FEATURE ARTICLE

Oliver Mbamara, Esq.,
Oliver@Expressionsofsoul.com
New York, USA

Zimbabwe:
Disagreeing with the West does not mean a support of Mr. Mugabe

will try to make this a brief piece, and the reason is simple. It is not my intention to convince anyone to change his stand on the Zimbabwe situation. I simply wish to alert those who care to know about what lies beneath the face of recent events in Zimbabwe, and I take no side. Every individual can pitch his tent on whichever side of the camp that most appeals to him or her, and I will hardly worry. However, when some of us decide to reduce the issue to a battle between writers or intellectuals, I am called to write again.

I would think that when one feels that the view expressed in a write-up is 'wrong,' one of two simple things could be done. (1) Ignore the write-up, or (2) write a rejoinder or an independent piece wherein 'the supposed correct view' is expressed. The reader is allowed to be the judge. To resort to name-calling is to miss the point and to distract the reader from the issue at stake. Can we not have a discourse or at least respectfully disagree without necessarily pitching opposing camps and insulting those whose views we find contrasting to ours? The fact that a write-up disagrees with the policies of the West in Zimbabwe (and Africa) does not necessarily mean that the writer is in support of Robert Mugabe (or any African leader who abuses human rights).

The Zimbabwe issue is definitely beyond Mr. Robert Mugabe. In fact it is beyond Zimbabwe, and to continue addressing it as a Robert Mugabe orchestrated affair is to loose sight of the substance of the issue. My point is this, while not exonerating Mugabe of the allegations against him, if care is not taken in the way we read and react to the trend of things in Zimbabwe, millions of Zimbabweans will be worse for it. One is forced to conclude that western nations are suddenly picking on the misdeeds of Mr. Mugabe in order to attain some clandestine objectives in Zimbabwe. To follow such decoy, or to let them have their way simply because they pretend to bring democracy to Africa will be unfortunate. We appreciate the gains of democracy but not one that comes with devastating strings attached. Such qualified democracy has only brought chaos to Africa.

The colonial tactics of divide and rule, indirect rule, and the policy of assimilation, were so successful during the 'first colonial rule,' and amazingly, some of us still fall prey to such imperialist tactics that caused so much upheaval in the African continent that we are yet to recover from the consequences decades after we obtained our so called independence.

I continue to see differently, rather than jump on the bandwagon with the West to call for Mugabe's head, and I must admonish those who have chosen to see things like me, not to falter in their convictions because time will surely vindicate the truth. When Mugabe is finally gone, the occasion will call again for the West to show its stake in Africa. God willing, we will all be around to watch it unfold. The European sanctions and the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth is just the beginning. The road ahead is certainly rough for Zimbabwe. I can only hope that we will learn our lessons.

Meanwhile, I will not accuse the West of hypocrisy, greed, or ulterior motives, and I will not engage any writer in a war of words, for time will tell. However, while we wait, let me leave you with a few things to ponder.

1. If according to Joe Pullen, 1% of Zimbabwe's population owns 90% of the wealth, and they form a (mostly white) circle that has connections to international economy and links to independent press, is it farfetched that this minority circle has the ability to raise the dust and influence the West against a leader who seeks to take away their wealth (90% of Zimbabwe's wealth, by the way)?

2. Where were the European Union, and the Commonwealth in the 80's when thousands of black (not white) Zimbabweans were killed when this same Mugabe dealt with the opposing Joshua Nkomo, the Ndebeles, etc.?

3. The following African leaders have stayed for more than 10 years, some 20 years. (Compilation by Akwasi Aidoo) Eyadema, Moi, Campaore, Lansana Conte, Bashir, Museveni, Mswati, Biya, Mubarak, Charles Taylor, Yahya, Dos Santos, Meles, Bouteflika, Joakim Chisano, Ben Ali, Idris Deby, Ghadafi, Taya, Sam Nujoma, Omar Bongo, and Obiang Nguema. Returnees include: Kerekou, Obasanjo, and Nguesso. Incidentally, long stay in office is common with African leaders, and in some cases they begin by coups and sometimes they are sustained by imperfect elections. Why is Mugabe singled out?

4. How vigorously did the West act when the (Presidential) election of late Chief Moshood Abiola was annulled by the then Ibrahim Babangida Military regime in Nigeria?

5. Why were Liberians abandoned in their plight to overcome the iron hand of Samuel Doe, until Yormie Johnson (and Charles Taylor) overcame the Dictator Doe at the cost of a civil war and thousands of Liberian lives?

6. Why was West Africa's ECOMOG allowed to be in charge in dealing with the atrocities in Liberia and its neighboring countries including Sierra Leone while Africa's O.A.U is being ignored today in Zimbabwe?

7. Thousands of Tootsies and Hooties were abandoned to expunge themselves in Rwanda after the peacekeeping force suffered some casualty. When similar trouble as in Rwanda arose in Bosnia and Yugoslavia, the West stayed till the end. Are Bosnian and Yugoslavian lives worth more than Rwandan lives?

8. Currently, 'Talibanistic' atrocities are ongoing against Southern blacks in Sudan, while Madagascar continues to burn in a crisis arising from last December's election, with the Mayor of the capital city declaring himself the President. What about that?

9. The same week that Mugabe was re-elected, another election in Congo (Brazzaville) returned another erstwhile African leader (Nguesso) to power. Dennis Nguesso, has been referred to as a serial 'coup maker' whose main rival Andre Milango was frustrated to pull out of the race. Why is the West not interested in 'poor' Congo?

10. Britain's son - Ian Smith oppressed the blacks in order to protect the rights of the whites in the then Southern Rhodesia. Africa's son - Robert Mugabe sought (still seeks) to recover lands from whites in the same country (now Zimbabwe). Both men abused human rights in their bid. Why is Smith a hero and Mugabe, a dictator?

The abuse of human rights should not be condoned whether in Zimbabwe or elsewhere. However, it is obvious that the West did not just become aware of the abuses in Zimbabwe at the eve of the last election. Is it wrong then to ask, why the sudden outcry from the West? Is it merely a coincidence that the outcry of the West against Mugabe has been at its loudest since Mugabe engaged in a full-drive to recover lands from whites in Zimbabwe? Could there be a reason for the selective involvement of the West in African affairs? If western policies on Africa are so suspiciously selective, should we accept and swallow them hook, line, and sinker, all in the name of aid and democracy?

I have raised some issues, and regardless of how strongly I feel about them, I shall now leave the podium for others to express their views. If they dwell on the issues at stake, I will listen (or read) and ponder but I am not bound to agree.

Oliver Mbamara, Esq., is an Administrative Law Judge with the State of New York.
Website: www.Expressionsofsoul.com