Hi!
    Thanks guys. I'm glad you find the forwards useful. Have a good 
day.
                                                                                                         
Buharry.

----Original Message----
From: [log in to unmask]
Date: Jun 12, 2007 12:06:56 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subj: Re: Zimbabwe and the Politics of Demons and Angels

Buharry,

Thanks again this and other gems that you continue to treat us to. 
Much
appreciated!

Just the title itself is very apt and and captures the whole essence 
of all
what we have seen recently; Demons and Angels indeed except that the 
Demons
are playing Angels.

Gowan's incisive and on the spot analysis gives him an almost psychic 
aura.
Did he foresee the exchange on the L taking the turn it seems to be 
taking?
One wonders but then a beautiful mind like his does not need to be 
present
in order to see.

The sudden jump on rooftops with smooth sounds of self-exultation 
verses and
dances of 'jai becho' and 'wonneh bin-bin' that we've seen is but a 
new
added dimension to his powerful 'Politics of Demons and Angels'.

But we, as always, are ready to deal with any falsehoods by 
imperialist
pimps, even those clad in transvestite garb with which their 
originators try
to mask them. Respect in, respect out, disrespect in, same out.

Regards,

Kabir.




On 6/11/07, Momodou Buharry Gassama <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Zimbabwe and the Politics of Demons and Angels
>
> By Stephen Gowans
>
> Soon after I wrote an article titled ?Mugabe gets the Milosevic
> Treatment,? posted at Counterpunch.org, I received an e-mail from a
> representative of SW Radio Africa, who said I should visit Zimbabwe
> before writing articles about the country. This was followed by a
> Patrick Bond reply to my article in Counterpunch, invoking the same
> argument, though in an indirect way. Gowans? views are nonsense, 
Bond
> fumed, at least, as he saw them, sitting across the Limpopo river,
> where, he said, he had managed to establish a pretty good handle on
> what was going in Zimbabwe.
>
> Had I been writing a travelogue both of my critics would have made a
> good point, but inasmuch as I was writing about Washington and 
London
> having dragooned civil society ? and in some cases, having created 
it
> from the ground up ? for the purpose of ousting the government of
> Robert Mugabe, their criticism was wide of the mark. You don?t have 
to
> travel to Zimbabwe to figure out that Mugabe is getting the 
Milosevic
> treatment.
>
> Even Bond, in his characteristically haughty way, acknowledged the 
US
> intrigues in Zimbabwe with a dismissive ?tell us something we don?t
> already know.?
>
> For the record, the British newspaper The Guardian revealed as early
> as August 22, 2002 that, ?The United States government has said it
> wants to see President Robert Mugabe removed from power and that it 
is
> working with the Zimbabwean opposition? ?trade unions, pro-democracy
> groups and human rights organizations? ?to bring about a change of
> administration.?
>
> Washington confirmed its own civil society-assisted regime change
> plans for Zimbabwe in an April 5, 2007 report, revealing that in 
2006
> ?The U.S. government continued to support the efforts of the 
political
> opposition, the media and civil society,? including providing 
training
> and assistance to the kind of grassroots ?pro-democracy? groups the 
US
> had used to bring down the government of Slobodan Milosevic, and 
that
> Bond had celebrated in his Counterpunch article as ?the independent
> left.?
>
> There are three key reasons why the US is trying to oust the Zanu-PF
> government:
>
> (1) The Zanu-PF government has expropriated land from white 
commercial
> farmers for redistribution to the rural poor.
>
> (2) It has pursued economically nationalist policies at odds with 
IMF
> demands.
>
> (3) It has been a rallying point for anti-imperialist sentiment in
> southern Africa.
>
> SW Radio Africa is a UK-based radio station, funded by the USAID
> Office of Transition Initiatives to broadcast anti-government
> propaganda into Zimbabwe. Violet Gonda, one of the station?s
> interviewers, has been sending me transcripts of her interviews ever
> since my Milosevic Treatment article appeared on the Counterpunch 
site.
> In an April 10 interview with Zimbabwe?s Home Affairs Minister Kembo
> Mohadi, UK-based Gonda was challenged by Mohadi to ?come to Zimbabwe
> and witness this for yourself and don?t be talking about things that
> you don?t know,? turning the argument Gonda?s colleague had made to 
me
> against her. Mohadi was referring to Gonda?s allegations that MDC
> leader Morgan Tsvangirai had been beaten and that MDC supporters had
> been tortured.
>
> Amusing as it was to see the same argument used against SW Radio
> Africa, the ?come to Zimbabwe before you say anything? demand is 
based
> on the startlingly naïve view that someone else?s perspective must
> align with your own if only he visits the same piece of real estate.
> The view of the rural poor in Zimbabwe, or of veterans of the 
guerilla
> war for national liberation, can hardly be expected to be the same 
as
> those of white commercial farmers, even though they live in the same
> country. It is experience, race, which side of colonialism you?ve 
been
> on, and what opportunities imperialist countries offer you, that
> account for why the views of Zimbabwe?s rural poor and of Zanu-PF
> supporters are different from those of comfortable white professors
> ensconced in foundation-supported positions across the Limpopo 
river,
> and of young black Africans from Harare who travel to the US on US
> State Department sponsored trips to study civil disobedience
> techniques.
>
> If my article  resonated with anyone, it  resonated with black
> Africans, members of the African Diaspora and anti-imperialists. 
White
> commercial farmers and anyone linked to the civil society apparatus
> deployed to unseat Mugabe?s government angrily dismissed it. But 
why?
> Why would opponents of Mugabe ? including Bond, who acknowledges 
that
> the US is acting to drive Zanu-PF from power (that is, when he?s not
> arguing the exact opposite) ? take exception to someone drawing
> attention to something that is a matter of public record?
>
> The reason, I think, has everything to do what different groups of
> people value more: the thwarting of imperialist designs (and the 
land
> reform, redress of colonial injustices, and national sovereignty 
that
> are thereby given space to come to fruition), or ousting Mugabe. If 
you
> want Mugabe to go, you?ll oppose anything that reveals efforts to
> unseat him as being illegitimate. It won?t be enough to say, ?Yes, 
you?
> re right, Washington and London are engaged in intrigues to topple 
the
> Mugabe government, but all the same I dislike him and his program 
and
> here?s why.? Instead, you?ll fulminate, ?This is nonsense!?
>
> You?ll probably also practice the politics of demons and angels ? 
the
> division of the world into two camps: bad guys and good guys, black
> hats and white hats. The objective is to describe leaders, 
governments,
> movements and programs you want to see the end of as demons, and 
those
> who are acting to achieve this end as angels. However, because those
> that lean to the left of the political spectrum are unlikely to 
regard
> imperialist governments as angels (although this is far from being
> invariably true) civil society groups are recruited as proxies. They
> appear to be independent, to do good works, and they have a ?
socialism
> from below? feel that resonates with the Western left. Patrick Bond,
> who directs a center for civil society, is a master of invoking the
> kind of rhetoric about social movements being an ?independent left?
> operating in spaces between neo-liberal Third World governments and 
neo-
> liberal First World governments that appeals to the Z-Net 
congregation.
>
> The politics of demons and angels is terribly unsophisticated. That
> should be enough to keep 100 paces away from it. But it should also 
be
> eschewed for an even more compelling reason: because it?s used to 
build
> support for imperialist interventions in other countries ?
> interventions that have nothing whatever to do with promoting human
> rights, building democracy, and keeping the peace, and everything to 
do
> with opening up space for the intervening countries? corporations,
> banks and investors to make a profit.
>
> Yugoslavia was transformed by Western intervention from a country 
with
> a large socially and publicly owned sector, whose government balked 
at
> IMF reforms, into a neo-liberal workshop of growing economic 
insecurity
> and domination by Western capital. Iraq, brutalized by sanctions,
> terrorized by war, and humiliated by occupation, may in time yield 
its
> prize of a bonanza of oil profits to British and US oil firms. These
> prizes could not have been won without campaigns of vilification to
> manufacture consent for intervention. The bases for these 
interventions
> ? that Milosevic was orchestrating a genocide in Kosovo and that 
Saddam
> Hussein was hiding banned weapons ? were lies.
>
> In the real world there are three kinds of views on the struggle in
> Zimbabwe: those that demonize Mugabe; those that angelize him; and
> those that do neither. In the Manichean world of the politics of 
demons
> and angels there are only two: those that demonize Mugabe and those
> that angelize him. Anyone who expresses a view that neither 
demonizes
> nor angelizes Mugabe is accused, by those who demonize him, of
> angelizing him.
>
> A person who notes, quite accurately, and with the weight of 
evidence
> behind him, that Washington, London and the EU have built and 
enlisted
> civil society in Zimbabwe to oust Mugabe, will be called by those 
who
> demonize him, a pro-Mugger, Mugophile, or practitioner of the basest
> enemy of my enemy is my friend politics. And yet there is no
> justification for making these accusations. Repeating what has been
> said over and over by the US State Department and in newspaper 
reports
> about US and British intrigues in Zimbabwe is hardly the same as 
saying
> Mugabe is my friend, Mugabe is my hero, or Mugabe is a great guy, 
let?s
> organize a celebration in his honor.
>
> When demonizers of Mugabe accuse those who point out that what
> Washington and London admit to openly, as being Mugabe-angelizers, 
we
> have to ask why? Is it because their Manichean worldview allows them 
to
> see the world in no other way (if you don?t call him a demon you 
must
> think he?s an angel, because there are only angels and demons in my
> world), or is it because they?re so embittered toward Mugabe that 
they
> don?t care who gets rid of him or how or what follows him, just so 
long
> as he goes, and therefore anyone who would regard him as something
> other than a demon must be stopped from doing so in case he 
persuades
> other people?
>
> To be sure, these are not mutually exclusive alternatives. Both may 
be
> true. But what?s significant is that both mesh nicely with the 
openly
> admitted plans of Washington and London to oust Mugabe?s government. 
If
> Mugabe is universally understood to be a demon, we can hardly 
marshal
> the energy to stop plans to oust him. Why bother? You?ll only soil
> yourself by association. And who wants to back a demon?
>
> The claim made by Z Magazine?s Michael Albert, that human psychology
> isn?t this simple ? that people recognize that a foreign leader?s 
being
> a demon doesn?t justify an intervention to remove him ? reveals 
Albert
> to be either disingenuous or the last person on earth you would want 
to
> invite into an advertising firm as a human relations expert. You don?
t
> have to talk to too many people, including readers of Z Magazine
> (especially readers of Z Magazine?) to hear it said: ?Oh sure, maybe
> the bombing of Yugoslavia, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the war 
on
> Iraq, were done for the wrong reasons, but all the same, they served
> the useful function of ridding the world of monsters.?
>
> Given a zeitgeist that favors a never-ending series of demons for
> people to vent their moral outrage on, it comes as no shock to find
> professed anti-imperialists combing their archives to dredge up
> whatever dirt they can find on Mugabe. One found an article that
> exposes Mugabe as a homophobe. But what have Mugabe?s views on
> homosexuals to do with the struggles in Zimbabwe that connect the 
rural
> poor, white commercial farmers, Zanu-PF, civil society, and the
> imperialist machinations of the US and the UK?
>
> The answer, of course, is nothing. But there is a political function
> and also a psychological function to be served in good old-fashioned
> dirt-slinging. Politically, the object is to personify a movement to
> discredit it by drawing attention to the revolting features of the
> person the movement has been equated to. There?s a Pavlovian 
character
> to this. The pairing of the bell with food, eventually leads to the
> bell alone calling forth the dogs? salivation. Likewise, the pairing 
of
> the person with the movement, or class, or nation, eventually leads 
to
> the negative features of the person being transferred to what he has
> been equated to. Were one to dredge up articles on Castro and Che 
being
> homophobes, Cuba-supporters would immediately recognize the 
political
> nature of the act. They don?t, however, seem to recognize the 
political
> nature of the act of visibly parading one individual?s failings 
about,
> under the guise of a making a significant contribution to 
understanding
> the struggle in Zimbabwe ? or do, but go about doing it anyway 
because
> their commitment to anti-imperialism is fair-weather (strong when 
there?
> s no danger of being demonized by association, absent otherwise.)
>
> The psychological as opposed to political function of dirt-slinging 
is
> to socially affirm oneself as a decent human being by denouncing 
those
> who express indecent values. This is particularly attractive to 
people
> on the far left, who are already mistrusted by the larger community 
for
> holding dangerous and unsettling views. How better to affirm one?s
> place in decent society than by leading the chorus in denouncing 
those
> vilified by conservative forces as leftist and anti-imperialist
> ?monsters.? See, not all of us are monsters. We hate the monsters 
just
> as much as the rest of you do.
>
> Let?s be clear. The very fact that I?m questioning the practice of
> personifying groups of people in order to demonize the individuals
> equated to them will be used to denounce me as a thug-hugger,
> apologist, and lionizer of monsters. In other words, if you?re not 
with
> us in vilifying the latest Satan, you?re against us. The great irony 
is
> that people who rail against those who refuse to participate in
> campaigns of vilifying those calumniated as left and anti-
imperialist
> ?monsters? accuse people like me, of practicing a with-us-or-against-
us
> politics of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
>
> ?Unhappy is the land that needs heroes,? remarked Brecht. He might
> have added, unhappy is the land that needs demons (but then, the 
land
> that needs heroes, must, per force, need demons as their heroes?
> antithesis.) The movie The Motorcycle Diaries, about Che Guevera?s 
trip
> through South America with his friend Alberto Granado in the early 
50s,
> has been justly criticized for angelizing the Argentine 
revolutionary.
> When those enchanted with Che the angel discover Che the human 
being, a
> man with warts ? though, as is true of all larger-than-life figures,
> uglier than those of the rest of us ? they become disillusioned,
> embittered and, if strongly committed to a Manichean view of the 
world,
> swing radically to the other pole, denouncing their fallen angel as
> Satan incarnate, rather than recognizing him as a human being.
>
> The best that can be said about discussions of Zimbabwe, or north
> Korea, or Sudan, or Iran that reduce to a set of accusations about 
the
> demonic character of some leader is that they?re superficial and
> frivolous. What can also be said is that they?re products of
> manipulation by forces seeking to manufacture consent for 
interventions
> in other countries ? interventions that have nothing to do with 
human
> rights and democracy and have everything to do with securing 
advantages
> for the intervening countries? corporations, banks and investors. 
When
> we dissociate ourselves from ?unsavory? regimes ? and there?s not 
one
> government, Western or otherwise, free from unsavory features that
> would not allow any of them to be demonized ? we isolate really-
> existing projects for national and class emancipation and thereby
> undermine the potential for the success of progressive struggles in 
the
> real world. It?s true that in behaving in this way we can avoid
> demonization by association and thereby splatter-proof our own 
vision ?
> a strategy that may serve the purpose of making our vision more
> saleable to a skeptical public ? but it cannot be safeguarded from
> vilification forever. The moment it too becomes a threat, it will be
> vilified as vigorously as all real-world threats to imperialism are.
> The idea that you can escape being vilified by those you oppose is 
true
> only so long as you don?t oppose them in any kind of serious or
> effective way. Utopian visions ? and those whose left politics 
amount
> to nothing more than pious expressions of benevolence and goodwill 
to
> men ? are no threat.
>
> What?s more, the view that the success of the independent (which is 
to
> say, the US government and ruling class foundation supported) left 
in
> Zimbabwe in toppling the Zanu-PF government is something to be 
wished
> for, is naïve or (given the foundation-connections of those who 
express
> this view) disingenuous. A successful civil society-executed regime
> change operation will not produce a decentralized, participatory
> democracy committed to egalitarianism, but a neo-colonial regime 
headed
> by an Anglo-American puppet which will immediately handcuff land 
reform
> and abrogate every policy at odds with neo-liberalism and ownership 
of
> Zimbabwe?s assets by US and British capital.
>
> The models are Poland and Yugoslavia (among others.) There, trade
> unions and civil society also managed to enchant the Western left 
while
> bringing down governments that were the only serious obstacle to the
> installation of comprador regimes ? regimes whose agenda was one of
> shutting down shipyards, selling off socially and publicly owned
> enterprises, and ushering in an era of growing inequality and
> subservience to Western capital. You don?t hear much about these 
places
> anymore. You should. They?re what Zimbabwe will become if civil 
society
> topples another anti-imperialist government.
>
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
> To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the 
Gambia-L
> Web interface
> at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
>
> To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to:
> http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
> To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
> [log in to unmask]
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
>

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the 
Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.
org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤