By Reason Wafawarova May 4, 2008

The United States ruling elite is gleefully keeping fingers crossed in an envisaged opportunity that presents a Zimbabwe they see as ready for the picking. On the 15the of April, the US ambassador to the UN, one Zalmay Khalilzad, described Zimbabwe as “the most important and urgent issue in Africa”.

Said Khalilzad, “It would be very surprising that we will have a meeting on Africa in which quiet a number of African leaders will be there and not talk about the most important issue, the most urgent issue on that continent, being Zimbabwe.”

Now, Jendayi Frazer, the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, has been gallivanting across Southern Africa lobbying, or is it arm twisting the regional leaders one by one, in her assignment to ensure an ouster of President Robert Mugabe and the liberation nationalist party, ZANU PF.

Zimbabwe’s former colonial master and the US’s trusted lapdog supporter and ally, Britain, has been running all over the show in a bid to restore her battered sense of supremacy over the affairs of her former colonies – states whose affairs Britain runs through the Commonwealth. David Milliband, the British Foreign Secretary has already told the world that his country cannot wait to have Zimbabwe back in the Commonwealth.

Milliband’s most unassuming boss, Gordon Brown has already complained that his patience is “wearing thin” on Zimbabwe and he reckons that this personal feeling can safely be interpreted to be representative of the attitude of the “international community” a term now cynically monopolised by the West with arrogant disregard for the rest of this world.

South Africa, under Thabo Mbeki has refused to be the equivalent of the pre-1979 Iran, an Iran that was the hub of US interests in the Middle East, and the West is badly looking for an alternative to Mbeki. When the shah of Iran was ousted by a popular revolt in 1979, the US created Saddam Hussein, just across the border in Iraq. Hussein, immediately attacked Iran on behalf of the US and for eight years he was armed to the hilt by Washington – killing millions of Iranian civilians and Iraqi Kurds in the process.

The recent utterances by Jacob Zuma to the effect that the US and her Western allies wanted South Africa to attack Zimbabwe militarily are not only revealing but also very characteristic of US foreign policy.

The so-called quiet diplomacy approach by President Thabo Mbeki has not only irked George W. Bush and his administration but it has also been seen as a failure to establish a client state in Southern Africa. If South Africa could play an Israel in the region, then the US interests would be protected – interests vested in the region’s natural resources and possibly the setting up of AFRICOM; that unwelcome idea of a US military base meant to control Africa.

The West is not exactly amused with Jacob Zuma’s populist style of leadership and in that context there is not much hope that a post-Mbeki administration in South Africa would exactly play an effective role of a US client state – more so one that can bully everyone around on behalf of Washington, doing the West’s bidding of lording it over everyone else.

The only visible hope for such a state would be a Morgan Tsvangirai led Zimbabwe. A perfect puppet is one who lacks depth in policy and who is also non-populist and non-militant. Zuma lacks depth in policy but he has all signs of a populist and his “Mushini Wami” militant signature song at public events is not exactly the kind of public gesture that complies with what the West refers to as “western civilisation”.

Across the Zimbabwean border in Zambia, the West propped up Fredrick Chiluba in November 1991 and the ex-trade unionist was one perfect manipulable leader lacking depth in policy, non-populist although highly confrontational, and of course very friendly to imperialist neo-liberal policies over Zambia’s mineral wealth.

Morgan Tsvangirai of Zimbabwe’s opposition MDC looks like a duplicate of Chiluba, literally to the letter, save for the height, weight and name. In that sense he becomes Washington’s favourite possibility for a leader who can lead a powerful client state to destabilise the region.

Chiluba obviously did not prove to be of any use to the West as he spent most of his time trying to be vindictive with Kenneth Kaunda, the man he had ousted from power, that is when he was not struggling with his marital affairs or engaging himself in accumulating material gains that come with joining the upper class.

His successor, Levy Mwanawasa is highly educated and has depth in policy and is relatively sympathetic to the imperialist cause. However he is very sensitive to African public opinion and this has made him to flip flop between doing the Western bidding in the region and posturing as a Pan-Africanist whenever he faces criticism from the African public.

In this regard, Mwanawasa has not exactly presented himself as the best bet for playing the role of an Israel in Southern Africa. He is simply unreliable, much as he is quite usable, the way he reportedly did with the election stalemate that followed the March election in Zimbabwe.

This leaves Morgan Tsvangirai as candidate number one for Washington. Other options are generally either not promising or just unworkable. Angola is too linked to China and has a terrible history with Washington, dating back to the days the CIA- armed Jonas Savimbi of UNITA – a man who rests in the belly of the earth with so many lives of innocent civilians sitting right on his grave.

The same history goes for Mozambique, a country that faced fourteen years of fighting a US-South Africa-sponsored Renamo, led first by Andreas Matsangaise and later by the current leader Alphonso Dhlakama. Frelimo is sceptical of solid relations with the US because the leadership knows that Washington would rather have Renamo running the affairs of Mozambique and the US is also sceptical about Frelimo because the party hails from a communist background.
There is not much sense for the US to try countries like Botswana, Malawi, Swaziland, Lesotho, Mauritius or Madagascar just because these countries are too small in terms of population and too weak in terms of resources.
The Democratic Republic of Congo is just too vast and too unstable to control and Washington would rather leave it out of the equation for now.

It is this background that makes the US consider Zimbabwe the “most important and urgent issue on the continent” of Africa. Khalilzad was only speaking on behalf of George W. Bush’s administration. This is the official US State Department’s position and it is the same view held by the UK and the rest of the West.

Tsvangirai becomes so relevant because Zimbabwe has a history of military supremacy in the region. They played major roles in stopping Angola’s Jonasi Savimbi, defeating Mozambique’s Renamo and also in stopping the overthrow of Laurent Kabila of the DRC in 1998.

Zimbabwe is rich in its agricultural potential and in natural resources, like platinum, gold, coal and other minerals. It has a relatively big population by the region’s standards, a population estimated at 14 million.

Above all, Zimbabwe has Morgan Tsvangirai, a man whose near win in the March election was largely a ride on the suffering of people – a suffering in which he has played a major role as the chief mobiliser of economic sanctions from the West.

Zimbabwe has Morgan Tsvangirai, a man Washington can deeply trust as a tabla rasa in terms of policy. The man is ideologically illiterate and that is the perfect scenario for the US. He is motivated by power and money and not by popular policies and for Washington, there is no better candidate.

Morgan Tsvagirai, if he ever assumed the rulership of Zimbabwe, is most likely going to neutralise the militant war veterans of Zimbabwe’s liberation war. He is most likely to restore the white dominated agrarian regime, as was the case before 2000, may be not exactly, but very much so.

He is most likely going to carry out Washington’s instructions on the sub-region – that without causing so many problems like Mbeki of South Africa is seen as doing.

A Morgan Tsvangirai led Zimbabwe is likely to be armed to the hilt by Washington – all for purposes of whipping each country in the region into the imperial line. It is hoped that South Africa will remain relatively controllable, as is the case right now and that it does not develop into another Iran in a region where Zimbabwe will be playing an Israel. South Africa may be annoying the West with its quiet diplomacy over Zimbabwe but surely they have not tempered a bit with imperial interests in their mineral rich economy. The West likes it that way.

The US seems to be ready to start yet another era of regional destabilisation all too similar to the disgusting Middle East CIA operations that started way back in 1948.

Palestine and Lebanon have been the unfortunate victims of the US-Israeli machinations that are basically a cycle of warfare, carnage and human misery.
The July 2006 invasion of Lebanon, with its cynical pretence to legitimacy; was only a manifestation of the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

This was not the first time for Israel to invade Lebanon on the pretext of eliminating a threat. There were numerous US-backed Israeli invasions of Lebanon in 1982 and not even one of them was based on a credible pretext.

The usual Western media commentary describes these invasions as a response to Palestinian terror, rocketing the Galilee or the so-called pre-emptive strikes. Of course this is always all sheer fabrication. When the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) was adhering rigorously to a US-initiated cease-fire, there were repeated and often murderous Israeli attacks in Lebanon in an attempt to elicit some act that could serve as a pretext for the planned invasion. This is what the CIA refers to as provocative engagement.

There were only two light reactions, clearly recognisable as mere warnings. Israel then used a concocted pretext to invade Lebanon in June 1982, with full backing from the Reagan administration.

Within Israel, at the highest level of military and political echelons, the invasion, which killed about 20 000 people and left most of the country in total ruin, was described as a war for the West bank.

In much the same way the ruling elite in the West are quiet clear that the economic and diplomatic offensive on President Mugabe’s government in Zimbabwe is in essence a war over the land that was reclaimed by the Mugabe government for redistribution to landless peasants.

In July 2006, the US-Israeli invasion of Lebanon was again based on frivolous pretences. In this case, the pretext was the capture of two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border Hezbollah attack. The harshest Western criticism of the subsequent devastating Israeli invasion was that it was “disproportionate”, a reaction that was in pure cynicism. It did not matter in Western circles that for decades, Israel had been kidnapping and killing civilians in Lebanon or on the high seas, Lebanese and Palestinian, holding them captive in Israel for long periods, many times in secret torture chambers like Camp 1391.

There has not been any calls for the invasion of Israel, or of the US, which provides the necessary support for such actions. Surely, Southern Africa does not need a US sponsored bully that will make sure that the West has a free reign over the region’s resources. If that were to happen, and God forbid; it would be most unfortunate if the surrogate client state were to be Zimbabwe, something that looks like a high possibility if only the MDC’s Morgan Tsvangirai were to assume the leadership of the country, of course unless the man shifts from his current submissive subordinate-boss man relationship with Washington.

There has been escalating Israeli attacks on Gaza since the capture of Corporal Gilad Shalit in Palestine on June 25, 2006. After the capture, the US and its Western allies professed deep shock at this “terrible crime” and, with the usual reservations about a disproportionate reaction, they lent their support to the subsequent savage Israeli reaction – including the destruction of the power plant to deprive the population of water, electricity and sewage disposal.

The unmitigated increase in the killing of civilians has rendered Israel a status that cannot be distinguishable from a terror organization, literally turning Palestine into a withered, blighted garden, enveloped in grief and suffering.

The West’s reaction to this particular Israeli offensive was revealingly fraudulent and unusually more apparent. Just a day before the capture of Corporal Shalit, on the 24th of June 2006, Israel had kidnapped two civilians in Gaza, the Muammar brothers. Obviously, this was a far more serious crime than the capturing of a soldier, especially when one considers that the Muammer brothers were abducted to Israel in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

They were swallowed into the Israeli prison system, where over 1000 people are currently held without charge, hence kidnapped. There was neither notice nor reaction in the West, in fact in the West nothing happened in Palestine on the 24th of June 2006.

There is general agreement to the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestine conflict among the Arab states, including Iran, and Hezbollah has also said they would respect this kind of a solution, although it is not exactly their preference. Hamas has also indicated that it is prepared to negotiate for a settlement in the two-state terms.

The United States and Israel continue to block this political settlement, as they have done for the past thirty years, never mind the brief and inconsequential exceptions often meant to hoodwink the Palestinian before each major onslaught. Denial of this attitude is preferable in the West, but the victims of US-Israeli brutality do not exactly enjoy this kind of luxury.

US-Israeli rejection of reality is not only in words, but also more importantly, in action. With precise and decisive US backing, Israel has been systematically pursuing its programme of annexation and dismemberment of shrinking Palestinian territories, and imprisonment of what remains by taking over the Jordan Valley. This is the so-called convergence programme, which Washington astonishingly calls “courageous withdrawal.”

This is exactly why the Palestinians are facing national destruction. The only meaningful support for Palestine is from Hezbollah, which was formed in reaction to the 1982 invasion of Lebanon. Hezbollah is basically a prestigiously supported group, mainly because of leading the effort to force Israel to stop its aggression on Lebanon in 2000, as well as for its popular social service provision programmes.

The US-Israeli planners would want Hezbollah and similar Islamic organizations like Hamas severely weakened or most preferably destroyed – just like the PLO had to be evicted from Lebanon in 1982.

In the same way, the US would want every liberation movement in Southern Africa severely weakened if not completely annihilated. Zimbabwe’s ZANU PF, Namibia’s SWAPO, Angola’s MPLA, Mozambique’s Frelimo, Zambia’s ousted UNIP, Tanzania’s CCP, Swaziland’s dynasty and South Africa’s ANC are all viewed in the same light with Hezbollah, Hamas and every other popular Islamic group. They are seen as retrogressive forces running against the imperial grain.

The Western dream to weaken or annihilate these popular movements can only be enhanced when people like Alphonso Dhlakama, Jonas Savimbi, arguably Morgan Tsvangirai, and many others like them avail themselves as willing mercenaries to push forward the reactionary imperialist agenda.

The main reason Hezbollah has not been destroyed is that it is deeply embedded within Lebanese society that it cannot be eradicated without eradicating much of Lebanon just like its virtually impossible to destroy Hamas without eradicating much of Palestine.

Zimbabwe’s ZANU PF might have lost a lot of ground to the Western backed MDC in the March election, but the liberation movement still garnered a higher popular vote with over 46% of the vote as opposed to the opposition MDC’s 43%. Of course Morgan Tsvangirai won the popular vote over President Mugabe by a margin of about 5%.

ZANU PF’s popular vote lead means that it is still very hard for the US to destroy ZANU PF without having to eradicate much of Zimbabwe. The same goes for all the other liberation movements, and even the ousted UNIP of Zambia just refused to die under the spirited efforts by Fredrick Chiluba. Chiluba even tried to arrest everyone who mattered in UNIP and he even attempted to make legislation that would strip Kenneth Kaunda of his right to Zambian citizenship and identity.

No doubt, a Tsvangirai government, if ever there could be one, would be assigned to do similar efforts on ZANU PF and what the West now calls Mugabeism.

This is the kind of Zimbabwe that Washington would want. They want a Zimbabwe that is totally divorced from its own liberation legacy, a Zimbabwe totally disenfranchised by their own history and a Zimbabwe totally depended on the Western doctrine of donor funding. Above all they want a Zimbabwe that does not believe in its own abilities and with no faith in its leadership, whether from ZANU PF or the MDC.

The West likes it when the MDC derides war veterans, preaches the gospel of the “international community” more than they preach nationalism and above all believe in borrowing more than they believe in production.

When they say Zimbabwe is on the brink they mean the country is on the brink of being a client state to Washington. We are on the brink of servitude to Western ideals and economic supremacy. Can this be allowed to happen? If yes, the question is why?

Some have written this writer saying if the people want imperialism and Western domination, let them have it. In other words, a country can be handed over to its oppressors if the oppressors are cunning enough to deceive a large chunk of the population.

This is the predicament that Zimbabwe finds itself in, a very sad and precarious predicament. The coming run off in the presidential election is just but the last option to chose between Washington rule and self-determination. That is the plain truth, despite the apparent temptation for people to try and stop the economic crisis via the ballot box. People are being coerced to vote for the lifting of sanctions while handing their sovereignty right in the hands of the US-UK alliance.

People are obviously tired of suffering and they want to vote for a difference and one hopes that the difference will not be hijacked for more suffering.

The West is roaming like roaring lion. Are we going to stand aside and look? Is SADC going to stand aside and watch? Are Zimbabweans in their majority going to allow this travesty to occur?

It is homeland or death. Together we will overcome.