Thursday, 10 July 2008

Morgan Tsvangirai spat at AU, Sadc

Morgan spat at AU, Sadc

By Tafataona P. Mahoso

MORGAN Tsvangirai may be too uneducated to know the difference between treason and democracy or the difference between courage and suicide, but the people of Zimbabwe expect those around Tsvangirai who claim to be Zimbabwean first to know the difference and to tell him the difference.

Cde Ashton Muzunga spoke for the masses of Zimbabwe when he said on ZTV on July 8, 2008 that MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai spat in the face of Africa and Sadc when he boycotted a meeting called by South African President Thabo Mbeki and attended by President Mugabe. This interpretation is particularly true and bitter especially because, as President Mbeki mentioned several times, it was MDC-T leader Tsvangirai himself who had in the past appealed four times to President Mbeki to help set up a meeting such as the one he now snubbed.

But the boycott is only one symptom of a much bigger problem which those around Tsvangirai must face immediately or face total isolation and condemnation by the very same people of Zimbabwe in whose name MDC-T has made too many reckless and evil decisions. The problem is Tsvangirai’s megalomania driven by a massive sense of inferiority especially in the shadow of apparent white power. Tsvangirai begged an African president four times to convene a meeting between his party and President Mugabe. But as soon as David Milliband (for the UK) and James McGee (for the US) and Bernard Kouchner (for the European Union) told him that they were determined to take the matter out of the hands of Sadc, out of the hands of the African Union, Tsvangirai felt much bigger than President Mbeki, much bigger than President Mugabe, and much bigger than all of Africa. The matter would now go to the G8 summit in Japan for onward transmission to the United Nations Security Council, which would then open a window through which the Anglo-Saxon axis would burglarise Zimbabwe in the name of the United Nations as well as install MDC-T in power during the burglary. And Tsvangirai and his few colleagues believe the people of Zimbabwe would cheer such white burglary all the way to State House!

The same whites told Tsvangirai to invite the Anglo-Saxon axis to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe under the guise of "travel bans". In the white man’s vengeful fantasies against African liberation, any economic devastation happening in an African country would always be blamed on African corruption and mismanagement and the poor natives would never be able to see the white man’s hand in the devastation. Tsvangirai bought the idea and went on a global rampage calling upon the entire universe to cut off credit, cut off trade, cut off electricity, cut off oil supplies, cut off everything except the sun and air. But the people, as demonstrated on June 27, 2008, have rejected that explanation and strategy by 80 percent!

It never occurred to Tsvangirai that the African liberation movement in the form of Zanu-PF would one day be able to convince the majority of the people where the causes of the economic ruin prevailing in Zimbabwe came from. It still does not dawn on Tsvangirai and his Anglo-Saxon sponsors that March 29 2008 and June 27 2008 are now like a century apart. The key difference is that by June 27 2008, the majority of Zimbabweans could now see the real evil posed by the UK, the US and the EU through MDC-T. The trade war and financial war waged by MDC-T’s sponsors in the run-up to June 27 2008 was too vicious, too barbaric and too extreme to be blamed as usual on mismanagement and corruption. And the people could read the situation beyond the MDC-T and Anglo-Saxon propaganda. What remains now is for all indigenous business men and women also to wake up to the same reality: that economic sanctions are to an economy what poison is to a river or dam. The kind of talk we have heard in the last eight years from the Confederation of Zimbabwe Industries and the Zimbabwe National Chamber of Commerce has been like a debate involving catfish, bream, sardines and turtles as to who is likely to die first from the poison in the water and who might be immune.

Yet the clear, moral and sane position to start from should have been that we have done nothing to deserve even a millilitre of this white Anglo-Saxon poison in our Dzimbahwe. So all the talk about whether the sanctions are selective, targeted, economic, political or punitive is a demonstration of the political illiteracy which MDC-T has introduced into our national affairs since 1999. There is no separate Zimbabwe which must die from the economic war while yet another separate Zimbabwe wines and dines in the Dutch Embassy. What is in the Dutch Embassy is an individual sell-out who believes treason is democracy but he is not Dzimbahwe.

What is more, Tsvangirai’s reckless boycott of the meeting convened by President Mbeki, together with his lies to the G8 which will now be amplified for the UN Security Council, should be treated here on the ground in Zimbabwe with the contempt and outrage they deserve. Imperialism’s abuse of the G8 and the UN is lethal, so lethal that the UN country headquarters in Iraq were bombed together with the offices of the US-UK invaders. The Iraqis have been unable to tell the difference between an evil occupying force and a local office of the UN. This happened under the secretary generalship of brother Kofi Annan. It is likely to get worse. Imperialism’s abuse of the UN is so lethal that in Cote d’Ivoire’s capital Abidjan, as well as in divided Lebanon, the people attacked the local UN offices because they were outraged by the failure of the UN Secretary General to even try to disguise the gross abuse of his office by the US, EU and Nato. What MDC-T is asking its Anglo-Saxon handlers to do to Zimbabwe through the G8 and the UN Security Council has been done already in Haiti since the overthrow of the popularly elected President Jean-Betrand Aristide. Right now, Haiti is under a US-installed puppet regime as well as a so-called UN peacekeeping force.

To MDC-T, Haiti should represent the most ideal existence: a US-imposed political regime blessed by the UN Security Council, combined with a so-called UN peacekeeping force, again blessed by the UN Security Council while, in fact, representing US occupation. There is a food war on the streets of Haiti because US aid has completely wiped out Haiti’s agriculture. US rice imports now make it almost impossible for any remaining Haitian farmers to grow rice and other grains. Unemployment has reached catastrophic levels and 350 persons who seem to be doing well are kidnapped for ransom every month. Both the puppet government and the so-called UN peacekeepers feel helpless to stop the kidnap business or the food war on the streets. And the country is less than 150 miles away from the US!

Now, the so-called "humanitarian" assistance which the US and its allies always use as an excuse for intervening in the internal affairs of other nations has not improved the lot of the people of Haiti. It has made their situation worse. Yet this is a country which has been under continuous US domination since 1915! The US has literally done what it wants in Haiti since 1915. How come Haiti remains the "poorest country in the western hemisphere"?

Since MDC-T leaders are always begging for US and so-called UN intervention, perhaps they should migrate to Haiti and enjoy real conditions of internal US-UN governance there.

What MDC-T is demanding to be done by Britain, the US and EU through the abuse of the UN has already been attempted before. In The Sunday Mail of January 22 2006, I warned of this problem using the example of Cote d’Ivoire. It is necessary to quote the warning at length because there is a massive effort to neutralise Sadc and the spirit of the Frontline States by extending to this region the white racist strategies already used in West Africa, with the UN and the same West African leaders as mere tools of the US, UK and EU. It says:

Zimbabwean patriots have come to appreciate more deeply the need to overhaul the UN after the shocking behaviour of the so-called UN special envoys Anna Kajumulo Tibaijuka and Jan Egeland during and after the two envoys’ separate visits to this country in 2005. The same UN is embroiled in a much worse controversy, this time in Côte d’Ivoire, which reminds followers of so-called UN peace-keeping missions of what happened in Baghdad in August 2003, when the resistance to the US-UK occupation of Iraq attacked UN Headquarters and killed the UN Secretary-General’s representative and many of his staff.

In the capital of Côte d’Ivoire, Ivorian patriots have surrounded the headquarters of the UN because they are incensed by that organisation’s complicity in the Euro-American agenda to maintain the country as a neo-colony by supporting unconstitutional regime change. The event which has precipitated the blockade of the UN headquarters in Abidjan is the decision of the white powers to use the UN to terminate Côte d’Ivoire’s parliament and open the way for the imposition of an armed opposition leadership. The battle cry is "national sovereignty" and the UN is being accused of dictatorially suspending a national sovereign institution, the parliament of Côte d’Ivoire, in the interest of white imperialist powers and the armed insurgency which is favoured by France and the US.

This stand-off raises grave questions which our media have tended to ignore for a long time.

First, we were told for a long time that the Economic Community of West African States, which is led by Nigeria, was responsible for overseeing the African or Pan-African agenda in all of West Africa. The same Nigeria is currently (2006) chairing the AU. On the surface, therefore, it should be easy to integrate the West African agenda with the AU agenda to bring about a Pan-African solution to the Ivorian impasse. But that is not what is happening.

Then, in the last two years, we were told that President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa had become the key mediator in Côte d’Ivoire. This was confusing because it was not clear who had asked President Mbeki to mediate and what relationship he had with Ecowas and with the Euro-American interests who want a foreign-sponsored regime change in Côte d’Ivoire. What appeared in the media was a racist campaign to provoke jealousy and conflict through the media between Nigerian President Olusegan Obasanjo and South African President Thabo Mbeki, raising questions about the authority and seriousness of the AU as a Pan-African body guided by Pan-Africanist principles.

Now we have so-called UN-appointed mediators whom the Ivorians accuse of pushing the Euro-American agenda by strengthening the armed rebels in the North while even daring to suspend a parliament! What is the AU position? The so-called UN mediators are no longer viewed as mediators. They are viewed as partisan provocateurs who have reduced the government to the same status as the rebels. The likely scenario to come out of this external intervention is that the rebels may continue to receive weapons while the government is deprived of weapons because of the arms embargo imposed on it. In fact, the French airforce has already helped the rebels by destroying the Ivorian airforce.

African leaders cannot say they were not warned about Euro-American plans to use the UN to recolonise Africa for its resources. While violence in Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan has compelled Europe and the US to upgrade the strategic value of African energy resources, the targeting of Africa for decolonisation happened before the current Middle East crisis.

In 1993 The Herald (December 30) published a leader page article called "Open Western Plans for the Recolonisation of Africa", written by Karrim Essack. Essack said both white liberals and white conservatives in the West agreed on their need to make a moral, political and economic case for recolonisation of the world without using that term. That is what we are witnessing in West Africa and Southern Africa. Among the media used to promote the bid for recolonisation were The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Spectator, and Foreign Affairs. Among the most open and racist advocates of recolonisation was one Paul Johnson, who, like US Senator Jesse Helms, realised the recolonisation of the world needed to start with the colonisation of the United Nations itself. On January 20 2000, Jesse Helms announced the plan as a scheme to reform the UN. Paul Johnson said:

"I foresee the UN Security Council using its advanced powers moving into the business of government (as opposed to mere intervention) taking countries into trusteeship for various periods and becoming itself an architect of honest and efficient administration. It will restore the good name of colonialism it once enjoyed." So, according to Johnson, white reactionaries have adopted the UN as an instrument for the rehabilitation of white supremacy. And Morgan Tsvangirai has already mortgaged his faction to do the footwork. That is why French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said the EU will not recognise any government in Zimbabwe unless it is headed by Tsvangirai. Tsvangirai has to commit treason against his own people in order to earn legitimacy in the eyes of a white racist world. That is the new meaning of "democracy". But that white racist world cannot expect the Africans to sit back and say: "Yes, baas, thank you, bass, for nominating a stooge to lead us, baas!"

No comments: