Business as usual in Zimbabwe

Morgan Tsvangirai has achieved nothing by agreeing to join RObert Mugabe's government, apart from discrediting himself, and the Movement for Democratic Change, as an alternative to Mugabe's and ZanuPF. From The Independent:

A defiant President Robert Mugabe used his 85th birthday celebrations yesterday to insist that land seizures would continue, and called for the country's last white farmers to leave. "Land distribution will continue. It will not stop," Mr Mugabe told a rally in his home area of Chinhoyi, north-west of the capital, Harare. "The few remaining white farmers should quickly vacate their farms as they have no place there."

...

Mr Mugabe's stance does further damage to the credibility of Mr Tsvangirai, who became Prime Minister a fortnight ago after yielding to overwhelming regional pressure to take his Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) into a coalition with Mr Mugabe. The MDC has demanded the release of political prisoners, including Roy Bennett, the MDC treasurer and deputy agriculture minister in the unity government, who has been charged with treason. But he and more than 30 others remain behind bars.

The opposition has also failed to dislodge Gideon Gono, the central bank governor whose reckless printing of money has rendered the Zimbabwe dollar worthless and fuelled the highest rates of inflation the world has ever seen. Further damage to the economy is likely to result from two other developments: more land seizures and attempts to gain control of the few foreign enterprises still operating in the country.

Since the coalition government was formed, invasions of white-owned farms have surged, with about 40 having having been seized, according to a farmers' support group. As for foreign-owned businesses, Mr Mugabe signed a law last year to transfer control of mines and banks to local entrepreneurs in the name of black empowerment. Yesterday he said the government would press ahead with the policy. Such measures make it even less likely that foreign donors will help rebuild the Zimbabwean economy. Last week the MDC's secretary-general, Tendai Biti, given the thankless job of finance minister in the unity government, appealed vainly for US$2bn (£1.4bn) in emergency economic aid from SADC leaders meeting in Cape Town. (1)

Which poses the question - if Tsvangirai and the MDC are defunct, who and what will serve as the opposition in Zimbabwe? Simba Makone (2) seems to be the most likely contender, but he is- is ex-ZANU-PF, a member of the party's politburo until he announced his presidential candidacy in February last year. Maybe I'm cynical, but that does not endear him to me.

1 - 'Mugabe: Last white farmer should leave,' by Raymond Whitaker, published in THe Independent, 1st of March, 2009. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/mugabe-last-white-farmer-should-leave-1634743.html)
2 - The wikipedia biographpy of Simba Makone, viewed 1st of March, 2009. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simba_Makoni)

That didn't take long, did it?

Business as usual has been resumed in Zimbabwe:

Reports in state media claim some Zanu-PF supporters have been arrested and charged with political violence, and party officials in some areas are said to have told followers and the local police to maintain calm. But thousands of Zanu-PF youth militia members and "war veterans" remain in the torture camps set up during the election campaign, and can only support themselves with what they can extort from the local population. Intimidation is still widespread, and there are occasional eruptions of violence.

In Mbare, a "high-density suburb" of Harare, Zanu-PF youth members attacked suspected MDC supporters on Friday, and the homes of two MDC councillors were reported to have been destroyed. Youths were said to have disrupted the distribution of food at schools, telling aid workers to stop until Mr Mugabe gave permission for them to continue. In the past, Zanu-PF has controlled aid handouts to ensure they went only to party followers, and foreign NGOs were barred from operating during the election period. (1)

The deal signed between Tsvangirai and Mugabe effectively gives him control - he has half the seats in parliament and the remainder as divided between two factions of the MDC:

The peace deal gives Zanu-PF 15 cabinet seats, to 13 for Mr Tsvangirai and three for a breakaway faction of the MDC headed by Arthur Mutambara, who will become one of two deputy prime ministers. Unless the two men work together, Mr Mugabe will have the upper hand. This, and the unwieldy structure of the peace deal, could give Zanu-PF the opportunity to create a parallel government, said the rights monitor, "and implement a Plan B to regain control of the rural areas through intimidation". (2)

Unless they can co-operate, Mugabe can basically do what he wants.

The MDC have been out-manouvered. They are now tied up with Zanu-PF, but will struggle to influence or restrain Mugabe's party. In exchange for this ineffectuality, they've given up their credibility as a focus of opposition. Joining Mugabe was either utterly naive, or completely cynical. But either way it means the end of the MDC in Zimbabwe.

When Mugabe dies the MDC will be associated with the crimes of the Zanu-PF regime. It has no future. If Zanu-PF maintain their grip on power, the MDC will propably be purged b the new incumbent. If the country collapses into civil war, the MDC will be seen as either on the government side, or completely irrelevent.

1 - "Intimidation and fear as Mugabe says he is in the 'driving seat'," by Raymond Whitaker in the Independent, 21st of September, 2008. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/intimidation-and-fear-as-mugabe-says-he-is-in-the-driving-seat-937012.html)
2 - ibid.

Bullshit

Thabo Mbeki, describing the deal between Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai:

The South African president, Thabo Mbeki, who has mediated during months of on-again off-again fraught negotiations, made the official announcement last night after four days of talks in Harare. "It's made in Zimbabwe, it's made by Zimbabweans, the rest of the world needs to respect that the people of Zimbabwe have taken a decision about their own country," he said. (1)

Which is bullshit. The people of Zimbabwe, harried by thugs, mislead and starved, have had nothing to say about this. It doesn't reflect their will, but the desire for power on the part of Mugabe and Tsangirai - an urge strong enough to induce them to split the baubles of office between them. After all, there is still plenty to go around, as long as none of it is shared with the long sufferring people of Zimbabwe.

A power sharing deal that leaves Mugabe in place has nothing to do with democracy, and probably marks the end of Tsvangirai as a force for reform in Zimbabwe. To borrow the title of John Pilger's book on the disappointments of post Apartheifd SOuth Africa, maybe it will be freedom next time.

1 - "Zimbabwe rivals agree power-sharing deal," by Basildon Peta in The Independent, 12th of September, 2008. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/zimbabwe-rivals-agree-powersharing-deal-927087.html)

Pilger on Hiroshima

Just as I am ambivalent to towards RObert Fisk, I have mised feelings towards John Pilger. Yes, he has done some great work, probing dirty little secrets and nasty little brutalities carried out to further Western imperialism and the advancement of capitalism. But he's also overly shrill and gets caught up in his own rhetoric, occasionally disappearing up his own metaphor.

Writing about Hiroshima, he shows his best and worst qualities, but the crime he's writing about, and the lies that have coalesced around it, are important enough to overlook his occasional loss of restraint:

In the immediate aftermath of the bomb, the allied occupation authorities banned all mention of radiation poisoning and insisted that people had been killed or injured only by the bomb's blast. It was the first big lie. "No radioactivity in Hiroshima ruin" said the front page of the New York Times, a classic of disinformation and journalistic abdication, which the Australian reporter Wilfred Burchett put right with his scoop of the century. "I write this as a warning to the world," reported Burchett in the Daily Express, having reached Hiroshima after a perilous journey, the first correspondent to dare. He described hospital wards filled with people with no visible injuries but who were dying from what he called "an atomic plague". For telling this truth, his press accreditation was withdrawn, he was pilloried and smeared - and vindicated. (1)

The same cycle of lies, disinformation and bullying is happening again, of course, whenever someone pokes a camera into a children's ward in Iraq to film or reports on the sick children and mutant babies (2) resulting from our use of depleted uranium munitions.

His final lines, delivered apropos of possible nuclear action against Iran, can be applied to myriad crimes being conducted in our name by our leaders, around the world - in Iraq, Afghanistan, by complicity in China, Africa, in the Caucases, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan:

The question begs: are the rest of us to be mere bystanders, claiming, as good Germans did, that "we did not know"? Do we hide ever more behind what Richard
Falk has called "a self-righteous, one-way, legal/moral screen [with] positive images of western values and innocence portrayed as threatened, validating a campaign of unrestricted violence"?

We know what is going on, or we have the means to know and we don't try to find out. This makes us culpable. Every medal hung around a proud athelete's neck in Beijing is tainted by the brutality of the Beijing regime and supports tryanny and violence in Darfur and Zimbabwe. Every Hollywood film watched, every CD sold, is an acknowledgement that Iraq and Guantanamo don't matter all that much. We can't plead ignorance.

1 - "The lies of Hiroshima live on, props in the war crimes of the 20th century," by John Pilger in The Guardian, 6th of August, 2008. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/06/secondworldwar.warcrimes)
2 - "Iraqi cancers, birth defects blamed on U.S. depleted uranium," by Larry Johnson in the Seattle Post Intelligencer, 12th of November, 2002. (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/95178_du12.shtml)
3 - Pilger, op. cit.

Zimbabwe deal

This (1), I have to say, I did not expected. Some immediate thoughts on why the MDC and Mugabe might, suddenly, have found common ground:

• Mugabe has decided to exit and this is a deal to grant him and his family immunity. This would not be a bad outcome. While in an ideal world criminals should always face justice, getting Mugabe and Zanu-PF out of power without further bloodshed would be a good thing. Unlike some, I'm not aroused by the idea of guerrilla warfare and bloody revolution if it can be avoided. Let the old bastard go if necessary, so that other not-bastards might live.
• Alternately, Mugabe has no intention of stepping down, but he is weaker than previously thought. Perhaps he genuinely fears the MDC, or is worried about elements within his own party. By coming to an accomodation with the MDC, he may hope to stengthen his position and extend his reign.
• If Tsvangirai is seeking to pull of a Mandela style 'historic compromise' with Mugabe then he's naive. Mugabe is a snake and can not be relied on to keep faith.
• The most pessimistic option is that Tsvangirai is joining the hegemony with his eyes wide open and with cynical motives in his heart. In which case, he is engaging in a bauble grab to make Winston green with envy.

My gut feeling is that it is either a stalling tactic by Mugabe, or a cynical power grab by Tsvangirai. It won't be the first time an opponent of tyranny has become the thing he sought to overthrow. There is a recent example from the region - think back to Laurent Kablia, one time Congo guerilla, associate of Che Guevara and eventual tyrant of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

1 - "Zimbabwe leaders 'to sign deal'," unattributed BBC atricle, published online, 21st of July, 2008. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7516019.stm)

Spot the difference

The other day, Gordon Brown hinted (1) about possible military intervention in Nigeria, to help end the sufferring of the Nigerian people maximise Nigerian oil supply because Britain's economic growth - and hence Mr Briown's electability - is being weakened by high oil prices (1).

Contrast this with the situation in Zimbabwe. Yesterday, the UN failed to vote to sanction Mugabe and his henchmen (2). This was large due to Russia and China's noble defence of a country's right to conduct their own internal affairs discomfort at the idea of their own brutality toward dissidents leading to them facing similar condemnation. The fact that China is the second largest trading partner of Zimbabwe (after South Africa, who also opposed sanctions) had nothing to do with it, either (3).

The British response? Hand wringing and a few words about what a shame it all was:

The British ambassador said the Security Council had fallen down in its duty to defend the democratic rights of ordinary Zimbabweans. Sir John Sawers said: "The people of Zimbabwe need to be given hope that there is an end in sight to their suffering. The Security Council today has failed to offer them that hope."

The Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, said: "I am very disappointed that the UN Security Council should have failed to pass a strong and clear resolution on Zimbabwe. In particular, it will appear incomprehensible to the people of Zimbabwe that Russia, which committed itself at the G8 only a few days ago to take further steps including introducing financial and other sanctions, should today stand in the way of timely and decisive security council action. Nor will they understand the Chinese vote.

"The UN still has a key role to play in supporting African efforts to bring an end to this crisis, and we will continue to press for the appointment of a UN envoy." (4)

I am certain, of course, that the different approaches has nothing to do with the fact that Nigeria is a major oil producer, whereas any intervention in Zimbabwe would offer no economic reward? Surely, such base considerations would not enter into the heads of our leaders?

1 - As described previously on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2008/07/gordon-brown-admits-it-is-all-about.html
2 - 'China and Russia veto UN sanctions on Mugabe,' by Leonard Doyle in The INdependent, 12th of July, 2008. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/china-and-russia-veto-un-sanctions-on-mugabe-865921.html)
3 - China is now "the second largest trade partner of Zimbabwe, after South Africa, and China is also the biggest tobacco buyer from Zimbabwe, with the total trade volume between the two countries reaching 275 million U.S. dollars in 2006, while a few years ago, China was not even among the top ten trade partners of Zimbabwe, according to the Chinese ambassador" according to an unattributed article, 'Sino-Zimbabwe cooperation enters brand-new stage,' in The People's Daily Online, 19th of April, 2007. (http://english.people.com.cn/200704/19/eng20070419_367992.html)
4 - Doyle, op. cit.

Evil old bastard refuses to quit

Two weeks after the elections in Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe is refusing to admit he has been ousted by the people he has lied to, mislead and impoverished for years.

Rather than try to exit with a pretence of grace and legitimacy, the evil little toad seems set to tough it out and impose his will on the country, yet again (1). Political gatherings have been banned, while Zanu-PF thugs have been staging political gatherings (!) in rural areas to intimidate people into supporting Mugabe in a possible presidential run-off. Occupation of white owned farms have resumed since the election, as Mugabe desperately tries to shift the blame for the country's ruin onto other shoulders (2).

It's a hideous situation for the people of Zimbabwe. It looks like the only way to remove Mugabe and his cronies will be through a popular rising, but given the power and ruthlessness of the Zanu-PF regime, the likely bloodshed resulting from this would be terrible.

Mugabe is an evil old man. An ideal world would see him tried for the manyevil things done by his regime. That will probably not happen, however, because of the miserable, fucked-up world we live in, where monsters rarely meet justice. I'd sooner see him jet off into luxurious exile than see the blood of Zimbabweans spilled in ousting him - haven't they sufferred enough? But the evil old man may not give them any choice. Mugabe has been a vile, debased little cretin all his life, and has worked against the interests of Zimababwe with almost every word and action. It would only be in character for him to make the extinction of his ugly regime as painful and bloody as he can.

1 - 'Intimidation mounts in Zimbabwe as police ban rallies,' by an
anonymous special correspondent in Bulawayo, published in The Independent, 12th
of April, 2008. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/intimidation-mounts-in-zimbabwe-as-police-ban-rallies-808165.html)
2 - ibid.

Wot he said.

The Indy's editorial (1) focuses on the implications of the silence screaming from Zimbabwe. Is a massive fiddle about to be announced, or are Mugabe's henchmen eyeballing each other nervously and muttering, "You tell him," "No, you tell him"?

But, the silence suggests one thing very strongly - the results were disasterous for Mugabe. As the Indy said, the people have spoken. Mr Mugabe must listen.

1 - 'The people have spoken. Mr Mugabe must listen,' leading article in The Independent, 1st of April, 2008. (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-the-people-have-spoken-mr-mugabe-must-listen-803127.html)