so politically beautiful that the MDC and Zanu-PF will inevitably find themselves abandoned by the charmed and mesmerised voters -- voters whom Makoni would want to believe only started registering to vote because of his charm. The naiveté of this claim does not arise when one is told that Zimbabwe is now ripe for the picking and that they alone are the most suitable picker around.

When the Soviet Union withdrew its troops from Cuba in 1991 along with the withdrawal of economic subsidies, the US reiterated over and over and again that Cuba was now "ripe for the picking".

This was the sequel of the US's resolve under the Eisenhower administration; to explicitly overthrow the Castro-led Cuban government in 1960. This was later followed up by the Kennedy administration and all the subsequent US regimes to this day, albeit with ingnominous failure. The methods so far used have included a widespread campaign of terrorism, direct invasion, economic strangulation, a cultural quarantine and systematic intimidation of anyone who has attempted to break Cuba's isolation. Cuba's resilience was largely seen as a result of an alliance with Eastern Europe and as such, when the Soviet Union began to collapse and disappear from the world stage under Gorbachev, the US began demanding an end to Soviet support for Cuba. In fact, the question of Soviet-Cuba relations became the test question of whether Gorbachev was really serious, or whether the Cold War would continue.

The logic and reasoning in the US political lexicon is, of course, that it should be considered obvious that it is illegitimate to help or sympathise with someone the US wants to destroy.

This is pretty much the general Western perception and the reasoning is simple; everything the US-led Western alliance does is right, by definition. Therefore, anyone who interferes with what the US-led Western alliance does is, by definition, wrong. This is the primary assumption that the majority of Westerners are made to accept.

It is this assumption that has made people like this writer to live with the daily labels of being "supporters of a despotic regime" in Zimbabwe. Of course, it does not matter that some of the people making such judgments have no idea where Zimbabwe is located on the world map and that this writer has been part of Zimbabwe's socio-political process for the past four decades.

Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams, two men regarded as "founding fathers" of the American empire -- spoke of the need to incorporate Cuba into the American empire and Jefferson would have annexed Cuba had it not been for the English fleet that stood in his way. John Quincy Adams then propounded a theory called the "laws of political gravitation" by which Cuba would fall into the hands of the US like a "ripe fruit".

The US opposed the Cuban moves towards independence from Spain and they pressured Mexico, Colombia and other Latin American states in order to prevent Cuba's liberation from Spain.

The US reckoned that if Cuba got its independence then it was not going to easily fall into its hands like a ripe fruit.

When the Castro government came to power in 1959, the US hostilities began immediately. The Eisenhower administration immediately declared that their objective was to replace the Castro government with one "more devoted to the true interests of the Cuban people and more acceptable to the US". The document went on to say that this had to be done "in such a manner as to avoid any appearance of US intervention".

This was the US foreign policy for Cuba in March 1960 and it was taken over by Kennedy and every other US president to this day. Adams' theory has been carried over, perpetuated and applied to Chile, Grenada, Panama, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Zimbabwe and a lot other countries.

The bit about "the true interests of the Cuban people" chimes well with what we hear about the people of Zimbabwe from the Western media. One meets some of these "pro-democracy" Westerners who find it quite acceptable that they lecture bona fide Zimbabweans or Africans on the "true interests of the Zimbabwean people". The world is told that the true interests of the Zimbabwean people is to allow white settler farmers to farm the country's productive land and to allow foreign capital a free reign over the country's resources.

To reinforce this dogmatic propaganda, the Western media will always claim that President Mugabe is "starving his own people" and that he has "killed industry". The Cubans, just like the Zimbabweans, are competent enough to define their own interest and they do not need the US or any of its allies to define such an interest for them.

For eight years now Zimbabweans and the whole world have been subjected to this media blitz that has portrayed Tsvangirai as the custodian of the "true interests of the Zimbabwean people" and it would appear like that anointing has now been transferred to Makoni who himself is overly optimistic and confident that he keeps the people's interests in his side pocket.

Such self-anointed people have always been assets to the agenda of imperialism, more so when they come with what appears like appealing faces.

The bit that talks of "a government more acceptable to the US" and the avoidance of an "appearance of US intervention" summarises the unwritten law by which the US exercises its attempt at ruling the world. According to the US ruling elite, all states weaker than America must be able to pretend that they do not know what is going on when Washington pokes her nose into other people's affairs.

Since it is always difficult to openly approve violent interventions by the US; unless one was part of the Israeli ruling elite -- weaker countries are expected to abide by an unwritten consensus where they pretend that no US intervention exists.

The US will endeavour that the world must judge Cuba and Zimbabwe on the backdrop that there is no ZIDERA for Zimbabwe, no embargo or cultural quarantine for Cuba, no sabotage of the economy, no sealing of credit lines for Zimbabwe and that sanctions are only a figment of President Mugabe's imagination.

Those who choose to see things differently will always face the wrath of the global boss and this is how global affairs are carried out in the world led by the Americans.

The calculation by the US-led Western alliance is that the policy of strangulation will continue to worsen the situation for Zimbabwe, just like they have been hoping for Cuba for the past 49 years. They reckon as the situation deteriorates, there will naturally be protests, which in turn is calculated to bring about repression.

The activities of the repressive apparatus are hoped to grow ever more rigorous, due to the growing effects of the policy strangulation and the intention is to have a cycle of more repression, more dissidence and hopefully more violence, preferably of a catastrophic nature.

Then it is hoped that the situation would be so bad that it warrants intervention, most preferably with the approval of the population, unable to stand the situation any longer. This is what Christopher Dell naively believed would be the order of operations under his mission to effect illegal regime change in Zimbabwe. Just like it has failed in Cuba over the years, it also failed dismally for Dell -- who left the country cursing and swearing in frustration.

The US has not given up yet. Now they will place their hope on Makoni although the British are still trying to come to terms with the reality of having vainly poured so much money down the drain that the MDC has been. Some in the House of Lords are still occasionally hallucinating that Tsvangirai has to be the most popular man in Zimbabwe just because he presides over the biggest British investment in the politics of Zimbabwe.

The US cannot give up because they remind themselves of Guatemala in 1954, Chile in 1973 and Panama in 1990. These are the examples that make the US believe that it works to keep torturing people until they finally accept you as their liberator.

The US has over the years waited for smaller countries to reach this stage before they invade to score cheap victories meant to produce chauvinistic hysteria among the ordinary Americans. The Gulf War over the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1991 is a good example of one such cheap victory and so was the vainglorious invasion of Grenada in 1982.

Another example was Bill Clinton's invasion of Haiti and George W. Bush's bullish interventions in the same country in 2004 -- forcing the democratically elected Jean-Bertrand Aristide to resign. The Western media gave a lame, racist and simplistic analysis of Aristide's resignation. They argued that he had failed to deliver the promised goods while they blissfully ignored the effect of the sanctions and economic strangulation imposed on the tiny country by the US itself.

Is this not the same way the economy of Zimbabwe has been judged? All should pretend that there is no US meddling, that there are no sanctions and that everything that has gone wrong is a result of bad policies by the Government.

Simba Makoni shamelessly and publicly concurs with this manipulated line of thought and he says for his views he is the most popular Zimbabwean locally and abroad.

The US will always use the same agencies and groups to create legitimacy over their mudslinging claims. These include Usaid, National Endowment for Democracy, IMF and the World Bank. Simba Makoni is a proud and avowed disciple of each of these organisations and to him these are the institutions that stand for modernity, truth, transparency and civilisation.

In Panama, General Omar Torrijos became the head of state in 1978 and he embarked on socialist policies that included a successful agrarian reform programme. The US expressed concern but Torrijos stood his ground and in the process he invited the full wrath of Washington. He died when his plane mysteriously blew up in midair in 1981.

The US immediately replaced him with Colonel Manuel Noriega and speculation was rife that either Noriega or the US had killed Torrijos, if not that, then it is likely they did a joint operation. Noriega had received US$200 000 a year as a CIA agent when George Bush Senior was the director.

On assuming power in Panama, he reversed all the social projects achieved under Torrijos, pretty much the same way Simba says he will deal with the land reform programme in Zimbabwe. Noriega also helped the Contras of Nicaragua on behalf of the US.

However, for some reason Noriega maintained good relations with Havana and also refused to join the invasion of Nicaragua when the US demanded that he did so. The US immediately imposed an embargo on Panama, doubling unemployment from where it was during the time of Torrijos.

The US Justice Department indicted Noriega on charges of drug dealing. The fallout meant that Noriega had to be promptly demoted from a "military leader" to a "strongman dictator".

The Western media went on a spirited blitz demonising Noriega as a drug dealer. The aborted 1989 election was all blamed on Noriega's "goons" and "thugs". The assault on an opposition candidate by rival supporters received saturation coverage in the Western media and the blame was squarely put on the shoulders of Noriega.

Never did the Western media refer to Botha's goons and thugs in apartheid South Africa, Duarte's goons and thugs in El-Salvador, or any of the terrorists and thugs in the US's compliant client states during this time.

In mid-December 1989 one Ted Koppel of the US's ABC reported that Noriega had declared war on the US and other Western media made similar claims without making any substantiation. At that time Noriega was in the process of peace negotiations with the opposition and this is the kind of direction Washington cannot condone.

Anyone who doubts this must revisit comments made by the US and Britain over the negotiations between the opposition and the ruling party of Zimbabwe -- negotiations facilitated by South Africa's Thabo Mbeki and highly despised by both London and Washington. Peace and tranquillity is the last thing the imperialist ruling elite will ever want in a country not compliant to the free flow of capital.

Peace talks undermine the chaos orchestrated by the US-led Western alliance and as such they should never be allowed to succeed unless such peace is in the interest of the US.

Reuters quoted Noriega as having said: "The US, through constant psychological and military harassment, has created a state of war in Panama." This is the statement that was misquoted by Koppel and on the basis of this misquotation George Bush Senior invaded Panama on December 20, 1989.

The invasion was accompanied with doctored pictures of purported Panamanians welcoming the invaders as liberators. Surprisingly, just about all the interviewed people were well dressed light-skinned English speaking "Panamanians" and that coming from a country dominated by dark-skinned Spanish-speaking people made interesting viewing. It was the same thing the world was to see in Iraq in 2003 after Bush Junior took his turn to massacre the people of Iraq.

The world was told that Baghdad was celebrating the freedom brought by the Americans and no sooner had we heard this than we began to see body bags of dead American soldiers being handed over to mesmerised parents and relatives back in the US.

The civilian killings that occurred in El-Chorillo district in the Panama invasion went unreported. When this was later reported the justification given was that El-Chorillo was a stronghold of Noriega -- a claim in stark contradiction to the overemphasised claim that Noriega had zero support in Panama. The US media also scantly covered the UN General Assembly's condemnation of the invasion pretty much the same way they did with the condemnation of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

In fact, during the invasion of Panama all journalism ethics and neutrality were thrown out through the window. "We haven't got Noriega yet!" exclaimed one Tom Brokaw of the US' NBC, as if he were part of the US army himself.

Another journalist, one Judy Woodruff, concluded after the invasion: "Not only have we done away with the Panamanian army, we have also done away with the police force." Talk of separation of the Press from the state and talk of journalism neutrality.

The Panama invasion was called everything under the sun but an invasion. It was called "military action", "intervention", "operation", "expedition", "affair" and even "insertion". This is the peculiar jingoism of the West in general and of the US in particular -- so evident to foreigners but almost invisible for the generality of Americans. The example of Panama has hereby been given to showcase what the US would view as a fruit ripe enough for the picking. They created Noriega, created conditions for failure for him and came in when Panama was at its weakest.

They have time and again tried to create similar conditions for Cuba but for 49 years they have failed to get Cuba ripe for the picking.

They have had three attempts at Zimbabwe and they have, to their disappointment, found out the country is not yet ripe for the picking. Is Simba Makoni the tonic needed to get Zimbabwe ripe for the picking? Is this fourth attempt by the US, at the invitation of London; by any means going to create conditions for a fruit that is ripe for the picking? This writer does not think so.

The stated reasons that were given for the invasion of Panama are similar to the stated reasons for the anti-Zimbabwe campaign. That does not mean that there are no real reasons for this type of hostility.

The reasons are also similar to the ones given before the invasion of Iraq in 2003. It was like this; the US says after Noriega, the drug dealer, oh no, actually they want to protect US citizens from possible attacks by Noriega, aah no again, the US, in fact, wants to avenge the death of a US soldier killed by the Panamanian army and, in fact, this was not exactly the case -- the US actually wanted to bring democracy to Panama. Doesn't this sound all too familiar now?

Mugabe must be stopped from violating property rights through land seizures, not actually; he has to be stopped from violating the rule of law, oh no; in fact he has to be stopped from stealing and rigging elections, again not exactly, he has to be stopped from violating his people's human rights and again this is not exactly the case -- he actually needs to create an even political playing field.

One is reminded of the many reasons given for the invasion of Iraq. It's always the same script and different players. Noriega was captured and imprisoned in Miami and his US-installed replacement, Guillermo Endara, killed and imprisoned far more people than Noriega ever did. The real reason for these unwarranted interventions and invasions is, of course, to create a cheap and depressed labour market and to create Third World client states whose land, labour, resources, markets and capital are accessible to corporate investors on the most advantageous of terms.

Zimbabwe will never be ripe for such exploitation. Together we will overcome.