The Battle over Zimbabwe?s Future


by Gregory Elich
 
Global Research, April 13, 2007 
 


 Email this article to a friend
 Print this article 


      Amid heightened tension, an all pervading crisis is afflicting 
Zimbabwe. The economy is close to collapse, the standard of living has 
plummeted, and the political scene is marred by recent violence. To 
hear Western leaders tell it, it is Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe 
who has brought this state of affairs upon his nation through economic 
mismanagement and repression, and what would have been an otherwise 
prosperous country is instead on the edge of ruin. The U.S. and Great 
Britain trade barbs with Zimbabwe, and relations are perhaps at their 
lowest point, with pressure mounting in the U.S. and Great Britain for 
harsher measures. 

      There are many in the West who have joined the chorus denouncing 
the Mugabe government and call for its replacement with a ?democratic 
government.? The hostile reaction against Zimbabwe is not surprising 
when one considers that the flood of news reports is notable for its 
uniformity and lack of context. A single message is repeated in the 
media. The ruling party, the Zimbabwean African National Union ? 
Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF), rules through undemocratic means, we are 
told, while the opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change 
(MDC) enjoys wide support and is kept from power through repression. 
Western leaders seek only to promote democracy and prosperity in the 
region. This is the popular image in the Western press, and few 
question its veracity. How information is formulated, including what 
does not get reported, demonstrates some of the ways perception is 
managed and support for policy objectives is generated. 

      The beating of several MDC members while in police custody 
following their arrest triggered the latest upsurge of condemnation of 
the Zimbabwean government. MDC supporters were arrested merely for 
holding an innocuous prayer meeting, we were told, and the government?s 
resort to violence was unprovoked. 

 The ?prayer meeting? was in fact a demonstration that was part of the 
MDC-led Save Zimbabwe Campaign?s month-long ?defiance? campaign. By 
calling the demonstration a ?prayer meeting,? organizers hoped to get 
around the government?s four-month ban on demonstrations that had been 
instituted after a rally the month before resulted in running battles 
between the police and crowds of MDC supporters. The ?prayer meeting? 
tag was also useful for managing Western perception. (1)

      Troubles began on the morning of March 11 when a handful of 
demonstrators were arrested as they headed to the rally site. At around 
noon, a group of MDC supporters attacked three unarmed police officers. 
One officer managed to escape, but the other two were beaten and 
suffered serious head injuries. 

      During the next hour several more demonstrators were arrested as 
they attempted to enter the rally site, including Arthur Mutambara, 
leader of one faction of the MDC. A while later, MDC gangs at a 
shopping center hurled rocks at a bus, smashing its windows, and then 
attempted set an army vehicle afire. (2)

      Despite a determined effort by the police, more than a thousand 
demonstrators did make it to the rally. When Morgan Tsvangirai, leader 
of a second MDC faction, arrived with his arms raised in the air, the 
crowd responded noisily. According to an MDC supporter, ?the situation 
was getting heated? after police attempted to keep Tsvangirai apart 
from the crowd. ?Tsvangirai and the police were arguing, and we were 
carrying on singing and shouting, louder and louder. In all there were 
only about thirty police and there were more than one thousand ? we 
were too many for them. They could not control what was happening.? 
Police lobbed tear gas canisters to disperse the crowd and Tsvangirai 
and other MDC officials were hustled into two police cars and driven 
away. (3)

      Demonstrators responded by throwing rocks and tear gas canisters 
at the police, while some in the crowd used slingshots to fire metal 
bolts. The crowd advanced, as the police fired 19 warning volleys in 
the air without effect. At this point, one officer aimed his rifle at a 
demonstrator and shot him dead. ?Then everything became worse,? 
recalled an MDC supporter. ?We went on the rampage and we did not even 
fear for our lives. There was a lot of action? as demonstrators ?threw 
punches.? Chased by the crowd, the police ran to their pickup trucks, 
but not all of the officers were lucky enough to escape. ?About six or 
eight of them were left with us,? said the MDC supporter. ?As they ran 
some of them dropped their batons so we picked up their discarded 
sticks and used them to beat? them. ?The police were badly beaten,? 
after which the crowd ?left the police on the side of the road and ran 
away.? (4)

      Meanwhile, MDC supporters elsewhere in Harare overturned a 
commuter omnibus and later stopped a kombi (commuter van). After 
looting the luggage, they doused the vehicle with gasoline and set it 
afire. A number of cars were stoned and one was overturned. (5) 

      Demonstrators who had been taken into custody and were brought 
to police stations in Avondale and Harare Central were treated with 
respect. A different fate awaited those taken to the Machipisa station, 
where detainees were ordered to lay down in the courtyard, whereupon 
they were kicked and beaten with clubs for about an hour. It is not 
entirely clear who administered the beatings, and at least one report 
suggests that it was not police but either a commando group or a pro-
government militia that was responsible. (6) 

      Western governments and media wasted no time in condemning the 
government of Zimbabwe. The beatings were severe, and several 
individuals suffered broken bones. Western critics ignored MDC violence 
and singled out the government for sole blame, making the most of the 
incident?s propaganda value.

      Faced with a barrage of criticism by its Western detractors, 
Zimbabwe badly mishandled the situation. That no attempt was made to 
investigate the beatings only fueled the anti-Zimbabwe campaign and 
handed the opposition a catalyzing issue. The government?s inaction 
contrasted with the period of the run up to the March 2005 
parliamentary election, when President Mugabe declared a policy of 
?zero tolerance? for political violence, during which members of both 
parties were arrested for such acts. 

      It was clear by its behavior that the government of Zimbabwe 
felt threatened, as it had reason to. Years of sanctions and Western 
meddling, coupled with an increasingly truculent opposition, had indeed 
menaced ZANU-PF?s ability to govern the nation. Western intervention 
followed well-established patterns. Soften the target nation with 
sanctions and cripple the economy. Blame the resulting economic 
disaster on government ?economic mismanagement,? in order to build 
support for the opposition. Fund the opposition party and press, as 
well as anti-government NGO?s, to tilt the democratic process in a 
direction favorable to Western interests. If the opposition lacks 
sufficient support to come to power through democratic means, then 
encourage and sponsor ?regime change? through mass action, as in 
Yugoslavia, Georgia and the Ukraine.

      The West began to apply significant pressure on Zimbabwe late in 
2001. In September of that year, the IMF declared Zimbabwe ineligible 
to use its general resources, and three months later President George 
W. Bush signed into law the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery 
Act of 2001. The law directed the U.S. Treasury Department to instruct 
U.S. members of international financial institutions to oppose and vote 
against any extension of any loan, credit or guarantee to Zimbabwe. The 
law also authorized President Bush to directly fund opposition media as 
well as ?democracy and governance programs,? a euphemism for 
organizations opposed to the government. (7)

      Western financial restrictions made it nearly impossible for 
Zimbabwe to engage in normal international trade. External balance of 
payments support was eliminated and nearly all external lines of credit 
were obstructed. ?The current wave of declared and undeclared sanctions 
is negatively affecting the image of the country, thereby distorting 
how financial markets assess the risk profile of Zimbabwe,? pointed out 
Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Governor Gideon Gono. ?As a result, Zimbabwean 
companies are finding it extremely difficult to access offshore lines 
of credit because of the perceived country risk.? Zimbabwean companies 
are therefore compelled to deal ?with their international suppliers 
strictly on a cash up front basis, with very minimal credit terms.? If 
companies are fortunate enough to secure external financing, it is 
generally only at very high interest rates. ?A vicious circle has thus 
evolved since the imposition of sanctions on Zimbabwe. The resultant 
decline in economic activity emanating from the sanctions has given 
rise to rising external payment arrears, and high country risk, which 
in turn, has adverse effects on economic activity.? (8)

      It was not only the U.S that was using its influence to hamper 
Zimbabwe?s economy. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw revealed that 
he was ?building coalitions? against Zimbabwe, and he stated that Great 
Britain would ?oppose any access by Zimbabwe to international financial 
institutions.? (9) British officials threatened to eliminate financial 
assistance to southern African nations unless they imposed sanctions on 
their neighbor. President Benjamin Mkapa complained that African 
Commonwealth members had ?endured a bombardment for an alliance against 
Mugabe.? (10) 

      The World Bank and IMF played an important role in the economic 
sabotage of Zimbabwe?s economy, and sought to dissuade others from 
extending financial credit to Zimbabwe. According to one source in 
Zimbabwe, ?Our contacts in various countries have indicated that these 
institutions are using all sorts of tactics to cow all those who are 
keen to assist Zimbabwe.? (11) 

      For a nation that had to import 100 percent of its oil, 40 
percent of its electricity and most of its spare parts, Zimbabwe was 
highly vulnerable to being cut off from access to foreign exchange. Any 
modern economy must rely on international financial institutions in 
order to transact normal trade. But Western nations had largely 
disrupted Zimbabwe?s ability to do so, and the result was immediate and 
dire. The supply of oil fell sharply, and periodically ran out 
entirely. It became increasingly difficult to muster the foreign 
currency to maintain an adequate level of imported electricity, and the 
nation was frequently beset by black outs. The shortage of oil and 
electricity in turn severely hobbled industrial production, as did the 
inability to import raw materials and spare parts. Business after 
business closed down and the unemployment rate soared above 70 percent. 
Inflation raged, driving incomes in real terms to a point so low that 
people struggled just to survive. (12)

      U.S., British and Western European governments sought to exploit 
the resulting discontent by bankrolling the opposition MDC, supplying 
it with tens of millions of dollars. But passage of a law in Zimbabwe 
making it illegal for political parties to receive funding from abroad 
forced both the MDC and its Western backers to be more circumspect 
about their relationship. The West had reason to feel that it was not 
getting its money?s worth, as the MDC?s electoral performance was 
generally disappointing. Although the party could count on substantial 
support in urban areas, the more populous rural areas stood solidly 
behind the ZANU-PF government. There was little appeal for the rural 
population in the MDC?s program, which called for near total 
privatization of state owned firms and government services and a return 
to neoliberal economic policy. The ZANU-PF government, on the other 
hand, had done away with the land ownership pattern inherited from 
apartheid Rhodesia, with its extreme concentration of land and wealth 
in the hands of a relatively few white commercial farmers. The MDC?s 
adherence to neoliberal principles, on the other hand, posed the 
potential risk of a reversal of the land reform process, in whole or in 
part. 

      Left to its own merits, the MDC would have little prospect of 
coming to power through electoral means in the foreseeable future. The 
option of bringing down the government through non-democratic means 
therefore has considerable appeal for the opposition and Western 
governments. As early as 2000, MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai told a 
rally, ?What we would like to tell Mugabe is please go peacefully. If 
you don?t want to go peacefully, we will remove you violently.? (13) 
The MDC has since that time periodically organized mass actions against 
the government, including one that Tsvangirai dubbed ?the final push.? 

      Tsvangirai had at one point even contacted a Montreal-based 
public relations firm led by a former Israeli intelligence official, 
believing that the company would have contacts with the CIA. Disturbed 
by Tsvangirai?s requests, the firm taped their final two meetings. The 
first tape, in which Tsvangirai was more explicit, proved to be 
inaudible due to nearby construction work, but the public relations 
firm did warn the Zimbabwean government and the second tape was sent as 
evidence. Tsvangirai was more careful with his words at the second of 
the recorded meetings, and it was therefore not entirely clear whether 
he was seeking the assassination of President Mugabe, as the public 
relations firm claimed, or a coup d?etat. Tsvangirai talked of the 
?elimination? of President Mugabe, and worried that the army would take 
over instead of him in the ensuing ?chaos.? Tsvangirai went to trial on 
charges of treason over the case, but was found not guilty. The tapes 
were fairly incriminating but not specific enough, and the charge of 
treason carried the prospect of the death penalty. Furthermore the 
prosecution?s case was not particularly well prepared. Despite all 
that, the most charitable view of the content of the tape was that at a 
minimum Tsvangirai planned to come to power through extra-legal means. 
(14) 

      The opposition eventually split over the issue of whether or not 
to even participate in the electoral process. The MDC was trounced in 
the last election, partly due to the Tsvangirai faction?s decision to 
boycott the process and partly due to lukewarm public support for the 
party. Tsvangirai met with Western officials following the election, 
after which he announced that the way forward for the opposition would 
be ?an era of democratic mass confrontation with the dictatorship - an 
era of non-violent mass resistance.? (15) Power was to be seized 
through ?mass confrontation,? which in reality would be neither 
democratic nor non-violent. Washington and London dreamed of another 
?color revolution,? such as the one that had overthrown the government 
in the Ukraine, and the installation in power of a compliant leader 
eager to take orders.

      On January 9 of this year, both factions of the MDC met with U.
S. Ambassador to Zimbabwe Christopher Dell, who urged them to unite. 
Soon thereafter, the MDC launched its ?defiance campaign,? marked by a 
series of demonstrations and sporadic acts of violence, including the 
knifing of a police officer. By the time of the March 11 ?prayer 
meeting,? the political atmosphere had become highly charged. (16) By 
relentlessly roiling the political waters, the U.S. and Great Britain 
had created an intensely contested political culture in Zimbabwe, and 
it was no secret that the aim was to topple the government. In such 
circumstances, political passions had reached the point where patience 
with the MDC and its efforts to bring down the government had worn 
thin. 

      Encouraged by the unreserved backing it was receiving in the 
West since the beatings at Machipisa station, the MDC stepped up its 
efforts. Arthur Mutambara announced that the MDC was ?in the final 
stages of the final push,? and planned to continue with the defiance 
campaign. ?We are talking about rebellion, war.? (17) This was followed 
by a flurry of violent acts. A police station in Harare was fire 
bombed, causing serious facial injuries to two policewomen. The 
demonstration at the funeral of the slain MDC demonstrator turned 
violent, and MDC supporters battled with police for several hours. A 
passenger train passing through a Harare suburb was fire bombed, 
causing five injuries, and the next day another police station, this 
time in Mutare, was the target of a gasoline bomb. By the end of a 
three-week period, the tenth target was bombed, a business owned by a 
former ZANU-PF member of Parliament. (18) The West?s high dudgeon over 
the issue of violence was nowhere to be seen and the incidents went 
without comment. After two gasoline tankers were bombed, a sweep by 
police nabbed 35 MDC suspects along with more than 50 explosives and 
two dozen detonators. It was said that the explosives were of the same 
type as those used against the passenger train. (19) Western media, 
silent on the wave of bombings, castigated the government of Zimbabwe 
for the arrests, and falsely asserted that Tsvangirai had been arrested 
in the sweep. 

      The Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) called for a 
general strike to be held on April 3-4, and the MDC and its Western 
backers held high hopes that the strike would degenerate into such 
chaos that the nation would become ungovernable. Relations between the 
MDC and ZCTU are closely intertwined, and indeed it was the ZCTU that 
launched the MDC. Tsvangirai was at one time the leader of the trade 
union organization and in its early years, the MDC used the ZCTU?s 
offices and facilities. So cozy is the relationship that it is probable 
that the strike was in fact an MDC initiative. The opposition regarded 
the strike as part of its larger strategic plan. ?You are going to see 
more of these actions coming,? warned MDC spokesman Nelson Chamisa. 
(20) Expectations, however, were to be disappointed when the strike 
fizzled as businesses continued to operate as normal.  

      Internal pressure on the government of Zimbabwe was combined 
with external threats. The U.S. and Great Britain were once again 
urging African nations to pressure Zimbabwe. Australian Foreign 
Minister Alexander Downer said that African nations should impose 
sanctions. Western leaders arrogantly lectured African leaders in a 
demeaning manner, trying to dictate to them how to act, and treated 
them as if they were mere servants to do the West?s bidding. When the 
Southern African Development Community (SADC) met to discuss regional 
matters, the subject of Zimbabwe was high on the agenda. Western 
political leaders and media did not hide their expectation that 
Zimbabwe?s neighbors would choose the occasion to join the Western 
campaign. 

      Instead, the SADC issued a firm rebuff to the West. The 
statement issued by the organization pointed out that ?free and fair 
democratic presidential elections were held in 2002 in Zimbabwe,? and 
the SADC ?reaffirmed its solidarity with the government and people of 
Zimbabwe.? South African President Thabo Mbeki would work to facilitate 
dialogue between the government and the opposition. In a clear message 
to the Western powers, the SADC appealed to Great Britain to ?honor its 
compensation obligations with regard to land reform,? and called for 
?the lifting of all forms of sanctions against Zimbabwe.? (21) Zimbabwe?
s neighbors knew that Western sanctions had inflicted severe harm on 
the economy and had in large part turned the political environment into 
a fight to the death that only encouraged violence. If what was wanted 
was a reduction in violence and political passions, then that could 
best be achieved by removing sanctions and allowing the economy to 
recover.

      U.S. Ambassador to Zimbabwe Christopher Dell spurned the appeal 
a few days later by saying that the U.S. would not lift sanctions 
against Zimbabwe. ?It?s simply not going to happen.? (22) The U.S. and 
Great Britain liked to point to the targeted sanctions against selected 
officials in Zimbabwe, which consisted of restrictions on travel and 
financial transactions abroad, claiming that such sanctions could not 
affect the economy of the entire nation. That claim was disingenuous, 
leaving out as it did the substantial efforts to block Zimbabwe?s 
access to foreign currency and international trade. ?They use the term 
targeted sanctions,? observed Zimbabwean information minister 
Sikhanyiso Ndlovu, ?yet any company that deals with Zimbabwe ? they 
have been threatened; ordered not to deal with Zimbabwe. External 
financial institutions and banks have been told not to deal with 
Zimbabwe?so that the country does not have foreign currency. These 
targeted sanctions are a smoke screen.? (23) 

      Further measures are in the works. In addition to current 
sanctions, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, ?it?s 
really a matter of looking at what else we might do with the 
international community, and part of that effort is to work with states 
in the region to get them to increase the pressure? on Zimbabwe. (24) 
This was confirmed by U.S. State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey 
when he said, ?There?s always other tools in the toolbox, though, and I 
certainly expect we?ll look at those.? (25)

      The Western destabilization campaign coupled interference in the 
internal affairs of Zimbabwe with sanctions. In addition to aid and 
advice to the MDC, funding is provided to media and NGO?s in support of 
the opposition. Due to the illegality under Zimbabwean law of many of 
their actions, the U.S. and Great Britain have generally avoided 
spelling out too many specifics. But the aim is clear, as indicated by 
the U.S. State Department: the strategy is ?to maintain pressure on the 
Mugabe regime? and ?to strengthen democratic forces,? that is, the MDC. 
The campaign against Zimbabwe is international in scope, and ?the 
United States emphasized international cooperation and coordination. U.
S. officials engaged multilaterally and bilaterally to expand 
international support of sanctions against government and ruling 
officials.? The U.S. also sponsors ?public events? inside Zimbabwe, 
which are intended to ?discredit? the government?s claim that sanctions 
are harming the economy, and to shift blame for economic decline onto 
the government. The U.S. provides what it vaguely refers to as 
?support? to the political opposition, and which in fact is quite 
extensive. (26) 

      Training has been provided to some opposition members of 
Parliament, as well as to ?selected democratically oriented 
organizations.? The United States also directly funds ?a number of 
civil society organizations? (NGO?s) and provides them ?with training 
and technical assistance to help them advocate to the parliament on 
issues of national significance.? In other words, so-called civil 
society organizations are being paid and trained to influence 
legislation in an amenable manner for Western interests. Opposition 
media are generously funded in order to ?fortify? their efforts to 
swing public support to the opposition. Nearly a third of a million 
dollars was given to the U.S. Solidarity Center to establish a program 
?to assist trade unions in Zimbabwe to become more accountable and 
responsive to their members.? (27) It would be more accurate to say 
that the intent was to encourage trade unions to become ?more 
accountable and responsive? to Western interests. Affiliated with the 
AFL-CIO, Solidarity Center receives funding from the National Endowment 
for Democracy, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) 
and the U.S. State Department, and it often acts as an extension of U.
S. foreign policy. (28) Among the myriad organizations involved in 
Zimbabwe on behalf of U.S. interests are Freedom House, the National 
Democratic Institute for International Affairs, the National Republican 
Institute, and a host of others.  

      The interventionist liberal-left in the West has jumped on the 
bandwagon of support for Bush and Blair?s campaign to topple the 
government of Zimbabwe. But critics who call for a Western-imposed 
?transition process? in Zimbabwe forget that the nation already has a 
transition process -- an election which is scheduled for next year. No 
amount of imperial posturing can change the fact that it is only the 
people of Zimbabwe that have the right to choose their government -- 
not the U.S. and Great Britain. The Zimbabwean people made their choice 
in the last presidential and parliamentary elections, both of which 
were deemed free and fair by African observers on the ground. 
Predictably, the U.S. and Great Britain, having no election observers, 
condemned the elections from afar as fraudulent even before they took 
place in a blatant attempt to discredit election outcomes that every 
poll had foretold. Western condemnation was prompted by the 
uncomfortable realization that a different outcome could not be 
imposed, no matter how many tens of millions of dollars were pumped 
into the coffers of the opposition.

      If the Western-funded MDC has been incapable of coming up with a 
program that would appeal to a majority of voters, it is because the 
party has preferred to focus its attention on policies that would 
benefit Western corporate interests. For the Western liberal-left to 
call for the U.S. to ?mediate? in a transition process is nothing less 
than a demand for U.S. meddling to initiate a coup to remove the 
legally elected government of Zimbabwe. There is something unseemly in 
the attitude that the U.S. and Great Britain have the right to dictate 
the fate of other nations and to determine who shall hold power, and 
that it is the duty of activists to support imperial domination. 

      If the police in Zimbabwe have acted harshly at times, it is 
because Western interference has created a life or death struggle for 
survival in Zimbabwe. That the U.S. and Great Britain are using every 
means possible to effect regime change and to encourage the opposition 
to bring down the government through mass action can only have resulted 
in a deeply polarized society. The government of Zimbabwe is cognizant 
of previous Western-backed campaigns that successfully removed the 
governments of Yugoslavia, Georgia and the Ukraine and installed 
compliant puppets in their place. Zimbabwe is vigilant against Western 
attempts to incite opposition supporters to bring about a violent 
change of government.

      It is dismaying that so many would call for U.S. and British 
intervention in the affairs of a sovereign nation. It was British 
colonialism that stole the land from the African people and introduced 
the horrors of the apartheid system in Rhodesia. Over the decades of 
colonial rule, the British government expropriated untold billions of 
dollars from the land, labor and resources while depopulating the rich 
farmland regions and herding those expelled from their homes into the 
most barren areas. Is it not ironic that the U.S. and Great Britain 
condemn government violence in Zimbabwe when they have done so much to 
create the circumstances that almost guarantee such an outcome? Is it 
not relevant that the West has fostered myriad acts of violence by the 
opposition? And what could be stranger than for the U.S. and Great 
Britain to act as self-appointed moral authorities on the subject of 
violence and democracy as they crush Iraq and Afghanistan under the 
boot of occupation? Whatever acts of violence may have taken place in 
Zimbabwe pale in comparison to the vast numbers of victims of Western 
firepower in Iraq. If the U.S. and Great Britain are as committed to 
peace, democracy and the rule of law as they claim to be, then let them 
leave Iraq now, without delay. 

      Western liberal-left critics demand more meddling by the U.S. 
and Great Britain in the affairs of Zimbabwe, under the delusion that 
Western-imposed regime change would be a ?democratic?act. It is only 
corporate and elite interests that would be served, for Zimbabwe?s 
crime in the eyes of Washington is that it jettisoned the ruinous 
structural adjustment program several years ago, rejected the 
neoliberal economic model and redistributed land on a more equitable 
basis. It is not lack of democracy in Zimbabwe that worries Western 
elites; it is the fact that democracy has produced a government that 
those in the halls of power in Washington and London wish to remove. 
What the West wants is to overturn democracy in Zimbabwe and impose a 
government of its choosing. Zimbabwe, to its credit, has refused to 
bend to intense pressure and remains committed to the course it has 
charted, in which the economy is geared to the interests of its own 
people, not that of Western corporate interests. 

      ?Zimbabwe is a strategic country for the United States because 
events in Zimbabwe have a significant impact on the entire region,? 
points out USAID. (29) Indeed, President Mugabe says that the struggle 
Zimbabwe has embarked upon is nothing less than Africa?s second 
liberation. The continent, having freed itself from direct colonial 
rule, has yet to free itself of economic domination. In Namibia and 
South Africa, the formal end of apartheid rule has done nothing to undo 
the concentration of land in the hands of the wealthy white few, while 
millions of black peasants remain without land. Throughout Africa, the 
neoliberal economic model has crippled prospects for development. 
Zimbabwe?s example, were it allowed to flourish unhindered, might 
threaten to set an example that would make an indelible continent-wide 
impression. Conversely, the U.S. and Great Britain hope that a defeated 
Zimbabwe would send a signal that resistance to Western economic 
domination is futile. There is much that rides on the outcome of 
Zimbabwe?s struggle against its imperial enemies -- perhaps the fate of 
Africa itself. 

Gregory Elich is the author of Strange Liberators: Militarism, Mayhem, 
and the Pursuit of Profit 
 





NOTES
?More Arrests, Tension Rises,? UN Integrated Regional Information 
Network, March 12, 2007. 
Cesar Zvayi, ?It?s the MDC: See, Hear, Say No Evil,? The Herald 
(Harare), March 15, 2007. ?Man Shot Dead as MDC Thugs Attack Police,? 
The Herald (Harare), March 12, 2007. 
?Eyewitness: Harare?s Brutal Clash,? BBC News, March 13, 2007. 
David Samuriwo, ?Deal Decisively with Security Threat,? The Herald 
(Harare), March 16, 2007. ?Eyewitness: Harare?s Brutal Clash,? BBC 
News, March 13, 2007. 
David Samuriwo, ?Deal Decisively with Security Threat,? The Herald 
(Harare), March 16, 2007. 
Sarah Huddleston and Dumisani Muleya, ?Mugabe?s Henchmen Unleash 
Torture Fury,? Business Day (Johannesburg), March 15, 2007. 
?IMF Declares Zimbabwe Ineligible to Use IMF Resources, IMF Press 
Release, September 25, 2001. ?Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery 
Act of 2001,? Public Law 107-99 ? Dec. 21, 2001. 
Gideon Gono, ?An Analysis of the Socio-Economic Impact of Sanctions 
Against Zimbabwe: Supplement 7 of the Fourth Quarter 2005 Monetary 
Policy Review Statement, January 24, 2006. 
?Stop Talking and Start Acting Against Mugabe, Say Tories,? Daily 
Telegraph (London), March 15, 2002. ?Zimbabwe Steering Towards 
Sanctions,? Afrol News, November 30, 2001. 
Peter O?Connor, ?Zimbabwe Decision Reveals Deep Rift,? Associated 
Press, March 5, 2002. 
?Standoff Against Zimbabwe Taken to Extreme Levels,? The Herald 
(Harare), December 12, 2002. 
For a detailed account of Western sanctions and the effect on the 
economy of Zimbabwe, see: Gregory Elich, Strange Liberators: 
Militarism, Mayhem, and the Pursuit of Profit, Llumina Press, Ft. 
Lauderdale, 2006. 
Grant Ferrett, ?Opposition Warning to Mugabe,? BBC News, September 30, 
2000. 
For a detailed account of the case, see: Gregory Elich, Strange 
Liberators: Militarism, Mayhem, and the Pursuit of Profit, Llumina 
Press, Ft. Lauderdale, 2006. 
Tony Hawkins, ?Mugabe?s Real Election Victory: An Opposition Split 
Down the Middle,? Financial Times (London), November 30, 2005. 
Caesar Zvayi, ?It?s the MDC: See, Hear, Say No Evil,? The Herald 
(Harare), March 15, 2007. 
Jam Raath, ?Mugabe Arms Police as Opposition Prepares ?Final Push? to 
Oust Him,? The Times (London), March 17, 2007. 
?Harare Base Fire-Bombed, Two Cops Suffer Serious Facial Injuries,? 
Real Time Traders, March 15, 2007. ?Slain Activist Buried Away from 
Public View,? Institute for War & Peace Reporting (London), March 21, 
2007. ?Sakubva Police Station Bombed,? The Herald (Harare), March 24, 
2007. ?Zim Train Petrol-Bombed,? News24 (Johannesburg), March 24, 2007. 
?Wholesaler Bombed,? The Herald (Harare), April 2, 2007. 
?Police Nab 35 MDC Activists, Confiscate Arms, Explosives,? The Herald 
(Harare), March 29, 2007. ?Petrol Bomber Arrested,? The Herald 
(Harare), March 28, 2007. ?Seven Petrol Bombers in Court,? The Herald 
(Harare), March 30, 2007. 
Craig Timberg, ?Few Honor Strike in Zimbabwe,? Washington Post, April 
4, 2007. 
?Communique from the 2007 Extra-Ordinary Summit of Heads of State and 
Government Held in Dar es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania 28th to 
29th March 2007,? SADC. 
Ndimyake Mwakalyelye, ?US Ambassador Rebuffs Southern African Call to 
Lift Zimbabwe Sanctions,? Voice of America, April 4, 2007. 
Tendai Maphosa, ?Sanctions May be Key to Political Reform in 
Zimbabwe,? Voice of America, April 5, 2007. 
Daily Press Briefing, Sean McCormack, Spokesman, U.S. Department of 
State, March 30, 2007. 
Stephen Kaufman, ?Additional Sanctions Possible, State Department 
Says,? U.S. Department of State, March 14, 2007. 
?Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: the U.S. Record 2006,? U.S. 
Department of State, April 5, 2007. 
?Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: the U.S. Record 2003-2004,? U.
S. Department of State, May 17, 2004. 
Alexandra Silver, ?Soft Power: Democracy-Promotion and U.S. NGOs,? 
Council on Foreign Relations, May 17, 2006. 
?USAID/Zimbabwe Annual Report, FY 2005,? U.S. Agency for International 
Development, July 16, 2005. 

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
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]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤