Zimbabwe : Death of Democracy in Zimbabwe

Discussion in 'Zimbabwe' started by imhotepptah, Mar 16, 2005.

  1. imhotepptah

    imhotepptah Member MEMBER

    Jan 30, 2005
    Likes Received:
    We were excited when Pres. Mugabe was cursing out the West and imperialist but what do you say when after cursing out the white he turns on his own people and starts oppressing and abusing them.
    To maintain a dictatorship and one party rule, he had now resorted to closing down press freedom, and is instigating political violence against any opposition few weeks before national election.
    Its called negative political genius when he lets the people take away the land from the white then in turns systematically takes away that land from these poor blacks and gives it to his government officials. Now anyone who speaks against him is labelled an imperialist puppet, even the likes of Pres. Mbeki of S.A are affaid of speaking against him.

    He fooled us the Afrocentrics, we long waiting for that African leader to stand up against the West and restore our stolen land, and Mugabe did just that but that was not all he went on to use that move to maintain a represive hegemony over his own people.
    Now to maintain our sanity we have to separate the good from the bad, separate our need to stand against the West from our need for democracy, these are to different issues not to be confused even though they are connected.

    Harare jamming radio broadcasts from London
    redirect to swradioafrica podcasts

    Zimbabwe issues
  2. fanyamambo

    fanyamambo Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Aug 19, 2004
    Likes Received:
    I remember previous discussions on this forum and others which I chose to stay away from about Mugabe and his government. Mainly because I did not want to "pour water" on the praise he was getting (due to his stand on white owned land etc). Zimbabwe is going through its roughest period now. Mugabe the great orator is a terrible and selfish dictator. We have to be cautious about how we view our leaders. Most of them have us nodding and clapping along with them on one issue but are busy plundering and looting their countries and oppressing their people. Mugabe has perfected this art.

    This becomes sensitive (eg in forums like this) particularly when what we are applauding our leaders for is their (mostly only stated and populist) stand on white people, racism and neo colonialization. Because this is an issue felt strongly about (understandably) it is hard when people are euphoric to introduce the flip side without appearing supportive of white people and their systems and governments.

    I remember on these forums having a bit of a rough time discussing the issue of Maasai people from my country demanding land back from white "settlers". I remember saying (I paraphrase) that though idealistically this would be great, in reality it would as proposed be both impractical and potentially conflict-causing. Not because the Maasai should not access and own this land but because the combination of political bad-will, ethnicity and corruption could have taken this situtation from bad to worse and probably cause "ethnic clashes" as we HAD seen before in this country. I'm afraid my arguments were for the large part mistaken for my being sympathetic to white land grabbers.
  3. panafrica

    panafrica Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Aug 24, 2002
    Likes Received:
    The Diaspora
    Ahh...forums like "this"

    I think it is important to make the distinction that supporting a leader (president of a country, affiliate of a particular party, etc) does not mean you endorse all that they do. I supported Mugabe on the issue of removing white farmers from the land (which they unlawfully took to begin with). I support the Maasai in reclaiming the land they "temporarily" granted the British through a land treaty. I support African American who are seeking compensation of the US government's "promise" to grant every freed slave 40 acres and a mule (the primary arguement for reparations). Most heads of state support issues that become emotional shields that mask their overall agenda (gay marriage for Bush, who in reality only cares about Iraq & decreasing expenses for the wealthy). Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe is no different in this regard. He has been in power for decades, and the country has been stagnant. I support no president being in power for so long, indeed that invites dictatorship. Zimbabwe could benefit from new leadership, as could the majority of Africa. However there is some good in most regimes, and in my opinion returning or compensating people from land unlawfully taken from them is a issue that should priority for any administration.

    That being said I'd like to address Fanyamambo on the "impracticality" of honoring such treaties as the Maasai-British land treaty. A treaty should never be ignored because it would be difficult for the "beneficiary" (white people) to honor its terms. Europeans seem to have a way to find loopholes into agreements. From the White American government promising African Americans land, then promising African American equal opportunity to employment & education: Only to flood the country with millions of immigrants from South America to Asia to the Middle East. The result of which making their promises to African Americans "impractical" to enforce. From the British leasing land from the Maasai (that treaty was indeed a lease) and agreeing to return it 99 years later: Only to sell portions of said land to various ethnic groups, who believe they now own the land. Thus creating potential ethnic clashes, and in the process make the situation "impractical" for the British to honor. Are we seeing a pattern here Fanyamambo? Whites are the ultimate "deadbeat debtors"! They always enjoy the benefit of land, ignore treaties, and avoid payment. We should allow this to continue because honoring these treaties (which whites demand & enforce by force when they are the owed party), are impractical when whites are the beneficiary? As I pointed out to you in the Maasai thread there are other forms of compensation. Paying sums of money, free services, education, goods, etc....you know reparations. Indeed there are many ways to remedy breached treaties...ignoring them is not one however!
  4. imhotepptah

    imhotepptah Member MEMBER

    Jan 30, 2005
    Likes Received:
    Opinion:- Zimbabwe crisis: A paralysis of analysis

    Zimbabwe crisis: A paralysis of analysis
    By Lance Guma
    Last updated: 03/22/2005 05:20:55

    ANYONE who believes Robert Mugabe seized white-owned farms to
    genuinely redistribute to landless blacks is probably more fascinated
    with the theory than its actual implementation.

    If ever there is division it is because Mugabe nicodemously provided
    the perfect catharsis for people with pent-up racial hatred over past
    white-perpetrated injustices the logic was lost in the emotion. It
    would not be stretching reason to conclude his sincerity is a mere
    footnote as long as he provides lasting images of destitute whites
    cowering in distress after losing their farms and in some cases their

    The main benefeciaries of the land reform exercise have been
    individuals strategically positioned in different arms of the state
    machinery and actively keeping him in power. Pot bellied sycophants
    (those lucky enough to avoid the go slow disease- AIDS) from the
    army, police, state security, judiciary and the state media have all
    grabbed land and are actively shoring up Mugabe's grip on power.
    Judgements from Justice's Chidyausiku, Hlatshwayo, Makarau and others
    who spend their weekends galavanting on barren farm lands given unto
    them by Mugabe are clearly vetted at Munhumutapa Building (Mugabe's
    Office). Cases either rot on the roll or have judgements `reserved'
    until justice delayed is justice denied.

    The real landless black is used to invade the farm, told not to build
    any permanent structures and when the the time is ripe, told to move
    to make way for the political heavy weights. New England farm in
    Harare is an example in point. The settlers invaded it at government
    instigation years back but are now being evicted by John Nkomo to
    make way for state house employees. Land is a smokescreen and Mugabe
    knew he could exploit the mistrust and differences in the global
    village to cobble up an excuse for lawlessness, the dictators haven.
    That it took close to 20 years for Mugabe to act on the land question
    seems lost to the solidarity bloc who feel he is righting colonial
    An indictment of the land grab exercise is the manner in which Robert
    Mugabe had to rig the 2002 presidential election. A supposedly
    popular president riding on the crest of a `successful' land reform
    had to rely on mobilising the entire might of the state machinery to
    bolster his cause. The Youth militia, police, army, sate security and
    ruling party thugs just bludgeoned the young opposition into
    submission. Over 3 million Zimbabweans abroad whose political choice
    was and is an open secret have been disenfrachised through
    legislation whose legality was and still remains questionable. Just
    last week the same `farmer' judges made sure the expatriate vote was
    silenced when others in Iraq are enjoying the same right.

    The long suffering Zimbabwean has watched with reluctant owe as Mbeki
    and others have been lured by the Pan African bait, hook line and
    sinker. African governments including South Africa support him
    because apart from wanting to appear free from western influence they
    actually foresee a need for them to use similar tactics in the future
    when their power is waning. Precedent then becomes the key. Little
    need be said about the credibility of the other cheerleaders from
    Libya, Cuba, Iran, and China before one realises birds of a feather
    flock together.

    The real problem in the country is Mugabe clutching at straws to
    cling to power. The presence of Mengistu Haille Mariam - wanted back
    in Ethiopia for mass murder, is an under-stated fact. Ever since
    Mengistu was granted safe haven in the country, Mugabe's reign has
    become more polished, systematic and brutal. Mengistu is written all
    over the current tactics. Zimbabwe has a `head of state' who boasts
    eight or so `prison' degrees, sleeps in the comfort of the most
    protected State House in Africa, and is convinced he is the darling
    of his people. What amusing if not tragic hallucinations. Bad
    governance has killed this country and yet others are still debating
    what the crisis is all about.

    Mugabe's speeches time and again mirror a leader who has read too
    much Shakespeare, has mastered the art of delivery more than content
    and diverts attention from the real issues. After using every
    imaginable election theme possible since independence from stamping
    out corruption, unity and development and until recently land reform
    you just could not see him stooping so low as an `anti-blair
    election' for the 2005 parliamentary poll. Not for this bunch of
    political cowboys however who think they own the country and their
    liberation war contributions have created a lifetime debt for all
    Zimbabweans. The crisis in Zimbabwe is about the need for good
    governance and an over the hill politician who is aware granting it
    assures his exit.
    - The author works as a Producer/Presenter for SW Radio Africa(www.swradioafrica.com). Every
    week on Thursday he hosts a show called `Behind the Headlines', were
    he looks at individuals and issues dominating the news. The views
    expressed here are his own

    After Robert Mugabe, the flood?
    3/17/2005 8:11:07 AM (GMT +2)

    Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. Is he power-crazed? Clinging to his position and, like Madam de Pompadour, celebrated beauty and intimate of King Louis XV of France, taking the attitude that “after me, the flood”?

    Is this man putting his people through an economic and social meltdown simply because he wants to continue ruling the country?
    It would be easy to say that he is all these things. In fact, in Western capitals, and in sections of South African and Batswana society, this is exactly how the Zimbabwe President is being cast.
    It has been found easy — and intellectually lazy, I believe — to cast this man in the role of a bloodthirsty, uncaring, unfeeling ogre.
    Even in the face of one of the highest inflation rates in the world, alarming unemployment and a breakdown of civil services, he still will not go. He is a bad man, the megaphone diplomats tell us.
    But I believe that President Mugabe's detractors are doing themselves a disservice. By believing their own hype, they are deliberately choosing not to understand the real issue.
    And, as any good strategist will tell you, one does not solve a problem that one doesn’t understand. Once you have understood your problem, coming up with a strategy to solve it is a walk in the park.
    This is the main reason President Mugabe’s detractors are shooting blanks. They do not understand that they are up against the most powerful motivation known to man.
    Put simply, President Mugabe is fighting for his legacy. And when a man is fighting for his legacy, he has got everything to lose.
    President Mugabe, I believe, does not want to go down in history simply as the first executive President of Zimbabwe.
    Being so determined to leave an indelible mark on the history of this country and the continent, he has genuinely identified land as the issue that will define his entire career.
    He is gambling that on the land issue, history will judge him very favourably — and I believe that it will.
    Despite the multiple farm ownership sagas and all the other wrongs that came with the land reform exercise, by and large, everyone, including his critics, agree that the land question had to be settled.
    But most importantly, I also believe that for President Mugabe, retiring or resigning before settling the land question would basically have negated his entire struggle. It would have meant the struggle he waged, the years spent in jail and all the rest of it would have come to absolutely nought.
    President Mugabe himself has said that “we went to war because land . . .”, and he has also previously pointed out that people did not die fighting just for black people to be allowed to live in Borrowdale and to walk in First Street.
    In other words, getting land back was the primary motivation for the war that liberated Zimbabwe from Ian Smith’s unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) and colonial rule.
    So, when the President's opponents started off by labeling his land crusade of the late 1990s a “political gimmick”, that was the biggest blunder they could ever make, strategically.
    They were belittling the very foundation upon which President Mugabe seeks to build his legacy, dismissing the entire point of his whole career.
    Now, you can see how a man treated like that would dig his heels in. He became convinced that, should he leave the scene, no one would ensure that equitable distribution of land was achieved — if they could dismiss it as a political gimmick
    Then, once the land exercise was under way, the very same detractors sought to convince the world that it was because of the way he was seeking to settle the land question that Zimbabwe was now a basket case — an argument that is itself arguable.
    Surely, his critics were aware that, once they had issued this accusation, the President would then want to stay on and ensure that when he left office, the wrongs committed in the process of redistributing land were righted, and righted in a way that protected his legacy?
    Indeed, for a man fighting for his legacy, to leave the stage while he is being booed is a non-starter, because he will be leaving knowing that his legacy has been discredited. And wrongfully so, he would say.
    Better to exit with applause ringing in his ears. That way, his legacy, that which will define him and his struggle in the history books, will be secured.
    What he wants is victory. Because, shrewd as the man is, he knows that history is written by the victors in any war. Their side of the story is what becomes definitive history, true history.
    The only thing President Mugabe can be accused of is that he failed to cover his flanks as he went to “war” on the land issue in the late 1990s. His entire being was consumed by this fight and the ministers he had at that time, without guidance from him, failed to cover the flanks — which are primarily the economy and social services.
    Being ostracised is not a death sentence to the economy of a country, as Smith demonstrated in the age of UDI. Prior to declaring UDI, he lined up his ducks, made sure there was enough foreign currency, made contingency plans to bust sanctions, and generally braced the country for the onslaught he knew would follow.
    In this instance, President Mugabe’s ministers of finance, trade, health and all the other suffering areas of the economy failed to put such contingency measures in place, even after President Mugabe alerted them in a Cabinet meeting that he was about to invite the wrath of the monied West by appropriating land and not paying “a cent” for it.
    And instead of exercising fiscal restraint in the run-up to this momentous decision on land, the government dished out billions of dollars to veterans of the country’s 1970s independence war.
    Then, to compound the mistake, ministers deserted their posts and joined the stampede for multiple farms.
    It is clear that we have gone too far down the road for the President's detractors to convince him that, if he leaves office today, his legacy is secure and the land reform exercise will not be reversed. Now he is determined to see it through to a clean end.
    Those who continue to try and score cheap political points by belittling his crusade to “return stolen property” are only ensuring that he digs his heels in further.
  5. fanyamambo

    fanyamambo Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Aug 19, 2004
    Likes Received:
    Just to clarify to Panafrica I meant nothing sinister by saying 'forums like this'. I fear, brother, that I am unfairly under suspicion.

    In the Maasai forum I think we reached a thorough understanding of both points of view and I was bringing it up in this forum for a different reason which I hope is clear. I understood clearly what your position was then as I do now.

    Thanks IM for posting those interesting articles
  6. fanyamambo

    fanyamambo Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Aug 19, 2004
    Likes Received:
    This is sickening

    Found this on a white website (obviously). Just goes to show how eager the media are to turn this into a white supremacist issue :censored:

    Should Bush put President Robert Mugabe on his hit list?


    Published: March 23, 2005

    Naka Nathaniel/NYTimes.com
    Makupila Muzamba

    Zimbabwe — The hungry children and the families dying of AIDS here are gut-wrenching, but somehow what I find even more depressing is this: Many, many ordinary black Zimbabweans wish that they could get back the white racist government that oppressed them in the 1970's.

    "If we had the chance to go back to white rule, we'd do it," said Solomon Dube, a peasant whose child was crying with hunger when I arrived in his village. "Life was easier then, and at least you could get food and a job."

    Mr. Dube acknowledged that the white regime of Ian Smith was awful. But now he worries that his 3-year-old son will die of starvation, and he would rather put up with any indignity than witness that.

    An elderly peasant in another village, Makupila Muzamba, said that hunger today is worse than ever before in his seven decades or so, and said: "I want the white man's government to come back. ... Even if whites were oppressing us, we could get jobs and things were cheap compared to today."

    His wife, Mugombo Mudenda, remembered that as a younger woman she used to eat meat, drink tea, use sugar and buy soap. But now she cannot even afford corn gruel. "I miss the days of white rule," she said.

    Nearly every peasant I've spoken to in Zimbabwe echoed those thoughts, although it's also clear that some still hail President Robert Mugabe as a liberator. This is a difficult place to gauge the mood in, because foreign reporters are barred from Zimbabwe and promised a prison sentence of up to two years if caught. I sneaked in at Victoria Falls and traveled around the country pretending to be a tourist.

    The human consequences of the economic collapse are heartbreaking. I visited a hospital and a clinic that lacked both medicines and doctors. Children die routinely for want of malaria medication that costs just a few dollars.

    At one maternity ward, 21 women were sitting outside, waiting to give birth. No nurse or doctor was in sight, and I asked the women when they had last eaten meat, eggs or other protein. They laughed uproariously. Lilian Dube, a 24-year-old who had hiked 11 miles to get to the hospital, said that she had celebrated Christmas with a morsel of goat meat.

    "Before that, the last time I had meat was Christmas the year before," she said. "I just eat corn porridge and mnyi," a kind of wild fruit.

    An elementary school I visited had its fifth graders meeting outside, because it doesn't have enough classrooms. Like other schools, it raises money by charging fees for all students - driving pupils away.

    "Only a few of the kids who started in grade one are still with me in school," Charity Sibanda, a fifth-grader, told me. "Some dropped out because they couldn't pay school fees. And some died of AIDS."

    As many as a third of working-age Zimbabweans have AIDS or H.I.V., and every 15 minutes a Zimbabwean child dies of AIDS. Partly because of AIDS, life expectancy has dropped over the last 15 years from 61 to 34, and 160,000 Zimbabwean children will lose a parent this year.

    AIDS is not President Mugabe's fault, but the collapse of the health system has made the problem far worse.

    The West has often focused its outrage at Mr. Mugabe's seizure of farms from white landowners, but that is tribalism on our part. The greatest suffering by far is among black Zimbabweans.

    I can't put Isaac Mungombe out of my mind. He's sick, probably dying of AIDS, and his family is down to one meal a day. His wife, Jane, gave birth to their third child, Amos, six months ago at home because she couldn't afford $2 to give birth in the hospital. No one in the family has shoes, and the children can't afford to attend school. They're a wonderful, loving family, and we chatted for a long time - but Isaac and Jane will probably soon die of AIDS, and the children will join the many other orphans in the village.

    When a white racist government was oppressing Zimbabwe, the international community united to demand change. These days, a black racist government is harming the people of Zimbabwe more than ever, and the international community is letting Mr. Mugabe get away with it. Our hypocrisy is costing hundreds of Zimbabwean lives every day.
  7. panafrica

    panafrica Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Aug 24, 2002
    Likes Received:
    The Diaspora
    This type of white racist media propoganda is why so many blacks support Mugabe, and are willing to ignore his faults.
  8. pdiane

    pdiane Well-Known Member MEMBER

    United States
    Jul 1, 2003
    Likes Received:
    We don't want our people to suffer as they go through the growing pains of getting rid of white supremacy. It is not easy to gain independence from the master. That is why so many of our people during slavery didn't even want to go with Harriet Tubman when they had the chance to be free.

    In the movie "Sankofa" the main character talked about Afrie and how she knew what it was like to be free, to be in an African home with all of its beauty and issues, unlike the Africans who only knew slavery. They had nothing to compare their condition with, it was all they knew. They did not want to fight for their freedom like Afrie although they eventually did when she led them.

    I say that because I believe, (and it is easy for me to sit in my warm house with food in my refrigerator to say this), that freedom that is not taken is not real freedom. "Freedom is not free!"

    I was reading on a Ghananian website it said the english still control a lot of Ghana, as do the French in Senegal, I've been there and that is true, as do Boars in South AFrica.

    It is hard for us to watch Zimbabweans suffer as they fight for their freedom. The reality is however, that we Africans, none of us, are going to be free from these devils if we don't go through the fire. That may mean death.

    Disney world freedom does not exist. Mugabe took a great leap to rid those farms of those devils and he has been demonized ever since. Well well well ain't that familiar!

    He should have kicked them out long time ago, but he tried to be nice hoping that white folks had some humanity.

    Excuse me for going on rant, but I am tired of people talking about Mugabe, when they themselves don't have the balls or ovaries for that matter to take one step to free African people. They sit on the sidelines and throw stones.

    If he is not doing the way one would like, well let God be his judge, until then, what is a better way? Tell us. Let the MDC sell their people down the drain. amerikkka and england support the MDC. What does that tell you?

    He doesn't have the luxury of being democratic sometimes. Sometimes he has take the reigns and say this is how it has to be for the freedom of our people. You can't always take a consensus. Heck, we ain't got democracy here in amerikkka.

    Harriet wasn't democratic, Nat wasn't, Marcus wasn't, Elijah wasn't, Ramases wasn't, Piankhy wasn't, Hepshepsut wasn't, nor is any one who really has the desire to rid our people from the devils that are controlling their very lives.

    No one likes to be in an autocratic political situation, but the reality is sometimes it is good, and it works. Give him a chance to be. He has bucked amerikkka, europe and we as outsiders don't really know what the heck is going on over there. some of us don't even know what is going on here and we live here!

    I might be wrong about Mugabe, but give him a chance. Sometimes we cannot use conventional methods to get rid a monkey on our backs, it that includes uncle-tom Zimbabaweans. Mao freed his country from western imperialism by using unconvetional methods. It wasn't necessarily good, but you don't see amerikkka and europe messing with China and China is a super power.

    KNowing how propanganda works, being a victim of the coentelpro in amerikkka, I simply cannot listen to the the media, I am personally putting this in God and the ancestor's hands.
  9. Radical Faith

    Radical Faith Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Dec 3, 2003
    Likes Received:
    Operations Manager
    North Carolina
    See this is the problem that many African nations face and us as a people face. Absolute power corrupts all men. What we see as a varient leader is nothing more than a thug or a gangster. This is why it is important that we understand what a leader is. A leader is a servant to his people not the other way around. A leader makes conditions better for his people and not purely for himself and his entourage'. The people go from one form of slavery to another. There will continue to be civil unrest in Africa until the needs of the people become the highest priority.

  10. Aqil

    Aqil Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Feb 3, 2001
    Likes Received:
    New York
    On Election Day Imperialism Will Meet Its Death In Zimbabwe...

    By Kwanisai Mafa

    As the March 31, 2005 parliamentary elections are approaching, it is a day for Zimbabweans to boldly assert their God-given right to be free of a foreign ruler. A vote that would totally sweep away all the remaining vestiges of colonialism. It should be a vote of consolidating our revolutionary gains under the banner of the Third Chimurenga.

    So many sacrifices and precious lives were lost in this country because the white settlers could not give up land. The journey to our independence has been tortuous and fraught with peril. Land was central in our struggle and Zimbabwe has become a shining example in Africa by giving back land to the original owners. Was there any justice, morality and democracy when we hoisted our flag without economic independence? Was there any justice for only 4,000 whites to own all the fertile land in the country?

    Our independence could be meaningless without land, and all the lives would have been lost in vain. All Western democracies are out in full throttle to fight our own version of democracy. Any form of democracy that jeopardizes imperial interests is labeled despotic and tyrannical.

    Remember the great leader Sekou Ture hinted that imperialism will find its death in Africa. He was right because Pan-Africanism - which the enemies have been trying to stifle - is now on the rise, and the flame has been lit in Zimbabwe. All the oppressed masses of African descent in the world are looking at the Zimbabwean question with hope.

    Zimbabweans in their broad totality on March 31 should show the whole world that we are determined to bury global imperialism once and for all. This victory will give inspiration to the downtrodden and oppressed to keep fighting against cruelties that are a disgrace to humanity. Zimbabweans should stand strong and defend their interests. Britain is fighting for her interests in Zimbabwe, and Zimbabweans should also fight for what is good for them.

    For Zimbabweans, it is time for cool heads and bold decisions, not blind faith in Western machinations. It is time for Zimbabweans to stand strong and decide our own destiny without outside interference. We should divert from the imperialistic mentality of letting America and Britain decide who heads our country or who gets kicked out of power. We should put our priorities first, and for this case the land is first and elections later. Tony Blair, because of the mad-cow disease, put off elections in Britain in order to solve the mad-cow tragedy.

    As former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and first Black mayor of Atlanta, Andrew Young said in an interview with the Herald in 2001, demonizing Mugabe is betraying Africa’s cause. Whoever is trying to accuse Mugabe should first look at Mugabe’s political and economic records. He is an international statesman, a true Pan-Africanist, and a dedicated anti-imperialist who stood tough against forces of Western imperialism in Africa. This truth is why Britain and U.S. hate Mugabe. He is still a darling and remains the only outstanding continental African liberation fighter. This is why very few African leaders are willing to raise a finger against Mugabe, and can also explain the reason why the sensible ones have kept mum.

    I think for Zimbabweans it is time to consider the future of our children and forget our differences and problems of the past - and confront the real enemy. Zimbabweans should see each other as one body, and to develop the spirit of brotherhood in order to fight Western propaganda, hypocrisy and criticism. The use of the media by the West as a hegemonic tool has been used to brainwash us to the extent of ending up wanting to be white people. These are all the disadvantages of the capitalistic system driven by the white man.

    Zimbabwe is increasingly subjected to various forms of external and internal pressure, which are seriously affecting the country’s security, political, economic and social structures. The biased Western media is not objectively reporting on Zimbabwe, but rather peddling falsehoods. Reasons cited for negative reporting include poor governance, improper land distribution without compensation, and mismanagement of the economy. Some of the criticism is ill-conceived and outrageous, particularly the new current argument that if President Mugabe goes then everything will be all right. Reports or any suggestions that the land issue will go away when Mugabe goes away is a dangerous fallacy that Western administrations are putting in people’s minds.

    Millions of innocent human beings all over Africa die from the ravages of war, hunger and disease because of the greed of Britain and other Western countries that organized and operated the Atlantic slave trade. If bribes, fear and intimidation do not work for them in their quest for world domination, then it’s war. Somehow the war is called a war “to promote democratic principles,” and the gullible believes that.

    Since World War II, liberation movevements in all parts of Africa have sought to end five centuries of subjugation and varying forms of tutelage imposed by Western powers, but as one colonial power after another conceded independence to African dominions, they often tried - with different degrees of success and failure - to install dependent regimes and institutions that would pose no threat to traditional colonial interests.

    The American and Belgium manipulation and involvement assassinated Patrice Lumumba. A surrogate regime of Mobutu was put in place. The Congo and its people, including neighboring states in Central Africa, have since seen no peace. Kwame Nkrumah, who early realized the importance of continental unity and the curse of imperial exploitation through multinationals, was overthrown in a CIA-engineered coup. That country has not totally regained stability and development since. Between January 1956 and the end of 1985 there were sixty successful coups in Africa - that is an average of two every year. In 1966 alone there were eight military coups, and by 1986, out of some fifty African states only eighteen were under civilian rule.

    Behind every coup was the hand of another imperial power, and, more often than not, it was the U.S. Overthrowing nationalist regimes and installing tyrannical dictatorships was then fair game for today’s “champions of democracy” and “good governance.” The CIA has acted too far to exceed its mandates as an intelligence-gathering agency. It has acted as a secret mafia engaged in assassinations, levying wars in other countries, organizing mercenary forces in order to overthrow lawfully-established governments, and destabilizing societies and regimes that they do not like. They manipulate trade unions, use academics, plant bogus stories in reputable Western newspapers and on the Internet. They collaborated with the then-apartheid South Africa over arms supplies, the invasion of Angola, and the development of nuclear weapons.

    America and its allies are sponsoring the installation of pirate radio stations and newspapers as part of propaganda, psychological warfare intended to undermine the beliefs, perceptions and value-systems of the people under the rule of the adversary government. Britain and the U.S. use large numbers of foreign-aid personnel to conduct propaganda, gather intelligence, and fund opposition political parties. The foreign-aid personnel infiltrate deeply into the socio/politico fabric of Zimbabwe and other countries without arousing undue suspicion.

    As in the rest of the world, U.S. policy views Africa as a continent where Pan-Africanism should be eradicated - a goal that would deny real independence to African countries by imposing and sustaining client regimes. Today the continent is vital to the West economically – oil for the U.S. from Libya and Nigeria, uranium for Britain from Namibia, and huge American and EEC investment in South Africa, Kenya and elsewhere.

    It is none other than Zimbabweans that can answer the following questions: Who are the real enemies of Zimbabwe? Who are the real friends of Africa? Who should we guard against? Who should we work with? Who can we ask from? It is none other than the African that can answer...

    "Tisakanganwa chazuro nehope, nyika ndeyedu iyi..."

    (Kwanisai Mafa is based at the Midlands State University Library Department. He is also Pan-Africanist.)