Sister Jabou, This is typical Mugabe stuff designed to make-believe that opposing Mugabe equals support for the resurrection of Cecil Rhodes. Very offensive to all peace loving patriotic Zimbabweans and Africans. Malanding [log in to unmask] wrote: > Election standoff in Zimbabwe: The > threat of imperialist intervention > > > > By Ann Talbot > > 5 April 2008 > > > > “Zimbabwe Waits > to Exhale” ran the headline in this week’s Time magazine. > > > > The eyes of the world’s media are fixed on President Robert Mugabe and the > only subject under discussion is “Will he or won’t he go?” In the meantime, a > quiet and little remarked process is going on behind the scenes. There is a > creeping process of regime change under way that will affect not just Zimbabwe, > but the entire region and marks a new phase in the recolonialisation of Southern > Africa. > > > > The British and US governments are engineering the transition to a new > regime that will be more open to transnational investment, will allow the > resources of Zimbabwe > to be more freely plundered and make a well-educated English-speaking working > class available for exploitation. > > > > Despite the economic and military shocks that Britain > and America > have suffered in recent years, they have not reversed the wave of neocolonial > adventurism that they began with the invasion of Iraq. > The setbacks they have suffered in Iraq > and the economic crisis they face have only made them more determined to > salvage their position of dominance by military means. > > > > Under Labour, the UK > economy has become almost entirely dependent on finance capital, and the most > dangerous and speculative areas of finance capital at that. In conditions of > mounting recession, the UK > is relying on its military capacity as never before. Brown, like Blair before > him, has tied himself to the coattails of the US, > and the same partnership that invaded Iraq > and Afghanistan > is menacing Iran > and has set its sights on Zimbabwe. > Britain gave up > its hold on Zimbabwe > very reluctantly and sees an opportunity to reestablish itself there. > > > > Archbishop Desmond Tutu has already called for British troops to go into Zimbabwe > and insisted that it would not be an aggressive force. “It is merely ensuring > that human rights are maintained,” he claimed. A peacekeeping force was needed, > Tutu said, because “The situation is very volatile. Many, many people are > angry. I doubt that they are jus t going to sit back and fold their arms. They > are going to take to the streets and I am fearful.... We have seen what > happened in Kenya.” > > > > Tutu is using his prestige as a Nobel laureate and anti-Apartheid campaigner > to make an extraordinary move seem right and necessary. Speaking later the same > day at a memorial service for anti-Apartheid activist Ivan Toms, he called on > Mugabe to stand down. > > > > “I mean when your time is over, your time is over,” he said. Mugabe had > played a pivotal role in the armed struggle, so, “We hope he will be able to > step down gracefully, with dignity.” > > > > In writing Mugabe’s obituary before he has left the presidential palace, > Tutu is speaking for a layer of African nationalist opinion that senses that > the “wind of change” is now blowing the other way and that they need to > accommodate themselves to a more aggressive attitude on the part o f the major > powers. Whether Mugabe retires from the political scene gracefully or stands > and fights, the present crisis is an indication of a shift in world politics > that has brought to an end the period when nationalist regimes could present > themselves as liberators of the African masses. > > > > There are indications that Mugabe might attempt a military clampdown on the > opposition. Foreign reporters have been arrested in recent days, the election > headquarters of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) has been raided, and > army roadblocks encircle the capital, Harare. > Deputy Information Minister Bright Matonga told reporters, “President Mugabe is > going to fight to the last, and he’s not giving up, he’s not going anywhere, he > hasn’t lost the election.” > > > > But Mugabe cannot halt the underlying processes that have undermined his position > by military means alone. The crisis brought on by the election was the product > of a p rotracted economic change that has now produced a sudden political > shift. The government-appointed Zimbabwe Electoral Commission has been forced > to admit that the ruling party ZANU-PF has lost control of parliament and has > still not released the result of the presidential elections, strongly > suggesting that Mugabe has lost. > > > > Mugabe’s last hope of retaining power is to claim that neither candidate for > the presidency won a majority and that there must be a runoff between him and > MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai. During a further election campaign, he could hope > to use intimidation and ballot rigging to win a majority. But Mugabe could once > command mass political support because of his role in the war against the white > racist regime that ruled what was then Rhodesia. > To admit that he can no longer secure more than 50 percent of the vote is to > admit defeat. A victory in the second round would merely postpone the day of > reckoning. He has been fatally wounded by the election, and his opponents > inside and outside ZANU-PF are aware of this fact. It would only be a matter of > time before he was challenged again. > > > > His hold on power has been unravelling for almost a decade. As long ago as > 1999, when the MDC first emerged out of the Zimbabwe Trade Union Congress, the World > Socialist Web Site noted that trade union and business leaders, who had > been happy to work with Mugabe since he came to power in 1980, were becoming > increasingly restive. > > > > “As Zimbabwe > slides towards economic collapse, the trade unions have stepped in to form a > new political party,” we wrote. “But this is a party that will look after the > interests of big business, the rich farmers and inward investors, not the > working class.” > > > > That same year, the WSWS desc ribed the way in which the International > Monetary Fund was tightening the screws on Zimbabwe: > > > > “Zimbabwe is > in the hands of the moneylenders who are laying claim to everything in sight. > These standby credits will ensure a huge transfer of wealth from one of the > world’s poorest nations to the international bankers and transnational > corporations.” > > > > Since then, Mugabe has tried every method in his power to escape from the > grip of the international bankers and corporations, without success. He refused > to implement IMF measures, stopped repaying his loans for a time, and seized > the land of white farmers and redistributed it to his supporters. He demolished > working class shantytown districts, leaving thousands homeless in “Operation > Murambatsvina,” and suppressed all opposition with the utmost ruthlessness. > > > > In his latest bid to maintain an autarkic economy that did not depend on > international finance or Western companies he has turned to China, which has > become one of the major backers of his regime. China’s > need for platinum and chromium to feed its booming economy gave Mugabe the > chance to survive a little longer. Mugabe’s “Look East” policy saw trade > between the two countries increase to US$100 million. China > is one of the biggest investors in Zimbabwe. > But in recent months, Beijing has, > if not cut Mugabe adrift, at least adopted a lower profile. > > > > David Dorwood of the Africa Studies Institute of La Trobe University, > Melbourne, told Australian Broadcasting Company News that Beijing had concluded > that it was only a matter of time before Mugabe went: “They want to secure > their resources with the new administration and therefore are sort of taking > less of an active role in propping up the ZANU-PF and Robert Mugabe.” > > > > China’s > interest in Zimbabwe > would “persist irrespective of the government,” Dorwood said. Beijing > would welcome a Tsvangirai administration because “Zimbabwe > has become really quite dysfunctional. The Chinese need to have reliable > infrastructure.” > > > > Mugabe supporters have seen China > as fundamentally different from Western governments and companies. They have > held China up > as the liberator of Africa because of its > long-established connections with Mugabe that go back to the Cold War. But > Chinese companies must work in the same economic environment as every other > company in the world, and Zimbabwe’s > platinum and chromium come higher in their scale of priorities than any thought > of preserving Mugabe’s hold on the presidency. > > > > The tiny space for manoeuvre that China > allowed Mugabe is therefore closing. In the countryside, even his most fervent > supporters admit that it is time for him to go. The generals and heads of the > security services may be prepared to back him a little while longer, at least > until they can negotiate a suitable deal, but the rank and file of the army are > as alienated from his regime as the rest of the Zimbabwean population. > > > > Britain has > let it be known that an unprecedented £1 billion IMF-backed aid package is > awaiting the arrival of Tsvangirai in the presidential palace. It was being > discussed at the NATO summit in Bucharest > this week. If the opposition has to fight a run-off election, it will use this > promised aid package as an incentive to voters. > > > > The UK > government’s Department for International Development has been running what > they call “turn-around models” for Zimbabwe, > and if a Tsvangirai government comes to power, Britain > will insist that its economic strategy is followed. The aim will be to bring Zimbabwe’s > 100,000 percent inflation rate down within a ye ar. Such a programme would be > far more damaging than even the most severe of previous Structural Adjustment > Programmes imposed on African countries by the IMF. The aid would be dependent > on the working class and rural poor bearing the cost of the fight against inflation. > > > > In 2002, Eddie Cross of the MDC wrote to the WSWS in an attempt to elicit > our support for his party’s economic policies. We rejected his overtures and > wrote: > > > > “You say that the IMF and World Bank would help Zimbabwe > get debt relief, but what attacks would you have to impose in order to get it? > As you well know you would have to privatise every state asset in Zimbabwe. > Your Economic Stabilisation and Recovery Programme states that within its first > 100 days an MDC government would begin the process of privatising all > parastatals, which you would aim to have completed within two years. In every > country where these measures have been applied they have meant mass > unemployment, escalating poverty, the destruction of whole industries and > infrastructural collapse.” > > > > The US has > long been a supporter of the MDC and opposition elements within ZANU-PF. A year > ago, the WSWS pointed to US Ambassador Christopher Dell’s remark that Zimbabwe > had “reached a tipping point” and to the report of the US State Department that > it was funding “pro-democracy elements” in Zimbabwe. > Dell clearly favoured regime change then. The role of the MDC in this situation > will be to control the working class and rural poor whose needs they cannot > possibly meet. With US and British backing, it may prove to be an even more > oppressive regime than the present one. > > > > Tutu wants British troops deployed in Zimbabwe > because he fears that the population has been driven to such a point of > desperation that there will be a popular uprising that the MDC will not be able > to contain. That such a scenario could even be contemplated, let alone > seriously discussed in the media, more than a quarter of century after the > colonial Rhodesian regime was overthrown is a measure of the failure of the > nationalist movement. > > > > Mugabe is a determined and capable nationalist leader, but he has proved > incapable of breaking free from the grip of imperialism. His entire perspective > has proved to be bankrupt. Zimbabwe > has remained in a position of semi-colonial dependence from 1980 onwards. > > > > The crisis that Mugabe faces in Zimbabwe > is only the most acute expression of what is happening to regimes throughout > the continent. A long-established political formation is unravelling before our > eyes. Kenya was > pitched into crisis following its recent election. In Sou th Africa, > Jacob Zuma is challenging President Thabo Mbeki. In each case, the form of the > political crisis and its intensity is different, and yet all express the same > phenomenon. The African nationalist movement has lost its social base and all > semblance of political legitimacy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ���������������������������������������������������������� > 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]