Dilemmas Of Political Analysis: Zimbabwe And The US-led Western Alliance Lap-dog Support

3 March 2010

By Reason Wafawarova

READERS sometimes attack political writers and commentators for focusing criticism against the activities of certain groups; and for this writer, against the imperial West and those who offer the US-led Western alliance lap-dog support.

Noam Chomsky is attacked for focusing his criticism against the activities of the United States, and not so much against the official enemies of the United States, for example the old Soviet Union, Vietnam or Cuba.

Stephen Gowans is attacked for focusing his criticism against the activities of the US-led Western alliance and not so much on the West’s official enemies like Iran, North Korea or Zimbabwe.

The same criticism is levelled against John Pilger, the Australian journalist and writer.

This writer is accused by some of focusing on criticising the MDC-T, and not so much Zanu-PF, and is also accused of turning a blind eye to the shortcomings of Zanu-PF, be they real or imagined.

Such criticism misses the crucial point when it is made from an honest point of view, but is just intellectual tyranny most of the time, when it is made from a dishonest political position of arguing on behalf of politicised reasoning such as the regime change doctrine; as applied against President Mugabe and Zanu-PF.

For this writer, the crucial point is that the MDC–Western alliance is a threat to the current phase of Zimbabwe’s long walk from the 1896 uprising against imperial rule, all the way to the post-independence era of this revered revolution; our Chimurenga, an era in which we are living right now.

This revolution is Zimbabwean and as such it is a primary occupation of not only this writer, but also all who call themselves Zimbabwean.

The mass-killing actions of the West, as directed against Zimbabwe in the last 10 years, are in the context of our revolution, an act of aggression and truly the attack on Zimbabwe’s revolution is something we can all do something about. That is the first point for someone like me.

This writer focuses on the defence of Zimbabwe’s revolution because he can do something about it.

Secondly, there is always the argument of proportionality. The actions of the United States and its Western allies make up the main component of international violence in the world.

The United States alone has invaded at least 36 countries since World War II and they have overthrown no less than 55 governments across the world in that period. That record of aggression is unbeaten in human history.

For any objective writer, the atrocities of the United States and its allies will always dwarf those of other offenders by proportions that can easily pass for the proverbial pea standing next to the mountain.

MDC-T is a Zimbabwean political party and we can all do something about its behaviour and actions.

This is primarily why this writer will not celebrate the puppetry we have seen from the party since it was hijacked from labour by disgruntled white commercial farmers in 2000.

Zanu-PF is a founding political party to Zimbabwe’s independence. This is precisely why this writer will vehemently denounce any departure by that party from the values and goals set by the departed heroes and heroines of our liberation legacy.

The scourge of power struggles, the deplorable spread of corruption, the shenanigans of sidelining well-meaning cadres in favour of sub-group political goals, and the tradition of personal entitlement to party or state benefits are all ills this writer has criticised in the past and will continue to criticise for as long as they raise their ugly head within the revolutionary party.

Zanu-PF’s Central Committee is an elected decision making body that is accountable to the people and anyone within that structure who may have the view that it is the people who are accountable to the Central Committee does not deserve to last a minute longer in the organ.

Equally, the Politburo is Zanu-PF’s think tank, and as such must be seen to be doing a lot of thinking by formulating public policy and making sure that Zanu-PF does not depart from the laid-down goals of the national revolution left to us by the liberation legacy.

Anyone in the Politburo who has a problem operating in a think tank must retire from politics for their own good and the good of the party, and that of the national revolution we all seek to push ahead.

This kind of criticism is driven by a fundamental moral truism.

The ethical value of one’s actions depends on their anticipated consequences for humanity. This is why Morgan Tsvangirai needed to think about the ethical value of mobilising sanctions against Zimbabwe.

To him and his colleagues this was about disarming Zanu-PF and making Zimbabwe "ungovernable", but the bunch of MDC-T politicians that collaborated with the West on the sanctions and continues to do so even now — never really thought much about the disastrous consequences of their actions, in as far as humanity is concerned.

As a political writer, I have to look at the ethical value of my actions. I must be guided by what those actions mean for Zimbabweans in particular and what they mean for the generality of humanity.

It is very easy for some Zimbabweans and the majority of Westerners to denounce the alleged atrocities by Zanu-PF. Clearly; those denunciations have had no positive effect for the people of Zimbabwe. Polarity and economic strangulation for the people of Zimbabwe has been the only visible achievement.

In terms of their ethical value, these denunciations are about the same as US citizens denouncing the atrocities of the Soviet Union in its occupation of Afghanistan. Such denunciations never helped the Afghanis in any way.

It was like denouncing Napoleon’s atrocities or things that happened in the Middle Ages and during slavery days. Most Westerners really love doing that. They want to denounce South African apartheid, Ian Smith’s atrocities, slavery, colonialism and so on.

They are not too comfortable denouncing the atrocities of their own times, except when such criticism is directed at people like Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Mahmoud Amadinejad of Iran, or the Castros of Cuba.

You go to any discussion forum in the West and guns are blazing against this evil past of slavery, colonisation and even all the way to the Gulf War.

You start raising Iraq, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe and other Western acts of aggression and there is remarkable silence in the room.

Useful and significant actions are ones which have consequences for human beings, and usually those will concern things that one can influence and control — which means for Westerners, the actions of the Western alliance primarily, not those of other states where the West is meddling through its sabre-rattling foreign policy.

For Zimbabweans, we must be primarily occupied with the actions of our own politicians, and not those of foreign politicians we cannot vote into or out of power. This is why puppet politics is such a deplorable phenomenon. This writer would worry very little about the West if the MDC-T disengaged from their treacherous relationship with London and Washington. But we can do something about the MDC-T.

We can write and expose them. We can make Zimbabweans see them for who they are. We can expose how they mobilised economic and other forms of sanctions against Zimbabweans.

We can make people aware that MDC-T is driven by hunger for power so much that they are prepared to cripple everything in order to ascend to power.

The principle we ought to follow is the principle we expect dissidents from our enemies to follow.

Zimbabweans who support Stephen Gowans (and that is the majority of them) have decided that the Canadian writer is a moral person.

I believe he is. Gowans has treated the atrocities of the West against Zimbabwe exactly the way Zimbabweans would want these atrocities treated — inhumane and brutal.

Sakharov was a Soviet scientist who was punished for his criticism of the USSR. He was treated as a moral person by Americans, not because he treated every atrocity as identical.

He had absolutely nothing to say about American atrocities. When he was asked about them he said, "I don’t know about them, I don’t care about them, what I talk about are Soviet atrocities."

Those are the atrocities that he was responsible for, just like the MDC-T atrocities brought about by the sanctions regime are to this writer.

It is very simple. One is responsible for the predictable consequences of one’s own actions, and not for the predictable consequences of somebody else’s actions.

In that regard, Zimbabwean politics is our responsibility and our actions are based on predictable consequences. That is the essence of political writing.

Sakharov was a hero for Americans because he criticised Soviet atrocities and he was dissident to Soviet Commissars because he did not criticise American atrocities.

This writer could be an instant hero tomorrow if he chose to join the bandwagon that demonise Zimbabwe’s international standing on matters related to democracy and human rights.

That would be morally acceptable to Westerners, but not good at all for Zimbabweans. This will be explained later in this piece.

The problem is in supporting a Western foreign policy one can never get to influence or change. That support is tantamount to intellectual abuse because it has no predictable consequences for the writer. It is writing in support of something one can never change.

This writer can change or influence policy in Zimbabwe and because of that it is important that writings so made are focused on Zimbabwe’s struggle for self-determination and economic success.

The last point is that people with power will, whenever possible; exploit any actions which serve their violent ends.

So, when Westerners and other people criticise the atrocities and shortcomings of the West’s official enemies, like Cuba, Afghanistan, Iran, Zimbabwe or Venezuela, it is no secret what the effects of that criticism are going to be.

It is not going to have any effect on the Cuban government, for example, but it certainly will help the torturers in Washington and Miami to keep inflicting their campaign of suffering for Cubans through the illegal embargo on that country.

The same goes for criticism against Zimbabwe. No regime change took place since the West started trying to overthrow Zanu-PF in 2000, but it allowed the torturers at Number 10 Downing Street, London and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington to inflict their ruinous campaign of suffering for the Zimbabwean masses through the illegal economic sanctions that have been in place for almost a decade now.

Most certainly, this is not something any moral person would want to contribute to.

In reality, perfect criticism for Cuba or for Zimbabwe can easily be used by ideologists, propagandists, and politicians from the West to inflict more suffering for Cubans and for Zimbabwean masses.

It will be used as justification for perpetuating the West’s absolutely barbaric stranglehold on countries like Cuba and Zimbabwe.

Honest people must realise that they are responsible for the predictable consequences of their acts.

This is why Zimbabweans who now know too well the script that draws mega-funding for the NGO sector must take an honest look at themselves and ask themselves if it is worth the money to cause suffering for ordinary Zimbabweans, by way of fabricating falsehoods that read like good politics for Westerners.

It is very hard for a political writer to make decisions in such polarised times as what prevails today in Zimbabwe, but these are the dilemmas that human beings have to face in life.

EsinIslam.Com