Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 29 July 2008
In his preface to Franz Fanon’s book, The Wretched of the Earth, Jean Paul-Sartre says, amongst other critical things, that, during the colonial period the colonial powers were satisfied to keep some feudal rulers in their pay in an attempt to divide-and-rule African communities.
“There, dividing and ruling [the colonisers have] created a native bourgeoisie, sham from beginning to end; elsewhere [the colonisers have] played a double game: the colony is planted with settlers and exploited at the same time. Thus Europe has multiplied divisions and opposing groups, has fashioned classes and sometimes even racial prejudices, and has endeavoured by every means to bring about and intensify the stratification of colonized societies,” writes Paul-Sartre.
First published in 1961, Fanon’s book makes so much relevance today it could have been published for the first time this year. Reading the book whilst comparing Fanon’s views against what is happening in Zimbabwe at the moment would raise your emotions (if you are a genuine and patriotic African).
Various national and international media have carried stories today indicating that the negotiations between various Zimbabwean political players have stalled.
Details of the reported stalemate are not available due to the media’s lack of access to the talks, but unnamed sources are quoted as saying that the talks have stalled due to Zanu-PF’s insistence that Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) leader Morgan Tsvangirai should be given an inferior position (such as second vice-president) in a transitional government.
The stalemate, if there really is a stalemate, is regrettable. However, regretting alone will not help. The parties must be encouraged by all, including the mediator/facilitator, President Thabo Mbeki, and international institutions such as the United Nations.
The Zimbabwean leaders taking part in the talks should avoid outside interference, especially from British and the United States diplomats and politicians.
The interests of these so-called Western powers is to ensure that the talks collapse so that they can get their man (President Robert Mugabe) out of office in a manner so dramatic that it will scare off other African leaders from attempting to grab land from white farmers.
The US and Britain seems to be hoping that the talks would collapse completely so that the further sanctions they are imposing on Mugabe and “his cronies” will ultimately pit the hungry Zimbabwean citizenry against Mugabe’s government in a street revolution.
The revolution would then necessitate the involvement of the undemocratic UN Security Council in ensuring that the Western powers send in troops to oust Mugabe, thus sending a clear message to other African leaders: that you are damned if you try to threaten the unfair economic dominance of the African community by people historically and emotionally aligned to the West.
Fanon was right is 1961 regarding the destructive role that Africa’s former colonial master were playing across the continent; and he is still right today about the same powerful donour states. Yes, they give us aid, but the value of the aid does not even amount to a quarter of the value of the mineral resources their mega companies get from Africa.
As Africans we have three choices in relation to the current international political and economic system. Firstly, we can oblige and remain permanently beholden to our former colonisers. Secondly, we can resist their interference as individual countries and have the whole of Africa become a present-day Zimbabwe. Thirdly, acting as a united collective, the African continent can break rank with the powerful donor states and become a Cuba.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Western meddling will derail Zim talks
Further sanctions will harden Mugabe's attitude towards the talks and work in favour of his anti-imperialist rhetoric
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 23 July 2008
As Zimbabwean political parties begin talks – hopefully towards a negotiated settlement – it is opportune that we evaluate the likely outcomes of this very crucial process.
President Robert Mugabe’s Zanu-PF and the two factions of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) have put it in writing that they are committed to finding a genuine and lasting solution to the crisis in their country.
Despite the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding that saw the Zimbabwean parties agreeing on a framework for talks, I remain sceptical that the MDC will walk the talk and show real commitment to finding a solution.
The biggest obstacle to the talks is external meddling from so-called Western powers, led by Britain and the United States. Both countries have stated upfront that they will not recognise any leader except Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the bigger faction of the MDC.
When coupled with the MDC-Tsvangirai’s submissiveness, British and American interference in the Zimbabwean political negotiations is likely to derail any progress, thus threatening to lead to the collapse of the talks.
After having failed to push for sanctions against Zimbabwe through the United Nations (UN) Security Council, the US and the European Union are considering imposing further “targeted” sanctions against Mugabe and his allies.
Although punitive in nature, the sanctions will not deliver a lasting solution to the political and economic problems besieging Zimbabwe. In the contrary, the sanctions will work in favour of Mugabe’s anti-imperialist rhetoric.
The arrogance of the US and its allies is best described by comments attributed to the White House spokesman, Sean McCormack, who is said to have described China and Russia (both opposed to sanctions against Zimbabwe) as being “on the wrong side of history.”
The African Union (AU) must send a clear message to the US and the EU: that their interference in the political process in Zimbabwe will achieve nothing more than hardening Mugabe’s attitude towards the talks, thus making him unwilling to make significant compromises.
The AU must also make it clear to the Western powers that it is not for them (the Western powers) to choose who must lead a transitional government in Zimbabwe. It is up to the parties involved in the negotiations to decide on an appropriate model of a transitional government and delegate an appropriate leadership collective.
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 23 July 2008
As Zimbabwean political parties begin talks – hopefully towards a negotiated settlement – it is opportune that we evaluate the likely outcomes of this very crucial process.
President Robert Mugabe’s Zanu-PF and the two factions of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) have put it in writing that they are committed to finding a genuine and lasting solution to the crisis in their country.
Despite the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding that saw the Zimbabwean parties agreeing on a framework for talks, I remain sceptical that the MDC will walk the talk and show real commitment to finding a solution.
The biggest obstacle to the talks is external meddling from so-called Western powers, led by Britain and the United States. Both countries have stated upfront that they will not recognise any leader except Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the bigger faction of the MDC.
When coupled with the MDC-Tsvangirai’s submissiveness, British and American interference in the Zimbabwean political negotiations is likely to derail any progress, thus threatening to lead to the collapse of the talks.
After having failed to push for sanctions against Zimbabwe through the United Nations (UN) Security Council, the US and the European Union are considering imposing further “targeted” sanctions against Mugabe and his allies.
Although punitive in nature, the sanctions will not deliver a lasting solution to the political and economic problems besieging Zimbabwe. In the contrary, the sanctions will work in favour of Mugabe’s anti-imperialist rhetoric.
The arrogance of the US and its allies is best described by comments attributed to the White House spokesman, Sean McCormack, who is said to have described China and Russia (both opposed to sanctions against Zimbabwe) as being “on the wrong side of history.”
The African Union (AU) must send a clear message to the US and the EU: that their interference in the political process in Zimbabwe will achieve nothing more than hardening Mugabe’s attitude towards the talks, thus making him unwilling to make significant compromises.
The AU must also make it clear to the Western powers that it is not for them (the Western powers) to choose who must lead a transitional government in Zimbabwe. It is up to the parties involved in the negotiations to decide on an appropriate model of a transitional government and delegate an appropriate leadership collective.
- See responses to this article on the following link on News24 website:
- http://www.news24.com/News24/MyNews24/Your_story/0,,2-2127-2128_2363106,00.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
