Thanx for sharing Kabir. I associate myself wholly with Tajudeen's notes.  It 
is perhaps time begin deliberating on the life of Zimbabwe in earnest. As I  
have intimated several years ago, that should begin by burning the Lancaster  
agreement at the square in Bulawayo in the presence of ZANU-PF and the  
opposition parties of Zimbabwe, and adoption of a resolution that it is buried  for 
good. A mutually acceptable Zimbabwe Land Reform Authority ought to be  
negotiated and adopted to be implemented after the SADC facilitated  elections in 
'08.
 
What the west has enabled, albeit insiduous, is the outpouring of sympathy  
for Mugabe, which in turn emboldened him to yield to considerations that may  
have been elusive for him prior. It is evident therefore, that the people of  
Zimbabwe, be they opposition or independent citizens, are not the enemies of  
Mugabe. And the true enemies of Mugabe, real or perceived, have enabled his 
core  wisdom to come to the fore. Such is the effect of the sublime.
 
I encourage all well-wishers of Zimbabwe to bear responsibly on Mugabe and  
the opposition, and strengthen the hand of SADC.
 
Haroun Masoud. MQDT. Darbo.
 
In a message dated 9/27/2007 3:27:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
[log in to unmask] writes:

Pan-African Postcard Brown is wrong on Zimbabwe - but that does not  make
Mugabe  right

http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/panafrican/43515
Tajudeen  Abdul Raheem (2007-09-27)

Tajudeen Abdul Raheem argues that Western  posturing against Zimbabwe,
particularly in the case of the British, stokes  the cause of the Mugabe
apologists. Instead, he argues, solidarity should  be with the ordinary
people of Zimbabwe, who should not be distracted from  demanding their
government be held accountable to them.


There  are very few African political activists who have been publicly
consistent  in their criticisms of
President Mugabe and ZANU-PF of Zimbabwe. I am one  of them. But we are not
very many. That is not because Africans do not care  about what is happening
in Zimbabwe; but because the external dimension:  regime-change agenda
induced from UK and US, and internal racial dynamics  of the struggle have
both combined to work in Mugabe's favour.

My  position is made more difficult by the fact that I was until early  last
year Secretary-General of the Pan African Movement. Mugabe is indeed  one of
the most respected and admired leaders in the Pan African Movement,  so how
can I be criticising one of our icons?

Readers who routinely  sent me text or email messages: 'well said'; 'aluta
continua comrade';  'give it to them man', etc, have been outraged by my
stand on Zimbabwe and  Mugabe. One close comrade, a well respected academic
lawyer, wrote to me  stating categorically that I should add a disclaimer at
the end of my  columns. He suggested: 'the views expressed are my personal
views not  necessarily the view of the Global Pan African Movement'. Both
legally and  politically, he is correct. But I was puzzled that he never felt
it  necessary to give me this legal advice until Mugabe became an  issue!

One of my critics, a veteran of black struggles in the diaspora,  even went
as far as to suggest that my columns are syndicatedly written by  the MI5 and
CIA! My response to such lurid accusations is that if the CIA  and MI5 could
recruit me without my knowledge, then we must give them  credit for good
judgement!

More seriously, I have not been surprised  by the hostile reactions.
President Mugabe evokes extremes of passions,  with no one being neutral. He
is regarded by many Africans and  pan-Africanists as the Liberator, the icon
of anti–imperialism, the bold  and courageous African leader who is able to
look at imperialists in the  face and say: 'to hell with you'.

In a historical period when Western  arrogance and US hegemonic unilateralism
are making many people angry,  eliciting powerlessness and hopelessness, many
are willing to embrace  anyone who dares stand up against the West,
especially the US. The same  sentiments that drew many to admire Saddam
Hussein, as an agent of the US  for many years, regardless of his atrocities
against his own people; or  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran today in his
vitriolic attacks on the US, or  Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Many who are
unsympathetic to socialism  nonetheless admire Castro and Cubans for standing
against the US and for  having defied it for almost five decades, less than
100km from the coast of  Florida! These are seen as leaders who refuse to
bend to the wishes of  Washington. Even other leaders, especially from the
poorer countries of the  world, are silently applauding them.

In the case of Mugabe, legitimacy  is also derived from a genuine liberation
struggle that many regarded as  being ambushed by a 'Lancaster House
compromise'. Therefore, they see  Mugabe as returning to the unfinished
agenda, differing from the negotiated  settlement that led to independence in
1980. Many are stuck in 1980 and  Chimurenga, and fail to judge Mugabe and
ZANU PF for almost three decades  of monopoly power in the country.

When this is pointed out, a lot of  apologetics say that Lancaster House
prevented any radical solution. But  Lancaster was for only 10 years. Why
then did Mugabe not restart the  Chimurenga in 1990, instead of being forced
to do so in the late 1990s by  the veterans? But seeking answers to these
questions are like arguing with  Jehovah' witnesses!

What also strengthens the pro-Mugabe lobby is the  evident hypocrisy of the
West in dealing with the
Zimbabwe. Why is  Mugabe singled out? Where were they in the mid-1980s when
Matabeleland was  wasting in ZANU's drive for a one-party state? Would they
be making so much  noise had Mugabe not attacked and repossessed land from
white settlers,  whose ancestors - with British imperial force - had grabbed
the lands from  black people? Is Mugabe being punished as a warning to the
ANC in  neighbouring South Africa: not to even dare to address the grotesque
land  inequality in that country?

It is the historic wrong against blacks in  Zimbabwe that makes many Africans
generally sympathetic to Mugabe, even if  they will disagree with some of the
methods. The pressures from the West,  which is silent about similar or worse
excesses of human rights, government  authoritarianism and dictatorial
leadership by other African leaders, but  chose to make Mugabe a scapegoat,
work for Mugabe apologists.

That  is why the current debate sparked by Britain's Gordon Brown on  the
forthcoming Africa-EU dialogue scheduled for Portugal later this year  can
only make Mugabe's position more formidable. Britain is the least  qualified
country to grandstand anyone on Zimbabwe. Brown can not be  threatening the
rest of Europe with boycott because of one man and one  country. If the
dialogue is indeed between Africa and Europe, why should  one side be laying
down the terms?

Why do European leaders think  they are the only ones with a public to
respond to? African leaders must  not accept this. If they do, they will
prove to their people that they are  spineless poodles of imperialism, whose
only question, when asked to jump  by the West, is not why, but how high?

However, rejecting the arrogance  and hypocrisies of European leaders should
not mean that we should endorse  the excesses of President Mugabe's prolonged
one-man-rule. Political and  ideological suspicions of the opposition do not
justify the attacks on  them. In any case, our solidarity should be with the
people of Zimbabwe,  who may be ZANU loyalists, MDC supporters or neither. As
citizens, they  deserve to demand that their government be held accountable
to  them.

A disproportionate focus on the West's agenda is making us  compromise in our
duty to express this
solidarity much more  boldly.

Tajudeen Abdul Raheem is the Deputy Director for the UN  Millennium Campaign
in Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He writes this  article in a personal
capacity as a concerned pan-Africanist.

ISSN  1753-6839   (c) 2007 Fahamu  <http://www.fahamu.org/>







************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

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