- Lessons from Yugoslavia's Experience
- Did Rush Slimeball Cross the Line?
- Chavez Blasts the Spanish King
- Crow Creek Longriders hope annual motorcycle ride and humanitarian day will give hope to the youth around Fort Thompson, SD
- Crow Creek Longriders hopes annual motorcycle ride and humanitarian day will give hope to the youth around Fort Thompson, SD
What's Really Going On in Zimbabwe
March 23, 2007
What's Really Going On in Zimbabwe:
Mugabe Gets the Milosevic Treatment
By STEPHEN GOWANS
counterpunch
Arthur Mutambara, the leader of one faction of Zimbabwe's main opposition party, the MDC, and one of the principals in the Save Zimbabwe Campaign that's at the centre of a storm of controversy over the Mugabe government's crackdown on opposition, boasted a year ago that he was "going to remove Robert Mugabe, I promise you, with every tool at my disposal." (1)
Educated at Oxford, the former management consultant with McKinsey & Co. was asked in early 2006 whether "his plans might include a Ukrainian-style mass mobilization of opponents of Mugabe's regime." (2)
"We're going to use every tool we can get to dislodge this regime," he replied. "We're not going to rule out or in anything the sky's the limit." (3)
Last year Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of an opposing MDC faction, and eight of his colleagues, were thrown out of Zambia after attending a meeting arranged by the US ambassador to Zimbabwe, Christopher Dell, with representatives of Freedom House, a US ruling class organization that promotes regime change in countries that aren't sufficiently committed to free markets, free trade and free enterprise. (4)
Funded by the billionaire speculator George Soros, USAID, the US State Department and the US Congress's National Endowment for Democracy (whose mission has been summed up as doing overtly what the CIA used to do covertly), Freedom House champions the rights of journalists, union leaders and democracy activists to organize openly to bring down governments whose economic policies are against the profit-making interests of US bankers, investors and corporations.
Headed by Wall St. investment banker Peter Ackerman, who produced a 2002 documentary, Bringing Down a Dictator, a follow-up to A Force More Powerful, which celebrates the ouster of Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic, Freedom House features a rogues' gallery of US ruling class activists on its board of directors: Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Otto Reich, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Steve Forbes, among others.
The campaign to replace Mugabe with the neo-liberal standard bearers of the MDC is rotten with connections to the overthrow of Milosevic. Dell, the US ambassador, prides himself on being one of the architects of Milosevic's ouster. (5) He held a senior diplomatic post in Kosovo when Milosevic was driven out of office in a US-UK engineered uprising.
Dell's mission, it would seem, is to be as provocative as possible, sparing no effort to tarnish the image of the Mugabe government. In early November 2005, Dell declared that "neither drought nor sanctions are at the root of Zimbabwe's decline," an implausible conclusion given that drought has impaired economic performance in neighboring countries, and that sanctions bar Zimbabwe from access to economic and humanitarian aid, while disrupting trade and investment. "The Zimbabwe government's own gross mismanagement of the economy and its corrupt rule has brought on the crisis," Dell charged. (6)
When not disparaging Mugabe's government, Dell can be counted on to be doling out largesse to the opposition (US$1 million, according to one source, to get the Save Zimbabwe Campaign off the ground earlier this year. (7))
Responding to Dell's call for the opposition to unite, Mutambara has declared his new unity of purpose with MDC opponent, Tsvangirai. "Our core business," he announced, after violent clashes with the police earlier this month, "is to drive Mugabe out of town. There is no going back. We are working together against Robert Mugabe and his surrogates." (8)
While Mutambara is certainly working with Tsvangirai to drive Mugabe out of town, what he doesn't explain is what he wants to replace Mugabe with. The opposition, and the powerful Western governments that back it, make it seem as if they're offended by Mugabe's qualities as a leader, not his policies, and that their aim is to restore good governance, not to impose their own program on Zimbabwe.
We should be clear about what the MDC is and what its policies are. While the word "democratic" in the opposition's Movement for Democratic Change moniker evokes pleasant feelings, the party's policies are rooted in the neo-liberal ideology of the Western ruling class. That is, the party's policies are hardly democratic.
The MDC favors economic "liberalization", privatization and a return to the glacial-paced willing buyer/willing seller land-redistribution regimen a status quo ante-friendly policy that would limit the state's ability to redistribute land to only tracts purchased from white farmers who are willing to sell.
Compare that to the Zanu-PF government's direction. Mugabe's government is hardly socialist, but it has implemented social democratic policies that elevate the public interest at least a few notches above the basement level position it occupies under the neo-liberal tyranny favored by the MDC. A Mutambara or Tsvangirai government would jettison policies that demand something from foreign investors in return for doing business in Zimbabwe. Foreign banks, for example, are required to invest 40 percent of their profits in Zimbabwe government bonds. (9) What's more, the MDC leaders would almost certainly end the Mugabe government's policy of favoring foreign investors who partner with local investors to promote indigenous economic development. And Zimbabwe's state-owned enterprises would be sold off to the highest bidder.
Moreover, the land redistribution program would be effectively shelved, delaying indefinitely the achievement of one of the principal goals of Zimbabwe's national liberation struggle reversing the plunder of the indigenous population's land by white settlers. Mugabe, it is sometimes grudgingly admitted in the Western press, is a hero in rural parts of southern Africa for his role in spearheading land reform, something other south African governments have lacked the courage to pursue vigorously. South African president Thabo Mbeki's reluctance to join in the collective excoriation of Mugabe is often attributed to "respect for Mr. Mugabe as a revolutionary hero (he led the fight that ended white rule in Zimbabwe in 1980, and was a key opponent of apartheid) and because the issue of white ownership of land in South African is also sensitive." (10)
Contrast respect for Mugabe with the thin layer of support the US-backed Save Zimbabwe Campaign has been able to muster. It "does not yet have widespread grassroots support," (11) but it does have the overwhelming backing of the US, the UK, the Western media and US ruling class regime change organizations, like Freedom House. Is it any surprise that Zanu-PF regards the controversy swirling around its crackdown on the opposition's latest provocation as an attempt by an oppressor to return to power by proxy through the MDC?
Stephen Gowans is a writer and political activist who lives in Ottawa, Canada. He can be reached at: sr.gowans@sympatico.ca
NOTES
1. Times Online March 5, 2006.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. The Sunday Mail, February 5, 2006.
5. The Herald, October 21, 2005.
6. The Herald, November 7, 2005.
7. The Herald, March 14, 2007.
8. The Observer, March 18, 2007.
9. The Observer, January 28, 2007.
10. Globe and Mail, March 22, 2004.
11. Ibid.
- Login or register to post comments
- 1692 reads
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
Zimbabwe: Another View
The following is another view of Zimbabwe, from Patrick Bond, who coauthored Zimbabwe's Plunge: Exhausted Nationalism, Neoliberalism and the Search for Social Justice. He also directs the Centre for Civil Society at the University of KwaZulu-Natal in Durban, South Africa:
http://www.counterpunch.org/bond03272007.html
Frankly, I found both Bond and Gowans disappointing: the former dismisses Gowan's analysis of neo-liberal and foreign influence in the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) with a glib, sarcastic comment: "So tell us something we don't know." Thus, Gowan's analysis of MDC, according to Bond anyway, is "nonsense", with no further analysis being necessary (in a display of over-the-top hyperbole, Bond even accuses Gowan of "(shaming) the good name of Counterpunch", an accusation that should properly be directed at the Counterpunch editors, assuming that Bond actually believes his own rhetoric).
Likewise, Gowans' useful analysis of the MDC and their connections to US and British imperialism would be more credible if he didn't come off like an apologist for the repressive regime of Robert Mugabe. Gowans sounds like he's condoning state repression when he concludes "Is it any surprise that {Mugabe's) Zanu-PF regards the controversy swirling around its crackdown on the opposition's latest provocation as an attempt by an oppressor to return to power by proxy through the MDC?" In Gowan's eyes then, the MDC are responsible for the repression, through their "provocations", which Mugabe is justified in putting down.
The left has an unfortunate history of uncritically supporting authoritarian governments, some of which are "socialist" in name only and use anti-imperialist rhetoric as a cover for their own brutal crackdowns on dissent.
(It's important here to note that not all regimes calling themselves "socialist" or "anti-imperialist" are the same: there is a vast difference, for example, between the popular [and democratically-elected] government of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Mugabe's police state.)
From what I've read, the MDC appears to be a very diverse organization. Undoubtedly, many, if not most, of their supporters do not favour the privatization of public services or the complete elimination of any controls on transnational corporations. However, politcal parties are not run by their supporters and in the background are the foreign "advisors" skillfully manipulating electoral outcomes, so they can bring in more "advisors" to tell them how to properly run a "democratic capitalist" (neo-liberal) government.
We only need look at the situation in Russia, where the population experienced the fastest rise in inequality ever recorded, to see what happens when such forces are not kept in check. Thus a country that pretty much guaranteed all citizens either employment or some type of state support became one where the elderly, unable to afford fuel to heat their homes during Russia's bitter winters, freeze to death.
Ideally, people should not have to choose between nationalist/socialist despots or mealy-mouthed neo-liberals who sound like populists to get elected only to dismantle that part of the state which actually does any good (public hospitals and schools, food and fuel subsidies for the poor, social housing, etc.) at the behest of their foreign masters (or "advisors").
My hope for the people of Zimbabwe is that, once the Mugabe regime is deposed (which will happen at some point), they can recover their anti-colonial legacy, and remember why their predecesors fought a protracted guerilla war in the 70's against the "for whites only", racist regime of Ian Smith (hint: it wasn't to invite the colonizers to return). Recent history, however, would not appear to favour such an outcome.