Robert Mugabe and Zimbabwe has been in the news a lot these days.  In between all the wars, conflicts, and the havoc being wreaked on the world by global warming, Mugabe has managed to maintain his spot on most news reports.  Great publicity, if only it was focused on something positive.  But as usual, especially where Africa is concerned, it is not.  No great surprises there. 

It is not that I don't feel any concern for the plight of suffering Zimbabweans.  I certainly do.  I do however find it difficult to absorb half-truths generated by western media for a calculated purpose.  Through their numerous and influential media outlets, they can turn any nation into a pariah state if they so intend.  They can distort the image of even the most devout saints and have the world view them as dreaded demons.  Yesterday's friends easily become today's enemies (Saddam Hussein), whilst yesterday's enemies become today's bosom pals (Muammar Ghadafi).  The enemy is whoever they decide is one, and friend, anyone who provides a means to an end.  They condemn military rule in some countries but embrace Saudi Arabia's undemocratic politics and Pervez Musharraf's military rule in Pakistan.  

Thankfully not everyone is as easily fooled or bamboozled these days.  More and more people, particularly a growing number of western citizens, are wising up to the truth of international political manoeuvring.  The lies and deception that preceded the illegal invasion of Iraq is an example of what western propaganda and international power play can do.  Now with Saddam's demise, a new victim, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has been exalted onto the position of Public Enemy No.1.

In Africa, the British media has its radar firmly on Robert Mugabe.  Naturally, their American counterparts have joined them in a shoulder to shoulder stance in his condemnation, a long standing pattern of play used against anyone or nation they deem an obstacle to their interests.  Somehow this always seems to be reserved for some leader of a far-flung distant land.  The words monster, tyrant, despot or dictator often attached to their personality. 

My major gripe with the western media is its propensity to sugar-coat the truth on many matters.  Anything to make them look good and others bad.  Anything to make them appear more civil, thoughtful, caring and superior, and others aggressive, barbaric, genocidal and evil.  And so very often only half the story is ever told.  The other half which contains the bitter truth is cunningly left out.  There is no doubt that Zimbabwe has been going through a torrid time.  But how about telling us exactly why this is so!  How about telling the world about the negative impact sanctions on Zimbabwe play in the scheme of things.  Sanctions that have little direct impact on Mugabe and his officials but is wreaking havoc on the populace.  Similar sanctions after the first Gulf war were responsible for the deaths of about a million or so Iraqi men, women and children.  If you starve a baby of food and medicine you are responsible for its death. 

A number of western media organisations have been banned from working in Zimbabwe.  The government believes their reporting is biased and one-sided, only aimed at buttressing the British position.  In spite of this ban, there is no shortage of endless streams of news coverage by reporters who sneak into the country to covertly film and broadcast selected scenes of degradation and apparent injustice.  Even this is a disregard for a country's rules and regulations.  With the co-operation of the main opposition party, which is being bankrolled by outside interests, they can show and report whatever they wish - truth and falsehood.  Yet they expect us to believe everything they report.  One is unlikely to see any positive news about Zimbabwe in these reports.  Not long ago I saw a programme on BEN TV about Zimbabwe's booming tourism industry.  It covered a modelling show in the capital where the female participants expressed their pleasant astonishment at how different the country was from news coverage they'd seen.  I was very surprised myself to say the least.    

It shouldn't be of any great surprise that African leaders are reluctant to assume a tougher stance on Mugabe's government.  Most of them have been around long enough to recall the colonial era.  They are also aware of western propaganda and negative media coverage.  So what difference does it make showing us starving and malnourished children in Zimbabwe!  Isn't that what is regularly shown about Africa!  Most Africans do not necessarily like the hardship Mugabe's leadership has placed upon Zimbabweans.  They simply admire his bold stance against imperial jurisdiction and underhand politicking. 

The questions ought to be how did Zimbabwe get to its current predicament? Why is Britain singling out Zimbabwe for this show of care and concern when many other African nations experience great difficulties too?  The answers lie in Zimbabwe's political history, which the western media rarely gives any mention, with its selective reporting.  They want the world to believe Mugabe is simply an eccentric despot who despises his people and wants to starve them all to death.  The same people on whose behalf he fought many battles to free from an oppressive white minority rule of mostly British settlers.  Zimbabwe only gained its independence in 1980, some 20 years after countries like Nigeria and Ghana.  Up till then it was known as Rhodesia and ruled by an imperial government very much in the style of Apartheid South Africa.  A brutal and autocratic system of governance which treated blacks as second class citizens.  A government which forcibly and often violently dislodged Africans from their land and property, so that white settlers could own them.  Many dying in the process.  

The most recognisable face of this terrible government was Ian Smith, of the Rhodesian Front (RF) party.  A stubborn man with strong racial bias.  You would be forgiven for thinking that he and South Africa's Pieter Botha were twin brothers.  They certainly shared the same cruel ideology of white minority rule over a black majority, whom they considered worthless and had no business running their own affairs.  The British had been in charge of Zimbabwe from as far back as the 19th century.  However during the late 50s and early 60s, they came under increased pressure to give back the reigns of governance to the African majority, as many of their other colonies were gaining their independence.  This idea was strongly resisted by Ian Smith's RF party, which, in 1965, eventually broke away from the British government to have complete control of Zimbabwe.  From that day on the lot of black Zimbabweans worsened.  

This action by the RF received international condemnation, prompting United Nations sanctions instigated by the British government and the Organisation of African Unity (OAU).  I know this might seem very thoughtful of the British government, but let's not forget that it was their idea of white minority rule instituted in the early 1900s that became an uncontrollable monster.  The system, based on educational qualifications and property ownership, ensured that the white minority had the greatest percentage of votes in national elections right up till 1979.  Aside from this, some groups within Britain and a number of countries were supportive of Ian Smith's government and didn't adhere to the UN sanctions.  Apartheid South Africa was no surprise, but it is baffling to think that countries like Isreal, Portugal, Iran and some Arab countries were part of the click that continued to help the Rhodesian government. 

Internal resistance came from black nationalist movements like Zimbabwe African People's Union (ZAPU) led by Joshua Nkomo, and the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) led by non-other than the irrepressible Robert Mugabe.  Both organisations pushed for democratic rule which will put the black majority in the vantage position.  This led to the bitter war called the 'Rhodesian Bush War', which started in 1971 and ended in 1979.  Smith's evil regime finally succumbed to the determined internal black nationalist struggle and external pressure.  It resulted in a biracial rule from which Robert Mugabe became elected president in 1980.  The great Bob Marley was the main act on the independence day occasion, playing his freedom struggle song 'Zimbabwe' to a rapturous reception by elated black Zimbabweans.  They killed two birds with one stone that night - gaining their independence and having the added pleasure of one of the greatest black music icons perform live.  What a moment that must have been!       

Most of this back history is kept well away from our TV screens and so a lot of people, including some Africans are not as informed as they ought to be about Zimbabwe.  The media is an extremely powerful tool which can influence thoughts, perceptions and actions.  People tend to believe what is repeatedly broadcast to them.  Negative coverage about Africa has been damaging to the continent's development potential, and is largely responsible for the misconception of Africans the world over.  It is the same kind of coverage that fuels the notion that Islam is synonymous with terrorism.  That west is best, and beasts come from the east.  Mugabe knows the power of the media too.  He periodically broadcasts old film footage of the days of Zimbabwe's repressive white minority rule.  This is partly what ignited the passions that led to the whole land reclamation saga by black Zimbabweans.  There are striking similarities between both land grabbing exercises.  However the actions of the black veterans, as gruesome as it looked, pales in comparison with what blacks suffered at the hands of their white rulers for a much longer period. 

Zimbabweans, like any other group of people in the world deserve a good and prosperous existence and a responsive government which works in their best interest.  However it is up to them to decide their destiny.  Not outsiders from the other side of the world.  Not the same people who ruled them inappropriately for hundreds of years.  Not by a system which is pitting Zimbabweans against one another to arrive at their own objective.  Iraq today is a perfect example of what happens when others intervene in the affairs of a sovereign state.  The British and American governments do not have the moral justification to lecture anybody about wrong doings when they have behind a trail of calamities and injustices in Iraq and beyond which have claimed millions of lives.  Where were they during the massacre in Rwanda?  Where are they regarding the Isreali/Palestine issue that's been with us for eternity?  What about the slow motion reaction to the problems in Darfur?  They start another problem without solving the ones they created earlier.  Scratch below the surface of almost every single area of tension in the world today and you will find British and American involvement. 

The internal actions in Zimbabwe have sparked off an even greater calamity, all because a minority of white farmers lost their land, be it so in aggressive circumstances.  It still doesn't compare to the injustices blacks experienced at the hands of their white counterparts.  For many years the white minority of about 5% of the population, owned 95% of the land, which was tilled by the black population 95% of the time.  They sat back and reaped the profits, exporting plenty of the stuff to the west.  In spite of the horrors of Apartheid there has been no reprisals by black South Africans on their white counterparts.  White South Africans roam free as if nothing ever happened.  It shows how accommodating and forgiving Africans can be.  When you also consider the evils of the transatlantic slave trade and the racism that ensued in America, I think black people have conducted themselves quite admirably.  A lot of bitterness perhaps but no real vengeance.     

It is unlikely that Robert Mugabe will be remembered as one of Africa's greatest leaders.  However one thing is certain, his place in the history of Africa is set in stone.  In spite of his shortcomings, Africans and many Zimbabweans will mostly view him as a man who fought and liberated his people from the claws of many years of unfair white minority rule.  Even more poignant will be the fact that he stood-up to western powers by refusing to bow to their whims and norms.  What most people in the west fail to realise is this, the very pressure brought to bear on Mugabe by their governments is the very thing that fuels his radical instincts and keeps him in power.  It becomes an 'us against them' issue.  And regardless of what the media reports, most Zimbabweans will rather grit their teeth and unite with their own than give in to familiar external strangers.

Robert Mugabe has been in power for over two decades now.  Personally I am an advocate for change and the bringing in of new blood and fresh ideas.  But I also believe in a people's right to determine their destiny.  If the bulk of the people  wish to vote in the same person under a free and fair election basis, then it's up to them.  And for those disturbed by Mugabe's lengthy rule, it is worth pointing out that Ian Smith ruled the same Zimbabwe from 1965 till 1979.  Mugabe must have taken a leaf out of his book.

Robot  Villager

# 1 It shouldn't be of any great surprise that African leaders are reluctant to assume a tougher stance ...Read the full article. Posted by Robot| 04.10.2007 07:48

Abujaboy  Villager

# 2 So, basically this was simply a chance to vent all of the author's spleen against the West? It's hard to take anything he says seriously, as he commits, in a more egregious way, all of the errors and hypocrisies of which he accuses the West: The West can tolerate dictators like Saddam? I can do that with Mugabe! The West should let people exercise self-determination? I'll support Mugabe, who is a bulwark of megalomaniacal authoritarianism. There was a white tyrant in Rhodesia? I'll justify a black one! Western media outlets tell the story only from their perspective? I'll tell the story only from mine. Basically, the West is damned for its shortcomings and historical sins, and damned for attempting to do good. Mugabe is a *******, but he's a black, African *******, so he's OK. And don't bother to look too closely at the content of what I write -- or you'll be a Western colonialist imperialist for pointing out my errors. It's possible (but unlikely!) that the author actually believes what he says: "Zimbabweans, like any other group of people in the world deserve a good and prosperous existence and a responsive government which works in their best interest." -- but why does he attack the people who want to help them achieve that? And justify the biggest obstacle to that? Sorry, I can't hear your answer, the silence from African leaders is deafening. As is the blather foaming out of Belleh's pen. Posted by Abujaboy| 04.10.2007 11:16

Celticologist  Villager

# 3 =Abujaboy;20916582> Basically, the West is damned for its shortcomings and historical sins, and damned for attempting to do good. Mugabe is a *******, but he's a black, African *******, so he's OK. Se kunjalo!. Posted by Celticologist| 04.10.2007 11:51

JAGA-JAGA  Villager

# 4 This action by the RF received international condemnation, prompting United Nations sanctions instigated by the British government and the Organisation of African Unity (OAU). Mr. Raymond, First let me draw your attention to the above highlights of your message. The British Government and the American government never , I repeat never supported sanctions on either Rhodesia as Zimbabwe was then known or Republic of South Africa. It was the then USSR, China that stood their ground with Cuba in the security council with OAU(now AU) and other members of the non-aligned movement founded by Tito of the then Yugoslovia that ensured sanctions were applied against these racist regimes. The US and Britain ever supported sanctions at all. Indeed it was Ronald Regean of US who initiated the so called "constructive engagement" policy and stamped by the Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher of UK which never worked. The west was hypocritically saying that sanctions would hurt the black people most! Infact to buttress this point, during the Lusaka conference convened by the commonwealth heads of state to negotiate for the independence of Rhodesia, Margaret Thatcher did not attend as the British prime minister and indeed the foreign minister of Britain then (I can't remember his name again, may be Lord Soames or somebody else) was advised by the British public not to attend that particluar meeting in Lusaka Zambia because of the part played by Britain. Yet this man went ahead and when he arrived at the Lusaka airport like other commowealth dignitaries, they were all received by Kenneth Kaunda the then Zambian president who made the following famous quotation on sighting the British foreign secretary at Lusaka airport, hear him " As a human being you are welcomed to Zambia but as a symbol of what you represent you are the most unwelcomed visitor to Zambia" end of quote. What I'm trying to say here is that you should not distort facts in order to sell a bad market represented now by Robert Mugabe. Here is a man who fought for the independence of his people with Joshua Nkomo. He first manipulated the electoral system with his ethic majority the Shoana's against NKomo's minority Ndebele tribe. He forgot that but for the respect world leaders had for Joshua Nkomo many World and Afican leaders would'nt have supported him. He humiliated Johua Nkumo and threatened that one day he would have Nkomo's head brought to him in a basket. After this threat Nkomo retreated back to his tribe and spent most of life his in Bulawayo the major Ndebele city until his death. Mugabe then started a systematic plot to remain in power forever. When he saw that the opposition was overwhelming on him after completing his tenure in office as a prime minister he changed the constitution from the parliamentary to the presidential sytem from then on he continues to manipulate the electoral system to his favour. On realising that the opposition have teamed up against his despotic steps in power, he then started the issue of land reforms as his last joker and indeed no reasonal Zimbabwean bought that dommy from him hence his current state of despair. Is it not ime for Mugabe to vacate his office? Are there no qualified persons in Zimbabwe even within his own party that could be trusted to succeeed him? It appears he wants to destroy Zimbabe prior to his death. The short and simple solution is let Mugabe leave power now. Zimbabwe would not perish and in the contrary he is the root of retrogression of Zimbabwe. Nelson Mandela of South Africa is still alive today and he never destroyed his country even though he suffered in the hands of the whiteman more than Mugabe who was in exile enjoying himself at public and international expense. Posted by JAGA-JAGA| 04.10.2007 12:23

ocnus  Villager

# 5 If anything the writer is very discreet in his criticism of the British role. At the end of the war against the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by Ian Smith and the Rhodesian Front, the African coalition ZAPU and ZANU were adamant that they did not want to return to colonial status. The white Rhodies were defeated. This was established firmly at the Geneva Conference. This meant that Zimbabwe would be independent. The Rhodies understood this but were concerned that they would lose all their land and the farms they had built. The British insisted, at the Lancaster House talks, that although the Africans had won, that there be a period of transition before the Africans took over the farms. They suggested that there be several 'entrenched clauses' in the new constitution which would prevent the immediate takeover of land. These clauses would have an effect for ten years (1990) and then the British promised that they would deliver a billion pounds to compensate the farmers for the loss of their land. The US also agreed to assist. The Zimbabweans agreed. At the end of the ten years the Government rewote the entrenched clauses to allow Africans to take their land. A commission was set up with the white farmers to make this work effectively. They submitted an initial list of farms to be returned (almost all of which were 'second' or 'third' farms). The British refused to pay anything and funded a lawsuit by the farmers seeking to delay the transfer of the farms. Nothing much happened for a while but, when the Labour Government came in, Clare Short wrote a very nasty leter to Mugabe saying they the new government was not bound by any previous agreements and they wouldn't pay a kobo as compensation. Mugabe then said "Enough, we'll take over the farms which we have agreed; the farmers can seek their compensation from the British themselves." Since then the British have engaged in a propaganda war against Zimbabwe and Mugabe in particular. They have used their power in the Commonwealth to pressure the Zimbabweans. This continues. Zimbabwe's neighbours know all this and refuse to take the British side. This infuriates London. Fortunately, Mugabe is blesssed by having good enemies. They are divided, largely incompetent, and unsuccessful despite British help. So, don't believe everything you read about the country. It is far from being as simple as Whitehall would have you believe. Posted by ocnus| 04.10.2007 12:38

katampe  Villager

# 6 =ocnus;20916619> So, don't believe everything you read about the country. It is far from being as simple as Whitehall would have you believe. Interesting ! Posted by katampe| 04.10.2007 12:43

aguabata  Villager

# 7 those criticising Mugabe should know some more facts, Mugabe has managed the economy of zimbabwe for decades and suddenly he doesnt know his economics anymore, with hindsight mugabe should have put up a strategy to check western economic sabotage, even alan greenspan confessed that predicting economic patterns is dauting one, Mugabe unlike many african leader is not known for personal corruption, his recent crime is that he picked a fight with the west. back to facts; Their was an agreement between magareth thatcher, united states diplomats and Mugabe over land redistribution, britain and the united states agreed to pay the white farmers over a period for their lost farms, all the parties agreed after some wrangling, years later Tony Blairs government accused mugabe of redistributing the farms amongst his political allies and refused to pay any more money. I accept it is wrong for mugabe to share the farms amongst his friends, that is if it is true but simply put, the agreement did not give britain any oversight function on how the land should be shared amongst blacks. as britain pulled out of the agreement with America initially insisting that britain should dialogue with Zimbabwe, britain wrote a letter that the present government is not bound by previous government's agreement. Mugabe's next action opened up another sore chapter in Zimbabwes history, only last month Gordon brown attacked a UK based financial institution that offers loan facilities to the zimbabwean government, simply put the global network that sustained Zimbabwean farms were pulled out. unfortunately that global network is the west, financial institutions were pressured to call up for loan repayments, Zimbabwe has been ostracized from global funds and the britain is now happily singing the 5000% inflation song. Mugabe's Zimbabwe did not fall because of corruption unlike most african countries, it fell because it bit the hand that feeds the world. For the critics Mugabe has 3 more years and he has indicated that he may not complete his tenure and has sort out an option through the parliment to nominate someone in the event he steps aside or out as baba will say. Posted by aguabata| 04.10.2007 15:27

JAGA-JAGA  Villager

# 8 =aguabata;20916742>those criticising Mugabe should know some more facts, Mugabe has managed the economy of zimbabwe for decades and suddenly he doesnt know his economics anymore, with hindsight mugabe should have put up a strategy to check western economic sabotage, even alan greenspan confessed that predicting economic patterns is dauting one, Mugabe unlike many african leader is not known for personal corruption, his recent crime is that he picked a fight with the west. back to facts; Their was an agreement between magareth thatcher, united states diplomats and Mugabe over land redistribution, britain and the united states agreed to pay the white farmers over a period for their lost farms, all the parties agreed after some wrangling, years later Tony Blairs government accused mugabe of redistributing the farms amongst his political allies and refused to pay any more money. I accept it is wrong for mugabe to share the farms amongst his friends, that is if it is true but simply put, the agreement did not give britain any oversight function on how the land should be shared amongst blacks. as britain pulled out of the agreement with America initially insisting that britain should dialogue with Zimbabwe, britain wrote a letter that the present government is not bound by previous government's agreement. Mugabe's next action opened up another sore chapter in Zimbabwes history, only last month Gordon brown attacked a UK based financial institution that offers loan facilities to the zimbabwean government, simply put the global network that sustained Zimbabwean farms were pulled out. unfortunately that global network is the west, financial institutions were pressured to call up for loan repayments, Zimbabwe has been ostracized from global funds and the britain is now happily singing the 5000% inflation song. Mugabe's Zimbabwe did not fall because of corruption unlike most african countries, it fell because it bit the hand that feeds the world. For the critics Mugabe has 3 more years and he has indicated that he may not complete his tenure and has sort out an option through the parliment to nominate someone in the event he steps aside or out as baba will say.QUOTE> aguabata, This will be good news for the people of Zimbabwe. But I have my reservations because this is not the first time such news would filter out of Harare. Posted by JAGA-JAGA| 04.10.2007 15:46

EezeeBee  Villager

# 9 =ocnus>If anything the writer is very discreet in his criticism of the British role. At the end of the war against the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by Ian Smith and the Rhodesian Front, the African coalition ZAPU and ZANU were adamant that they did not want to return to colonial status. The white Rhodies were defeated. This was established firmly at the Geneva Conference. This meant that Zimbabwe would be independent. The Rhodies understood this but were concerned that they would lose all their land and the farms they had built. The British insisted, at the Lancaster House talks, that although the Africans had won, that there be a period of transition before the Africans took over the farms. They suggested that there be several 'entrenched clauses' in the new constitution which would prevent the immediate takeover of land. These clauses would have an effect for ten years (1990) and then the British promised that they would deliver a billion pounds to compensate the farmers for the loss of their land. The US also agreed to assist. The Zimbabweans agreed. At the end of the ten years the Government rewote the entrenched clauses to allow Africans to take their land. A commission was set up with the white farmers to make this work effectively. They submitted an initial list of farms to be returned (almost all of which were 'second' or 'third' farms). The British refused to pay anything and funded a lawsuit by the farmers seeking to delay the transfer of the farms. Nothing much happened for a while but, when the Labour Government came in, Clare Short wrote a very nasty leter to Mugabe saying they the new government was not bound by any previous agreements and they wouldn't pay a kobo as compensation. Mugabe then said "Enough, we'll take over the farms which we have agreed; the farmers can seek their compensation from the British themselves." Since then the British have engaged in a propaganda war against Zimbabwe and Mugabe in particular. They have used their power in the Commonwealth to pressure the Zimbabweans. This continues. Zimbabwe's neighbours know all this and refuse to take the British side. This infuriates London. Fortunately, Mugabe is blesssed by having good enemies. They are divided, largely incompetent, and unsuccessful despite British help. So, don't believe everything you read about the country. It is far from being as simple as Whitehall would have you believe. I hope the 'Mugabe is a b@stard' crew can read and understand, especially the last sentence above! Posted by EezeeBee| 04.10.2007 15:59

dapxin  Villager

# 10 =EezeeBee;20916766>I hope the 'Mugabe is a b@stard' crew can read and understand, especially the last sentence above! Anyone who has wondered how much attachment the British Media has with Zimbabwe recently wouldn't be surprised. The other week, ITV london crew carried dem entire news crew go Harare border, where they did live broadcasts on Mugabe. Of course, the theme was he is a despotic/insane/wicked head and the root cause of the problem The report concluded then that because South Africa was benefitting from the mass Exodus of Zimbabweans, she chose to shut up on the issue. I laughed. It is very clear that the West are out to make Mugabe take all the blame when it is evident that their own deeds/misdeeds have helped land Zimbabwe into her present state. Mugabe was a fighter. Real fighters don't usually make good leaders, especially in the long term. The earlier he recognises this, and take the Mandela route, the better Zimbabwe can breath easy. Clearly, you believe Whitehall at your own peril here. Posted by dapxin| 04.10.2007 17:29

---

The conversation continues in our forum. Click here to read all comments

---