Zimbabwe: 2 sides to every story

[marksimonbrown]

Thanks to Gregory Elich for originally posting this (entitled
"ZIMBABWE: MORE THAN COMPLICITY OF SILENCE" pasted below) to the
Legacy list. I have first highlighted 2 sections of text from the
whole article as a clarification to my own posts on the subject of
Zimbabwe last week. The comparison between Mugabe and Saddam is
striking, not least in the western media's penchant for an
intepretation predicated upon an imperialist propaganda standpoint,
which has accepted a deliberate misreading of historical events. In
this, I have swallowed whole some of this western media propaganda up
until now, such as on the question of what actually happened in
Matebeland, and the extent to which land redistribution may have been
disproportionately taken by Zanu supporters, which though true, maybe
an exaggerated occurance for the purpose of descrediting Mugabe. I
would not say Mugabe is 100% innocent of charges against him, but that
it is the west's dealings with the country since 1990 which are mostly
responsible for the plight of the country, firstly though the
structural adjustment of the IMF (the ESAP), political manoevring and
most dramatically with sanctions in recent years. The article notes
that Mugabe's government abolished the ESAP, something done nowhere
else in Africa. In 2006, they paid off all debts to the IMF. (The IMF
exerted their control over Southern Africa and everywhere else at the
end of the Cold-War when Soviet patronage was no longer forthcoming -
see previous post entitled "The IMF's chief role in disintergration of
Zimbabwe" Ref:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LegacyofColonialism/message/1901
Mark - list owner and moderator


2 extracts from
ZIMBABWE: MORE THAN COMPLICITY OF SILENCE
By Netfa Freeman
Black Commentator
Date: May 1, 2008
(FULL ARTICLE PASTED BELOW)
Ref:
www.blackcommentator.com/275/275_zimbabwe_more_than_silence_freeman_guest.html
and:
http://tinyurl.com/6ofaoy

"Land audits bear out the fact that land went mainly to the landless
and had reached over 250,000 families by 2006. I'm sorry but I can't
believe Mugabe had 134,000 cronies to dole land out to in 2002.
Furthermore, not only have there been eyewitness testimonies by
others, such as that of Baffour Ankomah, editor of New African who has
seen things for himself but I also personally know of a youth farming
cooperative started with land from this exercise. Having been there
and stayed at the home of the cooperative's chairman I attest that
these youth are hardly cronies of Mugabe."

AND

"What took place in Matebeland (in the late 1980s) is often referred
to as a massacre in order to demonize ZANU PF. It is a situation too
complex to do justice in this commentary but knowing the alternative
explanation is important. Following an agreement to integrate the
armed forces of ZANU, ZAPU and Rhodesians to form a Zimbabwe National
Army, it was agreed that all guerrillas and Ian Smith soldiers were to
surrender their weapons to the national armory. ZAPU secretly decided
not to, hiding massive arms caches on its farms and in the bushes,
including armored cars and heavy artillery. After being discovered by
Zimbabwe's Central Intelligence Organization, it is said that ZAPU
failed to give a satisfactory explanation for this leading to a
massive exodus of ZAPU leaders from the new government and the
beginning of dissident activity in Matebeland. Shona speaking people
and commercial farmers were being killed. Former ZAPU guerillas were
roaming freely with guns, terrorizing people, especially in Matebeland
and Midlands areas. The ZANU led government could not of course let
this go on and it is said that security forces were deployed to end
the dissident and banditry activity. Unfortunately people were killed
along with dissidents and those who harbored them. However, what is
more often mischaracterized as a massacre was more like a small-scale
civil war with civilian casualties on both sides."


FULL ARTICLE:
ZIMBABWE: MORE THAN COMPLICITY OF SILENCE
By Netfa Freeman
Black Commentator

When Colin Powell gave his infamous presentation to the United
Nations, "proving" Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction Iraq
dominated the headlines. It took some time and subsequent discoveries
before many realized most of what we were fed was untrue.

Although not as elevated, today Zimbabwe has taken a high profile
place in corporate media headlines. Are we getting the truth this time
and can we rely on the same progressives who broke through
misinformation around Iraq to do the same for us again?

This commentary is a response to another by BC's Executive Editor,
Bill Fletcher Jr., titled "Z is for Zimbabwe; Turmoil & Silence as a
Country Potentially Unravels". Mr. Fletcher, also being a senior
scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies where I am a program
director, makes us colleagues. As I respect him for his analysis on
many if not most matters, we have differences when it comes to
Zimbabwe. There are several points his commentary raises that I
believe omit the complexity and context of the issue.

Contrary to what is implied, many Africans (people of African descent)
interpret Zimbabwean developments, not necessarily through
romanticism, but with a valid rejection of imperialism's "mania for
regime change". Too often has the public seen leaders and countries
demonized simply as a prelude for this policy.

The right of anyone to criticize ZANU PF or Mugabe is valid and should
be reserved without a person being condemned as an agent of the CIA or
State Department. However, progressives and certainly revolutionaries
must necessarily include an analysis of and explicit stand against
US-British intervention. This would mean also addressing why and how
they are targeting Zimbabwe. More often critics of ZANU PF and Mugabe
reduce US-British positions to mere words or rhetorical condemnations
when imperialism is never so passive. Not only did the US State
Department admit on April 5, 2007 that it was engaged in efforts for
regime change in Zimbabwe, such efforts were written into the text of
the US' hypocritical Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001.

This policy includes pervasive economic sanctions (war without guns)
designed to strangle the people into submission. No matter what one's
position on ZANU PF and/or Mugabe, a position against imperialism's
immoral assault on Zimbabwe should be a matter of principle, being
that "the stakes are too high." After all, even though Saddam Hussein
was widely believed a cruel dictator, progressives nevertheless oppose
not only imperialism's war on Iraq but avidly opposed the preceding US
sanctions against Iraq. In Zimbabwe's case, hardly any stand is taken
against imperialism and progressives often corroborate much of the
misinformation.

Specifically on Mr. Fletcher's commentary the following are a few
instances where I feel more clarifications are warranted:

Mr. Fletcher says: "We ignored the violent crushing of a rebellion in
the early years of the Mugabe administration" but another side would
say: "the violent crushing of a `violent' rebellion." I don't know any
other way to put down a violent rebellion than through violence. I'm
assuming here that Mr. Fletcher is referring to what took place in
Matebeland, often referred to as a massacre in order to demonize ZANU
PF. It is a situation too complex to do justice in this commentary but
knowing the alternative explanation is important. Following an
agreement to integrate the armed forces of ZANU, ZAPU and Rhodesians
to form a Zimbabwe National Army, it was agreed that all guerrillas
and Ian Smith soldiers were to surrender their weapons to the national
armory.

ZAPU secretly decided not to, hiding massive arms caches on its farms
and in the bushes, including armored cars and heavy artillery. After
being discovered by Zimbabwe's Central Intelligence Organization, it
is said that ZAPU failed to give a satisfactory explanation for this
leading to a massive exodus of ZAPU leaders from the new government
and the beginning of dissident activity in Matebeland. Shona speaking
people and commercial farmers were being killed. Former ZAPU guerillas
were roaming freely with guns, terrorizing people, especially in
Matebeland and Midlands areas. The ZANU led government could not of
course let this go on and it is said that security forces were
deployed to end the dissident and banditry activity. Unfortunately
people were killed along with dissidents and those who harbored them.
However, what is more often mischaracterized as a massacre was more
like a small-scale civil war with civilian casualties on both sides.

Subsequently, in 1987 ZAPU and ZANU leaders held talks, which
culminated in a Unity Accord and is now celebrated annually on
December 22nd, as ZAPU leaders were again put into the fold to form a
government of national unity. It is instructive to note that the
current National Chairman of ZANU is a former ZAPU leader, the
National Youth Chairman is former ZAPU, the Second Vice President is
former ZAPU, and the National Army Commander is former ZAPU. In fact
former ZAPU members are now in control of many government and party
institutions.

Mr. Fletcher says: "We ignored President Mugabe's adoption of the
International Monetary Fund and World Bank formula of `structural
adjustment.'"(ESAP) However, this ignores the context of the times and
the world situation. Undoubtedly, it was a mistake to deal with the
IMF and World Bank but the conditions and constraints that led to
Zimbabwe's doing this were largely due to the collapse of the Soviet
Bloc and were felt by all countries trying to pursue an independent
path. Cuba referred to these conditions as their Special Period. This
also ignores that Mugabe's government abolished the ESAP, something
done nowhere else in Africa.

Mr. Fletcher says: "And, we ignored the fact that the land was not
being redistributed."

But some was. Although it represented only one third of a 162,000
household target, more than 50,000 households had been resettled by
1990. Why wasn't more land redistributed before the late 1990s? This
is explained by constraints of the 1979 Lancaster House Agreement that
brokered Zimbabwe's independence and it is critical to note that the
liberation forces were encouraged to accept this agreement by fellow
liberation forces in the other Front Line states. The constraints in
this agreement were not the choice of Mugabe or ZANU.

Mr. Fletcher says: "Many well-intentioned supporters of Zimbabwe
ignored or were oblivious to the growing protests that had swept
Zimbabwe in the 1990s among workers who stood in opposition to the
economic policies of structural adjustment that were impoverishing
them." I don't know what the point is here. That instead of commending
ZANU-PF, for jettisoning ESAP as soon as it could, it is better to
support the opposition, which wants to cement ESAP in place?

Mr. Fletcher says: "And some of us closed our eyes to who was actually
benefiting from land redistribution and who was not." With all due
respect this sounds like a version of the land going not to the
landless but to Mugabe's cronies routine. I'm sorry but I can't
believe Mugabe had 134,000 cronies to dole land out to in 2002. Land
audits bear out the fact that land went mainly to the landless and had
reached over 250,000 families by 2006. Furthermore, not only have
there been eyewitness testimonies by others, such as that of Baffour
Ankomah, editor of New African who has seen things for himself but I
also personally know of a youth farming cooperative started with land
from this exercise. Having been there and stayed at the home of the
cooperative's chairman I attest that these youth are hardly cronies of
Mugabe.

Mr. Fletcher says: "I found myself attempting to explain to them (his
Zimbabwean comrades) why many African Americans were silent in the
face of President Mugabe's repression." Actually, I haven't noticed
this reluctance disproportionate to any other issue. Maybe I've seen
too many articles taking the standard line against Zimbabwe. I have
experienced quite a bit of cynicism among most intellectual
African-"Americans" about my alternative position on the issues. On
the other hand I also find that the common Black person on the street
has legitimate reservations about anything remotely resembling the
regime change rhetoric of imperialism.

Regarding Mr. Fletcher's position on the elections, I agree that it
would have been better to announce the results even with a recount
needed. Although I recognize that the MDC and Western media would have
treated the initial figure as real and the recount as rigging. From
that standpoint, I think I can understand why the total has not been
announced. But it still may have been better to do so. The same
rigging claims were going to be tossed around regardless. Statements
by British officials and US make it clear that they will accept no
result that does not favor the opposition. What more is the iron first
and velvet glove of imperialism doing to ensure their interests in
Zimbabwe? Mr. Fletcher and I agree that the stakes in Zimbabwe are
higher than the mere outcome of an election but I contend that it's
one of completely embedded neo-colonialism versus the right to
national self-determination and sovereignty.

Mr. Fletcher says: "Though originally planned as a labor party, the
MDC became a sort of united front of opponents of President Mugabe,
ranging the political spectrum from the revolutionary Left to some
conservative white farmers." There is more to this than one could
gather from this summary. In December 1998, with Zimbabwe having
already earned the indignation of Western governments, a plan was
presented to the European Union's Africa Working Group recommending
strategies for regime change. The plan called for the formation of a
political party from this spectrum of opponents in "civil society",
naming in particular, the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU).
Prior to this, in May 1997 European trade unions had already singled
out the then Secretary General of ZCTU, Morgan Tsvangirai as their
presidential candidate against Robert Mugabe. It's with this backdrop
that the MDC was born.

I agree with Mr. Fletcher's assertion, "Whether we like or dislike the
MDC, or President Mugabe for that matter, holds second place to
whether there is a political environment that advances genuine,
grassroots democracy and debate in Zimbabwe." Clearly, however such an
environment cannot exist while foreign interests are so pervasively
manipulating so much of what appears to be internal.

On January 24th, 1999 a meeting was convened at Britain's Royal
Institute of International Affairs to discuss the EU's regime change
policy. The theme of the meeting, led by Richard Dowden, now the
Executive Director of the Royal African Society, was "Zimbabwe - Time
for Mugabe to Go?" The "confiscating" of white-held land is what got a
"yes" to the conference's rhetorical question. Dowden presented four
options:

1. a military coup
2. buying the opposition
3. insurrection
4. subverting Mugabe's ZANU-PF party

A few months later, the US State Department held its version of that
meeting, a seminar entitled "The Zimbabwe Crisis" to discuss its
strategy for dealing with the same. Their conclusion too was that
civil society and the opposition would be strengthened to foment
discontent and dissent.

If we're going to discuss Zimbabwe and what position to take on it,
it's important that the African community consider this context. While
Mr. Fletcher is concerned with infantile approaches to controversy
within our communities, I'm more concerned that our assessments are
arrived at with plentiful and accurate context. Because, like Mr.
Fletcher, I believe the stakes are much too high.

BlackCommentator.com Guest Commentator, Netfa Freeman is director of
the Social Action & Leadership School for Activists (SALSA), a program
of the Washington DC based Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), a
longtime activist in the Pan-African and international human rights
movements, and a co-producer/co-host for Voices With Vision, WPFW 89.3
FM, Washington DC. Click here to contact Mr. Freeman.

*****************************************************
Thanks to Gregory Elich <gelich at worldnet.att.net> for originally
sending this to the Legacy of Colonialism Forum email list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LegacyofColonialism/