Zimbabwe Criticism Unfair
Posted: Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Printer friendly version
The US and British, as well as the mainstream media's concern are over one issue: Mugabe took back lands from whites and returned them to blacks. Black Zimbabweans will have other internal issues that are more about their day-to-day survival, but the Western interest is about controlling Zimbabwe's Land. They also want to destroy the Zimbabwean land reclamation example, before it takes hold throughout the continent.
There are Black Zimbabweans taking fair positions that can appear to be against Mugabe based on how things impact on them locally, but there are also those who are just regurgitating the White U.S. /Europe's demonizing propaganda in the hope of getting some economic rewards. If these elitist Whites cannot directly control something, they then settle for remote control, so some blacks position themselves to be willing puppets.
In Africa and the wider African Diaspora, the position many Blacks have taken, supporting the move to return lands to Blacks, is in the best interest of all Africans. This support is not limited to Mugabe and/or Zimbabwe but is about what many desire for all of Africa. So even if many Diasporan Africans do not understand the nuances of the local political issues in Zimbabwe, they do understand the West. They know the Western concern about Zimbabwe is over maintaining white control (remote control) of African resources. A few whites getting killed is their excuse to interfere. Their remote control program is simple. They fund misleaders who put elitist White interest over that of the indigenous population. Then they deny resources to countries as well as demonize the leaders who put the interest of the majority of their citizens first. Venezuela and Haiti are recent examples of this.
There are detractors who want us to believe that the anti-Mugabe sentiment is widespread among Blacks in Zimbabwe. They distort what is taking place there to project a dissenting image. Some Zimbabweans are also making bogus anti-Mugabe claims to get to stay in foreign countries (at least one poster explained how this is being done in Britain).
Here is a quote from Margaret Lee, who is definitely no friend of Mugabe:
"Now one of the problems right now, I think, in the country with respect to the opposition, the Movement for Democratic Change is that just like many other opposition movements, it has compromised itself. So one of the things that was very clear when I was in Zimbabwe in January was that there was not the same level of fear about the MDC that existed at the end of 1999 going into the elections of 2000. When I say compromised itself, specifically it aligned itself with the white farmers, many of the white farmers who had a vested interest in making sure that the land was not returned to the indigenous African population. It aligned itself with many individuals in South Africa that were not deemed to be pro-post-apartheid South Africa. It even aligned itself with RENAMO in Mozambique and that was the so-called liberation movement that was involved in incredible atrocities against the indigenous population in Mozambique. So there exist a lot of problems within the MDC."
(Source: The Zimbabwe Elections)
The anti-Mugabe demonizing campaign was also about promoting the MDC as the alternative - a party that has shown its willingness to return to IMF policies. Most Black Zimbabweans feared this, and it directly contributed to past elections violence in Zimbabwe. It is not simply about Mugabe attacking the opposition; poor blacks in Zimbabwe did not trust the MDC because of their alliances. Many Blacks experienced the hardship under the IMF policies in the 90's before Mugabe abandoned the program, and they do not want to repeat the destructive past. This recent election was more peaceful because ordinary blacks did not feel the MDC was a threat; they did not feel the MDC could win because their pro western allegiances were exposed.
Truly free and fair elections do not exist anywhere as yet, and the US and Europe are not election role models. The US and Europe do not promote democracies. They manipulate/further corrupt the politics in vulnerable countries to get misleaders who will serve their interest first. That is not democracy. It will be a good idea for these 'leaders' to develop democratic principles in the U.S .and Europe.
There can be no democracy when the volume of information and critical issues we cover on these Websites are not given fair media space that would allow people to vote after considering the effects of their choices on ALL of us.
As I said earlier,
"We must first keep in mind that the ongoing U.S./European attempt to demonize President Robert Mugabe is not just about Zimbabwe or President Robert Mugabe, but it is also a campaign that attempts to ensure all efforts to correct colonial wrongs in the interest of blacks will not succeed. They fear that if the campaign to return lands to indigenous Africans in Zimbabwe is allowed to succeed, then other African nations will follow suit."
(Source: Sloppy Criticisms of Zimbabwe Elections)
The West has no problem manipulating to create brutal African misleaders, who they supply with weapons in abundance to protect and serve elitist White interest. Supplying weapons to poor nations is not about protecting their sovereignty from foreign threats. These arms are supplied specifically to allow the misleader to subdue ordinary citizens as protection for Western interest. That is their unspoken policy the world over. Africans who are taking a position on what is in the best interest of Africa as a whole have every right to be concerned about who wants to profit from Africa's misery; who is creating the misery; who wants to choose our heroes; who wants to demonize another African in order to promote their interest.
Most of these anti-Mugabe critics are not simply local Zimbabweans playing for the hearts and minds of Zimbabweans over their local politics. They are not local Zimbabweans who are sharing with the international community while welcoming views and ideas from Diasporan Africans. They have one mission and they come over like this: 'I am from Zimbabwe, and this is how it is. You should believe me because I said I am from Zimbabwe.' Their 'worldview' dictatorial tendencies are so evident, which turns their criticisms of Mugabe into massive displays of hypocrisy.
Rarely do White misleaders demonize each other over their massive brutality and genocides of non-white peoples. Bush and his cronies are the obvious mass murderers today. We are not seeing European misleaders telling it like it is. France played the game of being opposed to the invasion of Iraq, but not on principle. The U.S. knew that. France had no problem instigating more violence in Africa. They were key players in removing the first democratically elected leader of Haiti. Conflicts in Africa are proxy wars; they will disagree over sharing the spoils, but at the end of the day their White elitist solidarity remains intact.
No country has an open door policy, particularly to hostile countries. It is common knowledge that in every country there will be those who put their narrow material interest ahead of the well-being of the majority. These are the weak links that White interest exploit, arm and then promote as good Black leaders. For most of Zimbabwe's young 'independence' it has been held in the trenches of a hostile White controlled environment, first from attacks during the Apartheid Era, then the IMF. Even when they claimed Zimbabwe was doing so well, it was mostly for the economic prosperity of Whites in and out of Zimbabwe. Cuba and North Korea are not open to much western influences, media etc. because of the ongoing threat to their sovereignty. There is action and reaction, and we cannot come down on the effect, and ignore or play down the cause.
Many Whites pay lip-service from the comfort of knowing that they are not first in line to be slaughtered. Many are too weak and do not even try to do better. So they can protest one day and then go back to their jobs. They can try to tell blacks how to think, but they are not first in line to be killed. They want to preach patience to blacks, and try to tell those who are most affected and/or sensitive how to speak, and what measure of urgency to place on issues that directly impact on Africans in general, and dark-skinned-kinky-hair Blacks the most.
What gives anyone the right to determine the language, and urgency to be placed on addressing issues that are not negatively affecting them the most? The answer is arrogance. There are serious issues in Africa that demand more attention than trying to make all of Africa seem to be about Robert Mugabe and Zimbabwe.
Send page by E-Mail
Homepage | Reasonings | Features | Forums | Interactive