The Guardian 28 March, 2007
Zimbabwe — a justified response?
According to the Western media spin, the reason for Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe’s crackdown on the opposition is due to the fact that his government is inherently authoritarian, greedy for power for power’s sake, and willing to do anything — from stealing elections to cracking skulls — to hang on to its privileged position.
This is the typical slander levelled at the heads of governments the US and UK have trouble with, from Milosevic in his day, to Kim Jong Il, to Castro, Hugo Chávez and Mari Alkatiri among others.
Another view is that the government’s authoritarianism is an inevitable reaction to circumstances that are unfavourable to the attainment of its political (not its leaders’ personal) goals. Mugabe’s government came to power at the head of a movement that sought political independence for Zimbabwe (formerly colonial Rhodesia). It aspired to reverse the historical theft of land by white settlers. That the opposition would be fierce and merciless to the liberation movement was inevitable.
Reaction to the opposition, if the government and its anti-colonial agenda were to survive, would need to be equally fierce and merciless.
At the core of the conflict is a clash of right against right: the right of white settlers to enjoy whatever benefits stolen land yields in profits and rent, against the right of the original owners to reclaim their land.
Economic independence
Allied to this is a broader struggle for economic independence, against investors and corporations abroad that profit from untrammelled access to Zimbabwe’s labour, land and resources and the right of Zimbabweans to restrict that access on their own terms in order to facilitate their own economic development.
Mugabe is sometimes criticised for being pushed into accelerating land reform by a restive population impatient with the glacial pace of redistribution allowed under the Lancaster House agreement with the white settlers. His detractors allege, implausibly, that he has no real commitment to land reforms. He only does what’s necessary to stay in power.
No matter what the motivations of the government’s leaders, the course the government follows is conditioned by the goals of the larger movement of national liberation.
The real question is whether one thinks that Morgan Tsvangirai and the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) is merely trying to freely express their views or are proxies for imperialist governments bent on establishing (restoring in Britain’s case) hegemony over Zimbabwe.
What is the MDC?
Last year Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of an opposing MDC faction, and eight of his colleagues, were thrown out of Zambia after attending a meeting arranged by the US ambassador to Zimbabwe, Christopher Dell, with representatives of Freedom House, a US ruling class organisation that promotes regime change in countries that are not considered sufficiently committed to free markets, free trade and free enterprise.
Funded by the billionaire speculator George Soros, USAID, the US State Department and the US Congress’s National Endowment for Democracy (whose mission has been summed up as doing overtly what the CIA used to do covertly), Freedom House champions the rights of journalists, union leaders and democracy activists to organise openly to bring down governments whose economic policies are against the profit-making interests of US bankers, investors and corporations.
The MDC policies are clearly in line with its backers: the MDC favours economic "liberalisation", privatisation and a return to the buyer/seller land-redistribution regimen — a status quo policy that would limit the state’s ability to redistribute land to only tracts purchased from white farmers who are willing to sell.
There’s no question that Mugabe’s government is in a precarious position. The economy is in a shambles, due in part to drought, to the disruption caused by land reform, and to sanctions.
White farmers
White farmers want Mugabe gone (to slow land redistribution, or to stop it altogether), London and Washington want him gone (to ensure neo-liberal "reforms" are implemented), and it is likely that some members of his own party also want him to step down.
On top of acting to sabotage Zimbabwe economically through sanctions, the UK, US and Australia — amongst others — have been funnelling financial, diplomatic and organisational assistance to groups and individuals who are committed to bringing about regime change in Zimbabwe. This includes Tsvangirai and the MDC factions, among others.
The timing of last week’s MDC rally was suspicious (it coincided with the opening of the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council.) Its depiction as a prayer meeting is flagrantly disingenuous. Those of an unprejudiced mind will recognise it for what it was: a political rally, held in already volatile conditions, whose outcome would either be insurrection or a crackdown that could be used to call for tougher sanctions, even intervention.
The Mugabe government faced two options: capitulate (and surrender any chance of maintaining what independence Zimbabwe has managed to secure at considerable cost) or fight back.
Some people might deplore the methods used, but considering the actions and objectives of the opposition — and what is at stake — the crackdown could be seen as both measured and necessary.
*Acknowledgement to Stephen Gowans for material in this article:
gowans.wordpress.com