Hidden Hand Behind MDC-T's Intransigence

OPINION – "The Bush administration said yesterday it no longer considers President Mugabe to be the legitimate leader of Zimbabwe and called upon the 'body politic' of his country 'to go forward and correct that situation'.

"We are continuing to work on what are some of the strategies that we can use to isolate Mugabe in the sense that he has to realise that the political status quo is not acceptable." He said the US and some European countries are working with the civil society in Zimbabwe, including human rights groups and private media journalists. — The Washington Times, citing US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Walter Kansteiner, August 21 2002).

WE begin with the passage from The Washington Times of August 21 2002 in order to put into context the direct link between US-UK interference in Zimbabwe’s internal affairs and the continuing demand for illegal transfer of power by MDC-T as well as Morgan Tsvangirai’s refusal to accept the mandate of "inclusive governance" which voters created through the March 29 harmonised elections and the subsequent presidential run-off election of June 27 2008.

In other words, there is a direct link between the external manoeuvres of the regime change forces led by the US and UK and the internal manoeuvres of the internal proxies of those same in the form of MDC-T and its NGO cohorts here in Zimbabwe. The demand for the illegal transfer of power comes from exactly the same voters. But the same voters hold the key to solving the same problems.

First let us examine the external manoeuvres by the US, the UK and the allies. Having failed to stage the coup d’etat which the US State Department called for on August 20 2002, the US, the UK and the EU in June 2008 sought to subvert Zimbabwe’s constitutional and electoral process in order to achieve the same objective stated by the State Department on August 20 2002: The overthrow of the elected Government and the unilateral cancellation of the people’s vote.

How exactly did these powers try to achieve this objective?

l First, the US State Department again rejected the sovereign mandate of Zimbabwe’s voters in the 2005 parliamentary elections which all the participating observers declared free and fair.

l Second, Bernard Kouchner for the European Union presidency; Gordon Brown for the British Labour government; and Condoleezza Rice and Jendayi Fraser for the US government — all stated in June 2008 that the only government of Zimbabwe they were willing to recognise was one led by Tsvangirai.

l Third, the same leaders sought to force Zimbabwe to cancel the presidential run-off, even though it was required by our Constitution. They wanted to force the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission and the voters to revert to the indecisive election results that gave the opposition a slight edge over the liberation movement, Zanu-PF.

l Fourth, when 80 percent of the presidential run-off vote went to President Mugabe, the same white powers denounced the result and demanded the installation of Tsvangirai of the MDC as President of Zimbabwe.

l Fifth, they successfully recruited at least three leaders in Sadc to agitate for the position of the UK, US and EU — that is to urge Sadc and the AU not to recognise President Robert Mugabe as the legitimately elected head of state of Zimbabwe. It took the firm resolutions of AU and Sadc summits to silence those three heads of state.

l Sixth, and finally, the UK and US manipulated the G8 and the UN Security Council to invoke Chapter Seven of the UN Charter against Zimbabwe in order to obtain UN permission for a military invasion of Zimbabwe which the US and the UK had been contemplating since the days of their Iraq invasion in 2003.

These political and diplomatic manoeuvres by the US, the UK and the EU were packaged as aimed only at removing one man, President Robert Mugabe, in the very same way that the vicious and illegal economic sanctions against all the people of Zimbabwe have also been misrepresented as targeted against the same President and his so called "cronies".

Yet a close analysis of all the manoeuvres by the white powers shows that their aim is to cancel the will of the people and the emphatic results of the people’s vote. This was the aim of Walter Kansteiner’s declaration on August 20 2002 as much as it was the aim of all the pronouncements by Gordon Brown, Bernard Kouchner, Condoleezza Rice and Jendayi Fraser in June 2008. What these white racist powers have been saying since 2001 is that the aspirations and votes of the people Zimbabwe do not count. What counts are the interests of white Britain, Europe, North America and the proxy groups they have chosen to sponsor within Zimbabwe.

But Sadc, through the mediation efforts of President Thabo Mbeki, has recognised both the aspirations and the votes of the people of Zimbabwe as the only bases for legitimate governance. 

The people of Zimbabwe aspire to fully reclaim and use their once stolen land. The people of Zimbabwe aspire to secure and exploit the natural assets and human resources of their country. The people of Zimbabwe aspire to choose their trade and development partners in the world. And the people of Zimbabwe elected a multi-party Senate and House of Assembly to pursue and implement these aspirations and objectives through mechanisms of "inclusive governance" to be led by President Robert Mugabe and to be based on the results of the presidential run-off on June 27 2008. That is democracy at work.

Sadc has conveyed these aims and aspirations of the people to the AU and to the Non-Aligned Movement who have also endorsed them. Together, Sadc, AU and NAM have also succeeded in getting China, Russia, Vietnam and Libya to block the Anglo-Saxon attacks on Zimbabwe at the UN Security Council.

So far it would seem as if the Euro-American onslaught from Walter Kansteiner in 2002 to Bernard Kouchner in 2008 has been fully rebuffed by Sadc, AU, NAM and those members of the UN Security Council who are friendly to Zimbabwe. However, there is need for an internal spear to complement the external diplomatic shield against foreign intrusion.

The majority of the people of Zimbabwe, the true and intended victims of sanctions and destabilisation, hold the internal spear against the internal proxies of the external powers. Since the end of the presidential run-off election President Robert Mugabe and President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa have been pleading with those who may have become proxies of the external powers against Zimbabwe without knowing the tragic implications of such collaboration. The two leaders have been advising all those who became prodigal sons or prodigal daughters, without much though, to come back home and affirm the unity of Zimbabwe and the wish of the overwhelming majority for inclusive governance, national unity and an immediate end to sanctions.

It is now September, a long way from June 2008, and it looks as if MDC-T has definitely not listened to the appeals of the two leaders. The following evidence leads to this conclusion and our readers must judge for themselves each of the following examples.

The unelected military leader of Botswana, Ian Khama, is one of the three Sadc leaders once recruited to divide Sadc over Zimbabwe and to help the UK and US governments to destabilise the country. Yet it is that same leader and that same country which MDC-T and its leader are now using as a financial, diplomatic and propaganda rear-base from which to divide and destabilise Zimbabwe on behalf of the British and the North Americans.

The external infiltration of Zimbabwe through Botswana is so rife that even the EU and US shooting list of Zimbabwean patriots is being circulated and implemented by the Khama regime and the Botswana Diocese of the Anglican Church of the Province of Central Africa. One Reverend Archford Musodza frequently communicates with the regime change elements inside Zimbabwe.

In the run-up to the June 27 presidential run-off election Musodza wrote a letter to one Christine in which he assumed that MDC-T was going to bury Zanu-PF and President Robert Mugabe on June 27. He wrote the following astounding things, among many others:

"Once the old man, Mugabe is ousted, either by the ballot box or by the MDC-T’s other plan as discussed over the phone, that will also be the end of (Bishop Nolbert Kunonga). Once MDC-T’s Tsvangirai takes the reins, then all former white farmers are assured of a return to their farms. The church will be restored and we can mobilise all Anglicans to now vote for a Bishop of Zimbabwe from Britain who is not polluted.

"The British bishop will be mandated to return the Zimbabwean Church back (sic) to correct hands, the English Church with proper British ethos."

It is only MDC- T president Morgan Tsvangirai who is mentioned by name in the letter to Christine as deserving imperialist support in Zimbabwe. Several other persons (including one MDC-T Member of Parliament who is a prominent lawyer) are also mentioned. Former Selous Scouts agents remaining in Zimbabwe are also mentioned as among the forces, which will help Morgan Tsvangirai, consolidate power.

Some readers could argue that the Musodza letter to Christine is fake. This would make sense if we were relying on just that leaked letter to reach our conclusions.

But there are other indicators. Apart from the anti-Sadc Zimbabwe postures and activities of the Botswana English Church and the military regime of Ian Khama, there has been Morgan Tsvangirai’s prolonged stay in Botswana after the March 29 harmonised elections as well as his campaign to reverse the result of the June 27 poll from Botswana.

Most recently there are disturbing allegations that at least seven MDC Mutambara MPs-elect were lured to Botswana just before their swearing-in and lured with foreign currency in order to make them vote with MDC-T.

The same media reports also reports also allege that the same seven MPs, after their swearing-in and on the eve of the opening of the Seventh Parliament of Zimbabwe, decided to abandon the accommodation officially booked for them by Parliament officials.

They joined MDC-T MPs at the Meikles Hotel where they continued to consult on ways to achieve regime change, contrary to the idea of an all-inclusive government led by President Mugabe.

Then during President Robert Mugabe’s official speech opening that Seventh Parliament of Zimbabwe, about 20 or more opposition MPs disrupted Parliament on camera. It is alleged by legal experts that disruption of Parliament was clearly in violation of Section 21(schedule) of the Privileges, Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act, Chapter 2:08. 

The fact that neither the opposition nor individual members have apologised for what happened at the opening of the Seventh Parliament is consistent with role of the opposition required by the UK, the US and the EU, but totally inconsistent with the expectations and aspirations of the majority of the people of Zimbabwe who want an inclusive government focused on reversing the damage caused by unilateral and illegal sanctions invited by the same opposition in 2000-2001.

It is therefore important at this stage in the history of the Anglo-Saxon onslaught on Zimbabwe for the media to alert the majority of the people of Zimbabwe to the dangers which the opposition continues to pose for this country.

First, from its beginning in 1999, the opposition and its "civil society" NGOs have allowed the Anglo-Saxon powers to parade the same opposition as part and parcel of the illegal regime change apparatus and as an internal proxy of the white West. When the leader of the Mutambara faction of this opposition recently allowed a belated interview to tell the same white powers to leave Zimbabweans to solve their own problems, that was exactly when seven MPs from that faction allegedly deserted the faction and rejoined the intransigent MDC-T.

l Since late 2007, Zanu-PF and the Government of Zimbabwe have been urging the opposition to join them in denouncing and resisting the illegal, unilateral and racist sanctions invited upon the country by the same opposition back in 2000. The opposition continues to refuse to join Zanu-PF and the Government in this urgent effort.

Instead, a large number of officials and supporters of that opposition continued to lie about the reality of economic sanctions, choosing to define them as just travel bans. Morgan Tsvangirai, Learnmore Jongwe, Nelson Chamisa, Obert Gutu, Douglas Mwonzora, Rashweat Mukundu and scores of others have misled the people into believing that the sanctions were just travel bans meant to keep President Mugabe and a few of his "cronies" from travelling. The unashamed denials were made on television, although other footage already existed on ZTV and BBC, in which Morgan Tsvangirai and Fidelis Mhashu had openly begged the world, and especially South Africa, to cut off the flow of petrol, diesel, electricity, finance, trade and everything else of consequence going to or coming out of Zimbabwe.

It was only after the British Labour government, the US Republican administration, and the EU began to target and threaten specific multinational companies over Zimbabwe in July and August 2008 that Tapiwa Mashakada of MDC-T finally admitted on ZTV that the sanctions were real economic measures targeting the whole economy and the people and not just travel bans on a few individuals. Yet, even after that, the opposition has remained silent on the issue of sanctions here, while its supporters abroad openly celebrate the effects of those same sanctions on the entire population of Zimbabwe.

l In late 2002, NGOs supporting the MDC showed their support for Anglo-Saxon efforts to divide and destroy Zimbabwean society. They published a big document called "Is Zimbabwe on the Brink of Genocide?" They proceeded to answer their own question, indicating which alleged "tribe" was going to set up and massacre which other "tribe" using what issues and what means.

The MDC formations for their part helped the efforts of their NGO supporters by claiming that genocide was indeed an ongoing process in Zimbabwe, targeted against the opposition. How the MDC formations could be defined as a tribe or race subject to genocide remains beyond comprehension.

l During the opening of the Seventh Parliament, those members of the opposition disrupting the proceedings clearly shouted that President Robert Mugabe and Government had no right to honour Kirsty Coventry as a sports heroine of national and international stature who won gold and silver medals for Zimbabwe at the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing. It was in this part of their disruption of Parliament that the 20 or more MPs displayed the binary logic which the MDC-T has adopted from the rightwing who sponsored and founded the party.

The MPs shouted that, because Kirsty Coventry was of Caucasian ancestry, she could not and should not be hailed on behalf of the people by President Robert Mugabe and his Government. They went further to say that Kirsty Coventry belonged to them, to the opposition by virtue of her being of Caucasian ancestry.

This display of racist dualism has been an integral part of opposition thinking in Zimbabwe especially since 1999.

As a project sponsored by Anglo-Saxon powers, the MDC has adopted as one of its responsibilities the duty to erase the history of the African liberation movement by equating it with that of Nazism, fascism, apartheid and even UDI. The techniques used include what Naomi Klein calls recasting and conflating or conflation. 

In recasting, the African land reclamation movement which seeks to enable the dispossessed African majority to reclaim their land which was once stolen by white settlers is presented as reverse racism which leaves no room for whites who are reconciled to Zimbabwe. But, in fact, this movement merely requires all Zimbabwean citizens of all racial origins to accept that the State now controls land on behalf of all

The people and that all those who have reconciled themselves with the new Zimbabwe are entitled to queue for land on an equal basis and they shall be resettled. The sponsors of the MDC formations want the opposition to portray the land reclamation movement a racist war by Africans and against all the people of Caucasian descent.

This recasting erases the fact that Guy Clutton-Brock, a Caucasian Briton from Wales, was among the first Zimbabwean heroes to be buried at the National Heroes Acre. This recasting erases the fact that former East Germany, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and former Soviet republics, together with China, were among the most faithful supporters of the African liberation movements of Southern Africa. This recasting seeks to erase the historical fact that it was President Mugabe who as Prime Minister in 1980 invited all Zimbabweans of all races to join the liberation movement in a process of national healing and reconciliation.

From the recasting, it becomes easy for the MDC formations and their white sponsors to conflate the interests of the few unreconstructed Rhodesians and Britons who rejected the hand of African reconciliation as if they are the universal interest of every Caucasian person who has ever lived on this planet. For it is only the few unreconstructed and defiant former Rhodesians and Britons who have so lost is because, by refusing to be resettled, they have refused to share that land with the dispossessed Africans.

The MDC formations are on the record claiming that the Daily News which used to be published by the Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe, was meant to be their mouthpiece.

It is from that mouthpiece that we find the roots of binary linking (in the MDC formations) which claims that President Mugabe, Zanu-PF and the Government of Zimbabwe cannot and should not honour a national star of Caucasian ancestry because "she is not yours; she is ours (MDC)." In other words, by virtue of her ancestry, Kirsty Coventry or any other white heroine or hero belongs to the foreign-sponsored MDC formations.

Proof of this binary logic and the assigned role of the MDC formations can be found in the Daily News, April 19 2002. R. S. Mazoyo published a letter entitled "White Presence in MDC gives Zanu-PF hallucinations". The writer claimed that white people began to sit in harmony with Africans for the first time in the MDC and because of the MDC.

From there it was easy to claim that the African land reclamation movement was merely an African revenge orgy against all white people. It was driven not by desire for justice, fairness and restitution but by sheer black hatred of whites. The Daily News, June 15 2002, published a lengthy letter by one Marko Phiri, which conveyed this conflated message: Mugabe’s white hate gospel has failed to poison race relations. The writer returned to paternalistic Rhodesian language of the late 1950s, race relations, rather than revolutionary solidarity.

Then on March 26 2003, The Daily News took the recasting and conflation to extremes. The President, in an address to mourners at Heroes Acre, scoffed at British efforts to portray him as an African Hitler’s reputation is one of over-running other people’s countries and destroying other people’s nations and institutions.

On the contrary, President Mugabe’s only ambition was to enable the people of Zimbabwe to reclaim and control the territory and assets of Zimbabwe and nothing more. However, The Daily News of March 26 2003 turned the meaning of the President’s remark completely up side down and inside out, declaring: "Mugabe equates himself to Hitler"

This MDC mission on behalf of white Rhodesians and the Euro-American white right explains the remarks shouted by the rowdy opposition MPs and Kirsty Coventry. This consistent mission, dating back to the founding of the MDC, also suggests that the opposition may not improve its behaviour even if it signs an agreement with Zanu-PF. A piece of paper may not change the mission or the history of the MDC documented here.