By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 29 May 2008
Carol Paton’s provocative, premature and one-sided tribute to President Thabo Mbeki’s presidency is so biased it conspicuously screams for a response.
Masquerading as an objective summary of Mbeki’s presidency, the article, “Things fall apart” (FM, 23 May 2008), is actually an unoriginal opinion piece.
Paton recycles well-known criticism of the president (made popular by the likes of William Mervin Gumede and Xolela Mangcu) and parades the criticism as her own.
The only time Paton finds it necessary to refer to a source is in the fourteenth paragraph; and, even here, she refers only to unspecified “figures in Western diplomatic and financial circles”.
Mbeki might have erred in his judgements over a number of key issues, including his approach to the crisis in Zimbabwe and the way he handled the HIV and Aids debacle, but Paton’s overly negative summary is somewhat a punch below the belt.
It is a pity some of Mbeki’s greatest victories are being overshadowed by a few (real and perceived) misjudgements. The victories include the president’s tireless efforts in ensuring that:
• South Africa occupies a prominent role in continental and global affairs through the occupation of influential positions in the African Union, the United Nations and other international organisation;
• South Africa becomes the first African country to host the 2010 FIFA World Cup, which, even before kick-off, has already contributed hugely to the country’s economy; and that
• The black middle class triumphs despite persistent traditional barriers, such as the refusal by the predominantly white business sector to transform qualitatively;
Just like other presidents around the world, Mbeki has not perfected every aspect of his leadership. Had he done so, South Africa would have become the first country to have a saint as a president.
Even charismatic leaders such as former president Nelson Mandela and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair made mistakes both at party and state level.
Mbeki should be given a chance to complete his remaining presidential term as duly mandated by parliament, itself acting on the mandate of the electorate.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Monday, May 12, 2008
Quiet Diplomacy III
At long last, someone has the guts to point out the other culprits responsible for lengthening the economic and political crisis in Zimbabwe
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 13 May 2008
I would like to congratulate Cunningham Ngcukana for daring, so convincingly, to contextualise the Zimbabwe situation in his article, “Mbeki is on the right track in his Zimbabwe mediation” (City Press, 11 May 2008). The truth, as it is often said, shall set us free.
The position he has adopted may not be the most popular one; but, if we are to understand the situation in our neighbouring country, it is important that we understand both and all sides of the story. In this regard, I would also like to congratulate City Press for providing Ngcukana the space to express his opinion.
Now, on the contents of Ngcukana’s article, I found it very relevant that he fearlessly unmasks one of the culprits responsible for lengthening the economic and political crisis in Zimbabwe – the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC).
Ngcukana was actually mild when he mentioned that the MDC’s formation was funded by “the British, the Americans and the Zimbabwean farmers.” In fact, the MDC was conceptualised, formed and funded by those powers emanating from outside the borders of the African continent.
In an interview with one Pan-African magazine, President Robert Mugabe named the founders of the MDC as the three British political parties: the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal-Democrats, on the strength of a special fund called the Westminster Foundation Fund.
We (Africans) must not assume that this sudden generosity of the British was premised on advancing the lives of the Zimbabweans. On the contrary, the generosity, as is always the practice in foreign policy, must have been influenced by the British national interest, which is to maintain economic control over former colonies.
Because the British may be trying to maintain their grip on their former colonies, one may ask what then becomes the Americans’ role and interest. Well, because the British supported them in justifying an illegal war in Iraq, the Americans are paying back by supporting British efforts to effect regime change in Zimbabwe.
And, if one considers the actions of the US and the British governments in pressurising Mugabe out of power, it is clear the Americans are working at an operational level whilst Britain rallies more of its allies, such as Australia, to join the push.
Although they maintain that the economic and political sanctions they have imposed on Zimbabwe are targeted at individuals close to the Harare regime, the Americans have in fact adopted a law – the Zimbabwe Economic Recovery Act – that effectively legalised external meddling in the affairs of a sovereign state.
It was not surprising, therefore, that, on 21 June last year, the then US ambassador to Zimbabwe, Christopher Dell, predicted that Zimbabwe’s inflation rate would rocket to 1.5 million percent before the end of the year 2007. How he came to such a figure remains a mystery. But, not surprisingly, his prediction came to naught.
Not to be outdone, one British newspaper, infamous for its right-wing approach, noted in a deceiving editorial comment that: “[Africa’s] exclusion from rising global prosperity, its disadvantages in the competitive environment of international trade, its burden of crippling debt are no longer just laments of African governments and aid organisations.”
The newspaper said these and other problems holding back development in Africa are now “rightly seen as matters of concern for the whole world.” Only the gullible will believe that.
To understand where most of Africa’s problems emanate from, one needs to firstly read Walter Rodney in his classic book, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Amongst other key observations, Rodney writes: “When Cecil Rhodes sent in his agents to rob and steal in Zimbabwe, they and other Europeans marvelled at the surviving ruins of the Zimbabwe culture, and automatically assumed that it had been built by white people.”
Rodney argues that: “Even today, there is still a tendency to consider the achievements with a sense of wonder rather than with the calm acceptance that it was a perfectly logical outgrowth of human social development within Africa, as part of the universal process by which man’s labour opened up new horizons.”
To fully understand the approach of the Western governments (particularly the US and Britain) in Zimbabwe, it is important to observe how they deal with other governments accused of offences similar or worse than those seen under Mugabe’s leadership in Zimbabwe. Ngcukana mentioned some of these, but a further elaboration is important.
Take, for example, a country such as Sudan. The president, Omar el-Bashir, firstly came to power through a coup, overthrowing a democratically elected government. He has presided over Africa’s biggest humanitarian catastrophe, Dafur.
Again, take, for example, a country such as Nigeria. The president, Umaru Yar’adua, came to power through a controversial election that saw over 200 civilians dead due to election-related violence. The European Union itself said the elections were marred by irregularities and vote rigging.
President Omar Bongo of the west African country, Gabon, has been in power since 1976. After his disputed re-election in 2005, he is even reported to have said that he will run for president again in 2011.
If Britain and the US are so concerned about democracy and good governance in Zimbabwe, we must ask why they are not equally concerned about the same in countries such as Sudan, Nigeria, Chad, Swaziland, etc. We must see the likes of the MDC for what they truly are: “agents of imperialism,” as aptly put by Ngcukana.
Africans said this, the 21st Century, is an African Century. Until we take charge of our own political and economic future by exposing “agents of imperialism”, our hands will remain tied. We’ll have the cake (our abundant material resources) but we will not be able to eat it.
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 13 May 2008
I would like to congratulate Cunningham Ngcukana for daring, so convincingly, to contextualise the Zimbabwe situation in his article, “Mbeki is on the right track in his Zimbabwe mediation” (City Press, 11 May 2008). The truth, as it is often said, shall set us free.
The position he has adopted may not be the most popular one; but, if we are to understand the situation in our neighbouring country, it is important that we understand both and all sides of the story. In this regard, I would also like to congratulate City Press for providing Ngcukana the space to express his opinion.
Now, on the contents of Ngcukana’s article, I found it very relevant that he fearlessly unmasks one of the culprits responsible for lengthening the economic and political crisis in Zimbabwe – the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC).
Ngcukana was actually mild when he mentioned that the MDC’s formation was funded by “the British, the Americans and the Zimbabwean farmers.” In fact, the MDC was conceptualised, formed and funded by those powers emanating from outside the borders of the African continent.
In an interview with one Pan-African magazine, President Robert Mugabe named the founders of the MDC as the three British political parties: the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal-Democrats, on the strength of a special fund called the Westminster Foundation Fund.
We (Africans) must not assume that this sudden generosity of the British was premised on advancing the lives of the Zimbabweans. On the contrary, the generosity, as is always the practice in foreign policy, must have been influenced by the British national interest, which is to maintain economic control over former colonies.
Because the British may be trying to maintain their grip on their former colonies, one may ask what then becomes the Americans’ role and interest. Well, because the British supported them in justifying an illegal war in Iraq, the Americans are paying back by supporting British efforts to effect regime change in Zimbabwe.
And, if one considers the actions of the US and the British governments in pressurising Mugabe out of power, it is clear the Americans are working at an operational level whilst Britain rallies more of its allies, such as Australia, to join the push.
Although they maintain that the economic and political sanctions they have imposed on Zimbabwe are targeted at individuals close to the Harare regime, the Americans have in fact adopted a law – the Zimbabwe Economic Recovery Act – that effectively legalised external meddling in the affairs of a sovereign state.
It was not surprising, therefore, that, on 21 June last year, the then US ambassador to Zimbabwe, Christopher Dell, predicted that Zimbabwe’s inflation rate would rocket to 1.5 million percent before the end of the year 2007. How he came to such a figure remains a mystery. But, not surprisingly, his prediction came to naught.
Not to be outdone, one British newspaper, infamous for its right-wing approach, noted in a deceiving editorial comment that: “[Africa’s] exclusion from rising global prosperity, its disadvantages in the competitive environment of international trade, its burden of crippling debt are no longer just laments of African governments and aid organisations.”
The newspaper said these and other problems holding back development in Africa are now “rightly seen as matters of concern for the whole world.” Only the gullible will believe that.
To understand where most of Africa’s problems emanate from, one needs to firstly read Walter Rodney in his classic book, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Amongst other key observations, Rodney writes: “When Cecil Rhodes sent in his agents to rob and steal in Zimbabwe, they and other Europeans marvelled at the surviving ruins of the Zimbabwe culture, and automatically assumed that it had been built by white people.”
Rodney argues that: “Even today, there is still a tendency to consider the achievements with a sense of wonder rather than with the calm acceptance that it was a perfectly logical outgrowth of human social development within Africa, as part of the universal process by which man’s labour opened up new horizons.”
To fully understand the approach of the Western governments (particularly the US and Britain) in Zimbabwe, it is important to observe how they deal with other governments accused of offences similar or worse than those seen under Mugabe’s leadership in Zimbabwe. Ngcukana mentioned some of these, but a further elaboration is important.
Take, for example, a country such as Sudan. The president, Omar el-Bashir, firstly came to power through a coup, overthrowing a democratically elected government. He has presided over Africa’s biggest humanitarian catastrophe, Dafur.
Again, take, for example, a country such as Nigeria. The president, Umaru Yar’adua, came to power through a controversial election that saw over 200 civilians dead due to election-related violence. The European Union itself said the elections were marred by irregularities and vote rigging.
President Omar Bongo of the west African country, Gabon, has been in power since 1976. After his disputed re-election in 2005, he is even reported to have said that he will run for president again in 2011.
If Britain and the US are so concerned about democracy and good governance in Zimbabwe, we must ask why they are not equally concerned about the same in countries such as Sudan, Nigeria, Chad, Swaziland, etc. We must see the likes of the MDC for what they truly are: “agents of imperialism,” as aptly put by Ngcukana.
Africans said this, the 21st Century, is an African Century. Until we take charge of our own political and economic future by exposing “agents of imperialism”, our hands will remain tied. We’ll have the cake (our abundant material resources) but we will not be able to eat it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
