By Reason Wafawarova in SYDNEY, Australia
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
ONE of the founders of Latin American independence Simon Bolivar once said of America: "There is at the head of this great continent a very powerful country, very rich, very warlike and capable of anything. The United States seems destined to plague and torment the continent and the entire world in the name of freedom."
There is no doubt the US-led Western alliance stands opposed to the world view on Zimbabwe inasfar as the current talks towards a negotiated settlement are concerned.
To them, everything that happens in Zimbabwe must, by definition, boil down to the person of President Mugabe and the only good talks are talks that can ruthlessly ruin the destiny of this revolutionary son of Africa.
It matters little that these talks may be carrying the hopes of an entire country.
The rashly announced expansion of the sanctions by the EU and the United States was nothing more than a preponderate act designed to overrule the current talks between the ruling Zanu-PF and the collective opposition MDC.
To many, the announcement is preposterous inasmuch as it confirms Bolivar’s assertion that the US, in this case obediently given lapdog support by Britain and the EU, are sworn to plaguing and tormenting any country they view as a threat to Western supremacy.
The ludicrous assertion that everyone on the sanctions list is a crony of President Mugabe is just as laughable as the claim that the companies added to that list are responsible for political violence.
And without fail all these measures have traditionally been referred to as "targeted sanctions".
Indeed, sanctions are always targeted and never random.
It is like a gunmen firing his machine gun into a crowded market-place and then claiming that the bullets were targeted at a few particular individuals within that crowd.
Indications that there are Zimbabweans involved in compiling the sanctions lists shows that there are some in our midst prepared to sacrifice the soul of the nation for personal gain.
The West cannot be blamed much for this opprobrious behaviour by people who divorce identity and nationhood for financial gain.
The ongoing talks in South Africa are in essence a manifestation of a unanimous realisation that the bleeding of Zimbabwe needs to be stanched.
Every well-meaning global citizen agrees that the negotiations are good for the future of Zimbabwe and that what they seek to achieve is supreme to the individual personalities of each and every Zimbabwean, politicians included.
However, to the Western ruling elite there is nothing superior or greater than President Mugabe’s downfall; nothing more fulfilling than his humiliation and by this reasoning the talks in South Africa must be feloniously hijacked.
The question one will promptly ask is "Why Mugabe?" This is easy to answer when one recalls Bolivar talking of "a very powerful country, very rich, very warlike, and capable of anything".
The crime of President Mugabe is to lead a life oblivious to the authority of the Empire, to defy imperial authority and to upset the imperial economic order that was in Zimbabwe before the year 2000.
Many writers have repeatedly written about the consequences (intended and unintended) of the reclamation of land from white farmers to landless indigenous Zimbabweans.
Politically, this was open warfare on the capitalist rationale of property rights. Economically, this was a direct attack on the neo-liberal capitalist framework of control of the means of production.
Diplomatically, this was unacceptable open defiance to imperial authority at a time the US was seeking to consolidate its dream of a New World Order dominated by Western capital.
Put simply, President Mugabe crossed the imperial line of tolerance by choosing to pursue what Laurence Duggan, a US State Department official, called "economic nationalism".
Said Duggan: "Economic nationalism is the common denominator of the new aspirations for industrialisation. Latin Americans and the rest of the peoples in Third World countries are convinced that the first beneficiaries of the development of a country’s resources should be the people of that country."
This he said in line with the awkward rationale behind the sabre-rattling US foreign policy— a policy that Ronald Reagan used to justify his trade embargo against Nicaragua saying that the "policies and actions of Nicaragua constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States".
Reagan proudly declared a national emergency "to deal with this threat" in much the same way the US declared an emergency by drafting a sanctions resolution against Zimbabwe for the UN Security Council in July.
The words of Reagan were a parroting of what Henry Kissinger said about Chile in 1971 and the same words have been repeated over Zimbabwe by George W. Bush and his sidekick, Condoleezza Rice.
How could Nicaragua, then a country of three million people, ever constitute an "extraordinary threat" to the security of the United States? Equally, how can Zimbabwe, a small country of just over 13 million people, ever be a threat to the security of America?
While the threat to the national security of the United States is too ludicrous to discuss, the threat to American foreign policy is, in fact, very real.
In a very acceptable sense, at least by Western standards, it is the small, weak countries that pose the greatest threat to Washington’s foreign policy.
It is quite remarkable to see the extraordinary savagery that the US has displayed against the weakest and sometimes most inconsequential countries, good examples being Laos and Grenada.
It works like this for the US. The weaker the country, the greater the savagery and Zimbabwe is today’s case in point.
America’s ruthless savagery is understandable when one thinks about the basis on which their policy is formulated.
The fundamental principles of American foreign policy, as they were articulated quite clearly in the 1940s, are designed to ensure what George Kennan once called "the protection of our raw materials".
Supposedly, this was against the "evil" Russians but obviously that was only to frighten the domestic population the same way George W. Bush says: "They hate us because we are so good".
In fact, Kennan meant protecting "our raw materials" primarily from the indigenous populations of this world.
The problem is that some indigenous populations like those of Zimbabwe do have a dangerous tendency to try to use what Kennan called "our raw materials" for their own purposes.
The proponents of this should be crucified so brutally that no one else dares copy them and this is what is happening to President Mugabe.
Judgment was passed in 2001 when the US passed Zidera, the Zimbabwe sanctions law.
The current talks are of no meaning to the Western world if they do not result in the humiliation and brutalisation of Robert Mugabe.
Countries like Zimbabwe, Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia continue to show concern for the welfare of their own populations by taking control of the means of production in their own backyards and if that turns out to be in any sense successful, that is if there is economic and social development, that may constitute a model for other places.
The danger is not in the success of the project but in the domino effect.
US planners astonishingly have an open approach to this very weird rationale.
In the case of Chile under Allende, Henry Kissinger talked about this domino effect as being an infectious virus.
To the US, successful development is a disease that may infect other countries. It is upon this reasoning that Zimbabwe has been crushed economically and the ruthless and ruinous sanctions are meant to be the panacea that stops the spread of the "virus".
In 1958, the US overthrew a democratically- elected government in Laos and went on to install a puppet right-wing dictatorship. Later they started bombing Laos into submission in a classic show of imperial brutality.
What was Laos’ crime?
Well, like Zimbabwe they were carrying out an agrarian revolution run by Pathet Lao.
The people of the US would care less if Grenada were to fall off the face of the earth today.
But this otherwise inconsequential country became a prime target of American imperial brutality and hostility as soon as Maurice Bishop’s government came into power in 1979.
They cut off aid, ran threatening military operations, and did all in the book to crack Grenada.
For the US, any success outside the imperial model is dangerous nonsense. It is an unacceptable conspiracy and needs to be stopped.
This is why the suffering in Zimbabwe is in the interest of the West.
It is this mentality that makes the West what they are — wealthy countries that are scared of small countries.
They are so wealthy that some among the populations of developing countries are now hopelessly romanticised by the glitter of Western capitals and so much awed by the military might of the US that they have become willing tools in the destruction of their own countries.
This is why it is extremely important that Zimbabwe’s way forward from the current political and economic crisis is chartered in a manner that is determined by Zimbabweans alone, as facilitated by President Thabo Mbeki, himself appointed by Sadc and endorsed by the African Union.
The US will neither honour nor respect the Zimbabwe negotiations, not in the least the way they glorified the Kenyan settlement at the beginning of this year.
Then, Jendayi Frazer flew to Nairobi and ordered a power-sharing settlement in a manner reminiscent of a mother settling a dispute between her two under-five boys.
What we are seeing through the puerile actions of the US is the wrath of a defied emperor.
African countries and Zimbabwean individuals who agree to be subversive to this noble process by allowing themselves to be the runners for the West must not only be ashamed of themselves but also consider what their insidious behaviour means for the future.
Zimbabwe is redefining itself and shaping its own destiny and it is incumbent upon every African to respect this process in the hope of a peaceful settlement to the country’s challenges.
For Zimbabweans, it is homeland or death.
Together we will overcome.
Feedback on wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk or reason@rwafawarova.com or visit www.rwafa warova.com
Reason is just playing around
Reason is just playing around with people's minds by writing controvercies which he doesnt believe himself .The realities in his life are all capitalist and far fight.He was fired from his job in Australia and spends time writing this rubbish to incite people into arguments.He doesnt have an ideology of his own but follows whatever Zanu PF and Mugabe do.Eg.Mugabe vowed never to talk to a puppet like Tsvangirai,and Reason was suporting it,now they are talking, Reason suports it.
Playing around
To me Zimbabwe is my country and it is no playing matter and I am definitely not playing around. Secondly, do not fool yourself saying that I am idle because I am one of the busiest people on this planet.
I work and work very hard and I get rewards for it and I have no regrets on that.
I did say in my articel The African Way or The High Way, that the MDC is welcome once they adopt the African path. These talks are mandated by Sadc and endorsed by AU and purely on these grounds I bless the talks.
Yes Reason,Zimbabwe is your
Yes Reason,Zimbabwe is your country as it is for all of Zimbabweans.But you are a nobody to even try judge MDC coz you are a sell out who left his country to live in imperialist Australia while the MDC is fighting for freedom in Zim.Who are you to 'bless' MDC.People like you have no blessings at all.You also lie that you were a junior officer in the Militia Ministry yet i know you were driving a Mitsubish Gvt pick up truck.Does the gvt give junior officers vehicles? Uchinyara iwe.
Taneta
personally, i am so tired of reading these direct personal attacks on Reason, please please debate the content not the contributor... nxaaa!
Thank you
Thank you Cosmas. I am sure they will mature soon. It is time we have people who use brains and not anger to think.
shame
Tapiwa, you are wrong. People are perfectly entitled to critique Reason's writings and beliefs as and how they wish. Of course some of the comments should not stoop so far as to question Reason's personal health or make accusations of the like. This is none of our business. But it is our business when the opinions that Reason writes are put on pro- Zanu websites and published in the Herald and advocated on state radio. This most definitely becomes our problem and we are perfectly entitled to criticize Reason for his steadfast beliefs in a despicable dictatorship.
It is Reason's completely one sided style of writing that attracts personal attacks on him. Although Reason states that he writes opinions from his personal beliefs and what not it is very clear to the average layman that his writings very striongly advocate the position of Zanu (PF). His writings are therefore political as he, in the eyes of many people (as can be seen on this forum) fails to be objective. And once you are political you open yourself up to criticism. You may as well state that you are tired of Mugabe personally criticizing Tsvangirai and vice versa or you may as well say that you're tired of Reason constantly criticizing the MDC. It doesn't happen like that, Once you're political you attract personal criticism.
So you're tired of reading comments that "attack" reason? That's too bad. Reason chose publish his beliefs in an open forum and as in any normal functioning medium this is open to criticism. Sure, if you make such criticisms in Zimbabwe then you may well find yourself in jail (at the very least). And such criticism includes personal criticism- It's a fundamental right. THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.
Criticism
Criticism is always welcome and I personally take all criticism as accepatble. What is not acceptable is slander and deliberate misrepresantation of issues to paint one in the blackest of colours. That is the problem here. People shying awy from the articles and coming after the person of Reason.
Zimbabwean
Yes I am Zimbabwean and I write. In that capacity I can condemn or bless whatever process I choose.
Yes I drove a gvt vehicle at home and you will be foolish to say that gvt vehicles are only driven by directors in Zimbabwe. By the way I had my own car as well. Even drivers do take gvt vehicles home.
My duties required that I stayed with a vehicle and there is nothing amiss with that.
I am proud with my hostory with the Youth Ministry and I have no regrets whatsoever. In fact I am consideing going back to public service because its my passion.
On Govenrment Cars
It strikes me as odd that in a marxist revolutionary for social justice in an impoverished nation would willingly take a government car, knowing fully well that it is funded by taxpaerys, and that the taxpayers money could be better use, especially when you, Reason, have a personal car.
Viva la revolution. Long live the cause for Social Justice. As long as the taxpayers pay for your comfort.
Gvt vehicles
Driving a gvt vehicle is not necessarily capitalist as long as that vehicle is driven for the benefit of the taxpayers.
Govt Vehicles
I disagree. It is very capitalist insofar as it is very self-interested.
If you cared about the people (who pay taxes), you wouldn't drive a governemnt car unless you absolutely needed one. By your own admission, you had a car and so you didn't need a government car. You simply took one because it was in your best interests.
And please dont engage in airy marxist conjecture such as "benefit of the taxpayers". The "benefit" is intangible and there is no way to prove it exists.
Well
I think we miss something here. I drove gvt vehicles to do national duties for the people of Zimbabwe and not to pursue my personal programmes. I had my own car for my personal use and I am saying there is abosolutely nothing wrong with driving a gvt vehicle for the purpose of doing what the car was bought for.
Govt Cars: Not "well"
In an impoverished country (and I ve lived in one) there are two kinds of civil servants (and I know plenty of both). There are civil servants who are working for the people - and who realise how scarce resources are. They are the kind who will try to use the cheapest method possible, often using public transit instead of government cars, to make sure that money is not spent uselessly on fuel etc.
Then there are the self-interested ones who, like you, harp on how these cars were meant to be used, and use them. No Reason, these cars are not sunk costs - maintenance and fuelling costs money. The civil servants who work in impoverished countries for the betterment of others recognize this. The ones who're working in the government for the prestige and power it brings them, through things like government cars, dont. Thet think using a government car for all government work, no matter how unneccessary it is, is their birthright.
In other words
In other words Zimbabwe is so impovershed that it does not deserve the use of gvt vehicles? How intelligent!
Ah yes, the politics of patronage
I think its becoming more and more clear that you need Zanu in power in Zimbabwe if you ever hope to return. No government in the world gives vehicles to drivers - in fact vehicles are only given to people who have attained a certain rank. I doubt the government of Zimbabwe has as many vehicles as it does employees.
Let us assume that Zanu's grip on power dissolves. What then for Reason Wafawarova? He can go home, but he cant go back to his passion - the public service - because his links with Zanu wont earn him any brownie points with the new regime, and besides, civil servants are expected to be non-partisan. Reason can argue that he is not pro-Zanu, and some might even believe him, but his own vitriolic writings make him guilty of being anti-MDC, and he there is very little chance they will hire him. Why should they?
Of course, with that go all the perks of a government job, and life might just be a little too harsh for Reason, especially after his Australian sojourn.
Nope, you need the Zanu in power. Because it suits you. This way you can go home and know that Zanu will provide you a job and a house and a car. At the taxpayers expense, of course.
Patronage
I think I was hired in the civil service for my worth and I am positive an MDC gvt will not fail to recognise talent when they see one. They will hire me before you can say Amen and I know this for a fact.
"An MDC government will..."
An MDC government will hire you, Wafawarova? They will recognise your talent?
I'm glad you can read the writing on the wall for Mugabe and ZANU PF, firstly, although your willingness to work for a political party that's bent on selling the nation's resources to the British doesn't really say much for your integrity. Not that the quality of your integrity was ever in question.
You're a revolutionary with a well-paid job thousands of miles from the revolution, happy to work for the people you're supposed to be revolting against?
You not even a good pretend revolutionary.
I am not
I am not working for capitalists and I have no regrets over what I am currently doing. I am working for a cause in which I believe and I am titled comrade where I work.
I'm talking about the MDC, comrade.
Apparently you're quite willing to work for them when Mugabe's gone.
Which, trust God, will be soon.
MDC/ZANU PF
I have worked for the civil service before but I have not worked for ZANU PF. I will work for the civil service in the near future but I will never work for the MDC. The public service is superior to political parties.
Do you think we are stupid?
Er... Where to begin?
OK. Some of us have friends in Zimbabwe. Some of us go to Zimbabwe. Some of us are IN Zimbabwe.
Why on earth are you trying to pretend that the civil service in Zimbabwe hasn't been politicised by ZANU PF from bottom to top? This site isn't just for dumb westerners, right? So who are you trying to fool? Do you honestly believe it's possible to get a job and any kind of influence anywhere in the apparatus of state in Zimbabwe without membership to ZANU PF?
Don't be ridiculous. You just lie, and lie, and lie.
Last time I checked
The last time I checked civil servants were not necessarily members of ZANU PF. I for one joined in 2001 and I was not a member of ZANU PF at all. I do not think you stupid but I am sure you are too angry to be rational. You are believing your anger and you angrily want to coerce all of us into doing the same.
He's as pro-ZANU as it's possible to be.
Most of the time he just writes in codewords that any Zimbabwean will understand (he doesn't have the balls to say what he means most of the time), but he's certainly not shy of praising Mugabe and his party. When he's really pressed on Grace Mugabe, for instance, or Gideon Gono or George Charamaba, or an election stolen with fear and violence, say, he sort of makes an effort to hide. But he's about as pro-ZANU as they come. And not surprisingly. He's going to have really hard time when democracy returns to Zim.
When democracy returns.
I assume democracy left at some time. When was this and why so?
When ZANU (PF) stole the election.
There's no democracy in Zimbabwe, you terrible, pretend revolutionary.
While you were in Australia writing your adolescent political nonsense, they kidnapped the wife of the mayor of Harare and killed her, and burned down your aunt's farm.
They stole an election with violence so that Grace Mugabe could go shopping in Dubai. They killed people, and tortured them, and put innocent people in jail.
There's no democracy in Zimbabwe. The liberation struggle might as well never have been fought. Ian Smith might as well have bought out the entire present cabinet with American dollars in 1979.
Why
Why did you say "When democracy returns"? When was it there and when did it leave us?
Because
I believe he meant "when 'WESTERN' democracy returns". And no, Reason, I am not trying to mock Zimbabweans or Africans or Easterners in general. I am merely translating it into terms you use. Personally I dont think theres anything western about democracy, anymore than I think there is anything democratic about Mugabe-rule.
The idea of it was there at the very beginning of Zimbabwe, but then one Robert Gabriel Mugabe got drunk on power and decided to get rid of it in favor of "Zimbabwean"/Mugabean democracy, where "Only God can remove (Mugabe)".
We all pray it will return soon. I mean, he is in his eighties now. His God will be knocking on the door very soon.
Well
If democracy was once there then Mugabe must be right to claim that he brought democracy to Zimbabwe and maybe he has got a point when he says he cannot take a lecture on democracy from the former oppressors of his country.
This is INSANE.
This is like I give you a glass of water when you're thirsty, punch you in the face to take it away and thensay 'What are you complaining about? I gave you a glass of water. It was sunny before I got here.'
It doesn't matter if Zimbabwe used to be colonised by the British, the Russians or the Martians. The people are suffering, Grace Mugabe goes shopping, and you have it nice in Australia where you can afford broadband and you enough to time and money to write articles on your website defending oppression.
If there's a hell, you're definitely going to go.
It matters
It does matter that Zimbabwe was colonised by Britain and we have this suffering going own because it really does matter. Why does Britain want to asssist a country that wants nothing from the British anyway?
If they know so much democracy why didn't they practice it in Zimbabwe from 1890 to 1980? Is it easier to teach us democracy under our own leadership than it was under their own?
Why won't you address the content of my post?
You know what I mean.
You're defending the indefensible and you have to be blind and tell lies to do it.
"Comrade."
I'm thinking of all the people my father used to call "Comrade."
He would have slapped your face, like Chitepo would have slapped your face. You're not fit to make tea for Chitepo.
Comrade.
Objectivity be damned. Part 1
Find below the many problems with Reason's latest unreasoned diatribe.
Simon Bolivar, that great leader of independence, died in shame, wondering why those he brought freedom to, had turned their backs on him when he 'justly' declared himself the dictator. If there is a lesson to learn from Bolivar, it is that in any REAL democratic society, you do not take it for granted that the people will forever be indebted to you, and will love you even you declare yourself dictator. As usual, this is a lesson lost on one-eyed Reason.
" the only good talks are talks that can ruthlessly ruin the destiny of this revolutionary son of Africa."
See above. What is this "destiny" you talk about. A good revolutionary does not a good leader make. Mugabe's led the country into considerable ruin, but it is his destiny to continue to rule Zimbabwe anyway. Thoroughly reasonable.
"The rashly announced expansion of the sanctions by the EU and the United States was nothing more than a preponderate act designed to overrule the current talks between the ruling Zanu-PF and the collective opposition MDC."
WHich ones, the ones that targetted Zanu PF officials only?
" tormenting any country they view as a threat to Western supremacy."
ZImbabwe a threat to western supremacy? What planet are you from? If America really wanted to, they could roll over your Chinese hand me down military in a couple of hours. This has less to do with preserving western supremacy, and more to do with the concept of R2P - Responsibility to Protect. It represents a strain of thought on the international stage - signified by the blue-helmeted peacekeepers- that nations cannot be expected to stand by in the case of humanitarian crises. Is Zimbabwe a humanitarian crisis right now? China and Russia disagree. 3 million refugees suggest otherwise. But then again, CHina and Russia are known for the millions they killed in the name of socialism, not for their particular fondness of individual rights.
"It is like a gunmen firing his machine gun into a crowded market-place and then claiming that the bullets were targeted at a few particular individuals within that crowd."
If I freeze your bank account, I can assure you that it is unlikely to have this kind of impact. 'reason' be damned, eh?
"Every well-meaning global citizen agrees that the negotiations are good for the future of Zimbabwe'
Negotiations are negotiations - not good or bad. Results of negotiations, on the other hand, are good or bad. We are still waiting to see what the results are.
Bolivar
Yes Bolivar did not die in riches and I know how he was reduced to a pauper. However I do not see how that takes away the fact that he was a founding father of Latin American independence.
The destiny I am taliking about is what becomes of Mugabe's remaining life after he has openly defied and insulted the proud Westerners, much to the amusement of many a people across the world.
America can indeed destroy Zimbabwe in two days like you say but they cannot win a war in Zimbabwe. They can ruin all infrastructure but they cannot win a war, not in the least. Why are they still in Afghanstan and Iraq if they are that good?
Secondly, they cannot will nilly invade small countries before they are sure they have decieved their own masses because to their sysytem public opinion is very important.
Only good negotiations bring good results and all well meaning Zimbabweans think these negotiations are good otherwise the most obnoxious Zimbabwean citizen, Morgan Tsvangirai, would not have signed the MoU.
On Bolivar - are you deliberately being daft?
"Yes Bolivar did not die in riches and I know how he was reduced to a pauper. However I do not see how that takes away the fact that he was a founding father of Latin American independence."
Nobody is saying Mugabe and Bolivar were not leaders of independence. They were. But both have one fatal character flaw - they think their people and countries owe them a position of leadership for their past deeds. Bolivar was reduced to a pauper by HIS OWN PEOPLE. Not by the Americans, French, Spanish, Other white devils.
Mugabe would likely have met the same fate if it wasnt for the vote-rigging and violence, evidence of both being abundantly available not only through western sources, but through blatantly anti-western sources such as Al Jazeera. So shaken was Mugabe that he uttered those famous words - "Only God can remove me". With that, I think, any pretensions of Zimbabwe being a democracy answerable to the people have now been removed.
"The destiny I am taliking about is what becomes of Mugabe's remaining life after he has openly defied and insulted the proud Westerners, much to the amusement of many a people across the world."
He defied his own people too. Only God can remove, he said, prior to an election. If that isnt defiance towards his own people, what is? His destiny is safe as long as his Zanu PF cronies like you keep him in power by intimidating, and occassionally lynching and killing, any Zimbabwean who dares defy God's chosen one. The Americans/West/East/Democracies in general can't be bothered with ruining relations with countries China by bombing Zimbabwe into the stone age. Zimbabwe simply isnt worth it.
"They can ruin all infrastructure but they cannot win a war, not in the least. Why are they still in Afghanstan and Iraq if they are that good?"
If their goal is to humiliate the Zimbabwean governemnt, then why would they stick around? They have no mandate to help Zimbabwe rebuild. The United States has won the war against Iraq and Afghanistan. It simply hasnt succeeded in its mandate to rebuild them. In the past few countries bothered helping rebuild the countries they defeated - world war 2 was caused by the economic damage done to Germany in WWI. This lesson was not lost on policy makers, fortunately, hence the Colombo pact, Marshall Plan, etc.
That the United States is still in Iraq and Afghanistan does not mean they have not won the war. They simply havent rebuilt the two countries. This is a responsibility that they did not have to take on. When was the last time Israel rebuilt Arab infrastructure after destroying it. Or India in Pakistan? All that Chinese equipemnt will disappear, and then the Americans will leave.
"Secondly, they cannot will nilly invade small countries before they are sure they have decieved their own masses because to their sysytem public opinion is very important."
Public opinion is only important in the west? It is a fundamental tenet of democracy. You know, that western idea, which, according to you, is not meant for Zimbabwe.
Inany case, in America the Bush Administration constantly screams that the so-called "Mainstream Media" is biased against America. You expect this same group to act in cahoots with the administration. Either you are very naive, or very uninformed. I suspect it is the latter.
"Only good negotiations bring good results and all well meaning Zimbabweans think these negotiations are good otherwise the most obnoxious Zimbabwean citizen, Morgan Tsvangirai, would not have signed the MoU."
Good negotiations can bring bad results too. It is a matter of perspective. The French were plenty pleased when they got the Treaty of Versailles through (Ever heard of it?), the Germans not so much. History tells us that the results are bad, especially since they were a causal factor in the rise of one Adolf Hitler.
Why did Morgan sign the MoU? Did he get a directive from the west?
On Bolivar - are you deliberately being daft?
"Yes Bolivar did not die in riches and I know how he was reduced to a pauper. However I do not see how that takes away the fact that he was a founding father of Latin American independence."
Nobody is saying Mugabe and Bolivar were not leaders of independence. They were. But both have one fatal character flaw - they think their people and countries owe them a position of leadership for their past deeds. Bolivar was reduced to a pauper by HIS OWN PEOPLE. Not by the Americans, French, Spanish, Other white devils.
Mugabe would likely have met the same fate if it wasnt for the vote-rigging and violence, evidence of both being abundantly available not only through western sources, but through blatantly anti-western sources such as Al Jazeera. So shaken was Mugabe that he uttered those famous words - "Only God can remove me". With that, I think, any pretensions of Zimbabwe being a democracy answerable to the people have now been removed.
"The destiny I am taliking about is what becomes of Mugabe's remaining life after he has openly defied and insulted the proud Westerners, much to the amusement of many a people across the world."
He defied his own people too. Only God can remove, he said, prior to an election. If that isnt defiance towards his own people, what is? His destiny is safe as long as his Zanu PF cronies like you keep him in power by intimidating, and occassionally lynching and killing, any Zimbabwean who dares defy God's chosen one. The Americans/West/East/Democracies in general can't be bothered with ruining relations with countries China by bombing Zimbabwe into the stone age. Zimbabwe simply isnt worth it.
"They can ruin all infrastructure but they cannot win a war, not in the least. Why are they still in Afghanstan and Iraq if they are that good?"
If their goal is to humiliate the Zimbabwean governemnt, then why would they stick around? They have no mandate to help Zimbabwe rebuild. The United States has won the war against Iraq and Afghanistan. It simply hasnt succeeded in its mandate to rebuild them. In the past few countries bothered helping rebuild the countries they defeated - world war 2 was caused by the economic damage done to Germany in WWI. This lesson was not lost on policy makers, fortunately, hence the Colombo pact, Marshall Plan, etc.
That the United States is still in Iraq and Afghanistan does not mean they have not won the war. They simply havent rebuilt the two countries. This is a responsibility that they did not have to take on. When was the last time Israel rebuilt Arab infrastructure after destroying it. Or India in Pakistan? All that Chinese equipemnt will disappear, and then the Americans will leave.
"Secondly, they cannot will nilly invade small countries before they are sure they have decieved their own masses because to their sysytem public opinion is very important."
Public opinion is only important in the west? It is a fundamental tenet of democracy. You know, that western idea, which, according to you, is not meant for Zimbabwe.
Inany case, in America the Bush Administration constantly screams that the so-called "Mainstream Media" is biased against America. You expect this same group to act in cahoots with the administration. Either you are very naive, or very uninformed. I suspect it is the latter.
"Only good negotiations bring good results and all well meaning Zimbabweans think these negotiations are good otherwise the most obnoxious Zimbabwean citizen, Morgan Tsvangirai, would not have signed the MoU."
Good negotiations can bring bad results too. It is a matter of perspective. The French were plenty pleased when they got the Treaty of Versailles through (Ever heard of it?), the Germans not so much. History tells us that the results are bad, especially since they were a causal factor in the rise of one Adolf Hitler.
Why did Morgan sign the MoU? Did he get a directive from the west?
Objectivity be damned. Part 2.
"Indications that there are Zimbabweans involved in compiling the sanctions lists shows that there are some in our midst prepared to sacrifice the soul of the nation for personal gain. "
A Zimbabwean calls a crook a crook. How dare he do so, eh?
"However, to the Western ruling elite there is nothing superior or greater than President Mugabe’s downfall; nothing more fulfilling than his humiliation"
I think they would rather not spend money sending food aid to Zimbabwe. Food isnt free, you know? Especially given that its feeding, what, 30% of the population?
"The question one will promptly ask is "Why Mugabe?" This is easy to answer when one recalls Bolivar talking of "a very powerful country, very rich, very warlike, and capable of anything"."
Yes, they are very similar, arent they? Except the people under Bolivar had the good sense to kick him out when power got to his head. Mugabe - well, God only knows what would have happened to him if the elections were free and fair, and independent of violence from Mugabe's war veterans. Do you disagree? Come to think of it, only God can remove Mugabe from the head of Zimbabwe. Not votes. Or Zimbabweans.
"The crime of President Mugabe is to lead a life oblivious to the authority of the Empire, to defy imperial authority and to upset the imperial economic order that was in Zimbabwe before the year 2000."
Nah, his crime was to strip a minority of theoretically equal citizens of rights, allow violence, including murders to take place, allow his cronies to profit of this land, see the land essentially turn worthless, turn a breadbasket into a basket case, and then throw all kinds of accusations of imperialism at people who are essentially funding the feeding of 30% of his population, while his war veterans sit around using prime agricultural land as squatters paradises.
Let me break another reality to you. Zimbabwe may be resource rich, but everything is already available on the world market. In other words, Zimbabwe is just anohter little country, inconsequential to the rest of the world, and it would have stayed that way if it wasnt for the violence, the desperate shortage of food, and the appearance of Zimbabwean refugees on the global conscience.
"Politically, this was open warfare on the capitalist rationale of property rights. Economically, this was a direct attack on the neo-liberal capitalist framework of control of the means of production. "
You are correct on both counts. Heres the problem though - nobody wants to invest in your country because of htis. Not because of sanctions - western companies are allowed to do business in Zimbabwe (Sainsbury et al), but because you declared war on the fundamental rules of business. Dont expect the money to come if you re going to hang the noose of nationalization over it. Nobody builds free factories for governments.
West
You really think the Western ideology is so powerful and invincible don't you?
Well,it is not and that is why Mugabe is there despite every Western leader being sworn to see him gone.
What is western ideology? Lets hear it, Reason.
What is western ideology? Answer me this one question. I can guarantee you will not,because while your bold statement makes a wonderful soundbite, you don't have an answer. Like a lot of things that you spew out, it lacks the most important basic ingredient - substance.
Some ideas and ideologies are universal, Reason. There is nothing western about the notions of freedom and democracy. The rest of the world has realised this, which is why it is in the Charter of the United Nations, a global organization. You, apparently, havent.
"Well,it is not and that is why Mugabe is there despite every Western leader being sworn to see him gone."
Am I to assume that there is an African/Eastern/Zimbabwean ideology that turns men into Gods, untouchable by the rest of us common folk, only there to be worshipped, not critiqued, and immune to the notion of elections. If so, as someone who falls into the vague criteria of those definitional terms, I suggest you call this ideology Mugabean.
Objectivity be damned. Part 3
You really wtite a lot eh. Not interesting or intelligent stuff. Just a whole lot of disjointed meanderings where you get the facts wrong.
"Put simply, President Mugabe crossed the imperial line of tolerance by choosing to pursue what Laurence Duggan, a US State Department official, called "economic nationalism"."
What a lovely merry go round. It all comes back to this. Reason, PLEASE ANSWER ME THIS ONE QUESTION, even if its the only question you answer. Do you really believe it is sanctions that is causing problems for your economy when you have economic nationalism threatening anybody who dares invest in Zimbabwe with the forceful and uncompensated seizure of their assets? If I were a million dollar company and I had 500,000 to invest, I certainly wouldnt put it in Zimbabwe, because economic nationalism means that at the end of the day, I would lost all of it. Why bother?
China and India had the same problem. They believed in nationalization. Not anymore. Now look at where their economies are vis-a-vis ZImbabwe.
And quit the Reagan BS. All countries intervene when their national interests are at stake. China even went to war with its former ally Vietnam over the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia- yet for you they are the benchmark of non-interference.
"It is quite remarkable to see the extraordinary savagery that the US has displayed against the weakest and sometimes most inconsequential countries, good examples being Laos and Grenada."
Looks like I jumped the gun earlier. Well anyway, lets see how you deal with this.
"It works like this for the US. The weaker the country, the greater the savagery and Zimbabwe is today’s case in point."
"George Kennan once called "the protection of our raw materials".Supposedly, this was against the "evil" Russians "
Are you referring to the Long Telegram and suggesting that US Containment policies were aimed at devastating small countries? Have you even read the Long Telegram? As for the Russians being evil - why dont you just ask the Kazakhs, or any of the other new formed independent states?
"In fact, Kennan meant protecting "our raw materials" primarily from the indigenous populations of this world."
WHat kind of idiots do you take your readership for? What indigenous populations - it seems to be a very Africa oriented policy, because a lot of Asian countries are doing just fine.
"The problem is that some indigenous populations like those of Zimbabwe do have a dangerous tendency to try to use what Kennan called "our raw materials" for their own purposes."
No Reason, you are wrong. Heres why: Those raw materials are useful to you, but only in a certain quantity. Beyond that, you have to sell them to benefit from them. This is a fundamental economics issue that one cannot expect a marxist to understand. If you have lots of oil, and you refuse to sell it to anyone, then it is worthless. Its value is dictated by its demand. You cannot do much with a sea of oil that you cannot do with a lack of it. You can do what you want with that raw material - Kennan was just keen that the Soviets didnt annex the middle East with all of its oil. The Cold War was, at the end of the day, a military conflict. But I digress. Kennan never suggested it in the way you suggest it - as if he wanted all raw materials diverted directly to America. This is a deliberate misreading of what he said. Blatant lies, in fact.
To put it mildly, the agricultural land in Zimbabwe is inconsequential to the US. I know you are a marxist who sees the world through a marxist viewpoint, but marxism is only one of several paradigms. Look at it through a Liberal paradigm and you will see what the rest of us see -a megalomaniac dictator who is stripping minorities of right for his own gain.
"Countries like Zimbabwe, Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia "
What about countries like China India Brazil Argentina - how do they manage to get by without turning into the economic basket cases you mention above? It is easy to say Cuba cares for its people, but the numbers dont add up when you see people getting into rickety boats to flee the country.
"The danger is not in the success of the project but in the domino effect."
For what its worth, the domino effect was discredited shortly after Vietnam won. Nobody uses that term anymore. Except bitter people with no real history background. Like you.
"To the US, successful development is a disease that may infect other countries."
The countries that pose the biggest challenge to the US are not Zimbabwe and Cuba, they are India and China, Japan and Germany. These are countires that are developing or have developed successfully. ZImbabwe has simply begun the slide from developing to least developed nation.
"For the US, any success outside the imperial model is dangerous nonsense.'
China. Brazil. South Africa. Russia. India. What are you smoking? All of these countries have taken their own routes - quite a far way outside the imperial model.
"This is why the suffering in Zimbabwe is in the interest of the West."
The pictures shown here are of injured people, and violence, and war veterans marching around with sticks. Not much to do with nationalization per se. More to do with individual suffering.
I think you are going ot have to wake up to the reality that Zimbabwe is a small inconsequential country in the middle of nowhere.
If America really wanted a regime change, reallly wanted your resources, what is stopping them from hammering Zimbabwe into oblivion? It is a two-day job at best. China cannot stop them. Russia doesnt care. If the evil Americans are only worried about money, then how come they havent finished Mugabe off? Why are they taking such a slow expensive route?
Could it be that tehy see Mugabe as tyrant who has to go? A man who inflicted his own peopl to violence to win an election? Why are they dilly-dallying over the fine print if they just want to humiliate Mugabe. Two or three ships from the Seventh fleet should do the trick.
"What we are seeing through the puerile actions of the US is the wrath of a defied emperor."
No, the wrath of a defied emperor is putting an end to the troublesom party. Carpet bomb Harare into oblivion, so that all the subjects learn a lesson.
The US seem more like an elephant occassionally annoyed by a little rat. You will notice that life in America carries on regardless of Zimbabwe. They have other issues - other problems. They are not nearly as fixated with Zimabbwe as you suggest. Certainly not as fixated as you are with them.
"Zimbabwe is redefining itself and shaping its own destiny and it is incumbent upon every African to respect this process in the hope of a peaceful settlement to the country’s challenges."
And thats a solid 9.0 on the bullshit meter. ZImababwe is not redefining itself - it is trying to find a way to keep a senile old man, drunk on power, in power, while the country falls apart.
You, sir, are a joke. And a bad one at that.
Not possible
You really think America can win any war don't you? I do not agree at all. They are the same Ameticans that were defeated in Vietnam, humiliated in Somalia and yes, struggling against Chinese influence.
The empire has cracks and it is coming to an end and some of us are celebrating already.
Huh?
"You really think America can win any war don't you?"
No. I think America can wipe Zimbawe off the map. But I dont think they can defeat any country. Certainly not China, India, Brazil, Russia to name a few. But Zimbabwe is neither. It is, to put it mildly, "just there".
"They are the same Ameticans that were defeated in Vietnam, humiliated in Somalia and yes, struggling against Chinese influence."
Read above post. They did lose in Vietnam. But Zimbabwe is not Vietnam. For starters, it doesnt have Chinese and Soviet support from across the border. Humiliated in Somalia? Well technically they were never at war with Somalia - they went there as peacekeepers. When they lost, what was it, eighteen of their men, they asked a simple question that they are, as a sovereign nation, entitled to ask: Should America risk the lives of its own trying to stop people in another country from killing each other? At that time the consensus was No. The US couldnt respond by declaring war on Somalia - peacekeepers from other countries were already in there. At the end of the day it was a rational calculation that said that the lives of the Americans saved by removing them was worth more to America than the lives lost by Somalians killed by other Somalians. This is a calculation we all hope they do not make in Iraq, which will likely become a hotbed of fanaticism if they do.
And you are right, Chinese influence is increasing. So is Russian. And Indian. But none of these countries give a damn if America steamrolls Zimbabwe tomorrow. The countries might object, to win brownie points with African countries, but none of them is actually going to stand up to the US and deploy their military over a country like Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is an inconsequential country.
And dont worry, I am celebrating the arrival of the cracks in the American empire too. My former colony is ready to take up a more serious role in the International system. It has succeeded where Mugabe has failed.
Western Ideology
You ask for Western ideology and i say the answer is CAPITALISM.
Western Ideology
How so? Presumably on the basis of origin. In which case, most, if not all, ideologies originate from the west - including communism, the antithesis of capitalism.
In any other sense, capitalism is not western. It is practiced in the most eastern of countries and has a truly global reach.
It is not even an ideology. It is merely an economic system, one which is not fully implemented in any country, since most 'capitalist' states are welfare states, deliberately interfering in the free market that capitalism espouses. Nor does capitalism provide an explanation for the ideas of freedom of expression, opinion, religion etc that various countries, western and non-western uphold.
This blanket definition is a joke. You might as well call Mugabeism an ideology - one that defies logic, deifies its sole leader, and refuses to acknowledge the will of the people.
Bet you felt bloody clever with that soundbite when you posted it. Bet you feel bloody stupid now that its been shattered.
Capitalism
Communism is also an economic order and yes Marx wa not born in Beiging. Capitalism is an economic ideology and it is spread by a governance that we describe as Western democracy and these two go hand in hand.
That's right.
And another ideology is 'totalitarianism', which is what we have in Zimbabwe in the form of violent dictatorship.
In Zimbabwe, you see, the press is censored, so there's no discussion or consensus. In a proper cliché of Third World dictatorship, the President's wife spends thousands of dollars on clothes and houses while the people are literally starving, and sell-outs like Reason Wafawarova defend the status quo.
I say 'sell-out' because men and women actually died so that Zimbabweans could decide their own destiny, and that choice was taken away from Zimbabweans by corruption, and violence, and censorship, and fear. So if you're defending the people responsible for that, which is the ruling party, you have, like them, sold out the memory of those brave Zimbabweans who gave their lives. You have sold out the idea of liberation.
In Reason's case it's strange, because although he's undoubtedly taking money from ZANU (PF), which is to say 'money stolen from the state for the friends of ZANU (PF)', he actually appears to believe the nonsense that he writes.
Reason gets money from the Zanu PF???
I didn't know that. Is there any element of truth to this allegation Mr. Wafawarova?
Money
I am neither a member of ZANU PF nor do I have any financial relationship with the party or any of its members, directly or indirectly, and I am competent and talented enough to fund my own life and that of my family.
Thanks
LIAR.
Again, an absolute lie.
"I am not a member of ZANU-PF"?
You say this purely for the benefit of the Australian state, who may be deciding what to do with your visa.
The former technical director of the National Youth Service, the youth arm of ZANU-PF, is not a member of ZANU? And is not taking money to survive as a 'student' in Australia when everyone from Gideon Gono to Pikirayi Deketeke, another loyal ZANU functionary, is educating their children in Australia?
You people just lie, and lie, and lie.
Be Careful
I think you want to be careful how you use your terms. You call liar when I am just telling you that I have a well paying job that gets me travelling to many places each week and Zimbabweans here know it.
Why then would I need ZANU PF to fund me. As far as I know the party, it is actually not doing very well financially and I just cannot see how they can afford to just keep me here like that.
I am a trained proffessional and I am talented enough to work out a living for myself. You are not going to take away that from me.
And for the record at no time was I ever director of anything in the Zimbabwe gvt. You can see how I sued those like you on the post above (forum) and I THINK IF YOU RESPECT COURTS you will see that I do not lie.
I know you may want to qoute the internet google searches but that does not change the fact that I was a civil servant who never rose to the level of director or even deputy director. For your information I was in the civil service for three years before I LEFT and promotions do not come that quick if you ask those who have been there for no less than twenty years and are still junior officers.
Nonsense.
You're a trained "proffesional" who can't even spell "professional"?
And you're supposed to making a living writing?
Where DO you get your money, Wafawarova?