Western Democracy - Brazen Use of Force to Obtain Compliancy
IT is ironic that the brazen use of economic force with a view to obtain compliance to the US-led Western alliance a clear intent of conquest, well in accordance with the ancient law of nations; that old history of rule by conquest is hailed as a quest for happiness and freedom.
The lethal economic strangulation that has crippled Zimbabwe over the past decade has been based on an assumption that those who have sanctioned the country are motivated by noble intentions aimed at elevated ideals.
Traditionally, idealism, especially Wilsonian idealism has been used as the fundamental assumption behind the imperial grand strategy, whose truth is taken to be pretty obvious, the guiding principle that says the elite circles running Western governments are inherently good and noble.
From this perspective their interventions are necessarily righteous in intent, though they may occasionally be clumsy in execution.
The tradition of idealism is rooted in such values as peace, altruism, rule of law and morality.
Pacifists, federalists, humanitarians, legalists and moralists are all part of the traditional school of idealism and legends like Nehru, Ghandi, Henr de Saint and Mother Theresa will easily come to mind.
Idealism seeks to promote the "art of governance" and not the "art of the possible" and real idealism is firmly opposed to the realist notion of "power politics" as a natural phenomenon.
Capitalism believes that a human being is a "competing animal" motivated by the quest for success and by a hierarchy of needs that are inherently selfish.
The founding fathers of realism, Edward Hallett Carr, Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz converge on the notion that international relations are driven by "real-poltik" or "power politics", seen as an inherently natural phenomenon behind foreign policy and the national interest of nation states.
Practitioners of realism like Franklin D Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, or George W Bush are often glorified under the banner of lofty idealistic values like democratisation, civilisation, freedom, happiness or any other truisms, and rarely do right wing historians gather enough courage to exalt these people as driven by "power politics" or sheer military might.
This is Wilsonian idealism, which as Woodrow Wilson himself wrote, is dedicated to "stability and righteousness".
In justifying the conquest of the Philippines, Wilson wrote that "our interest must march forward, altruists though we are, other nations must see to it that they stand off, and do not seek to stay us."
In this regard those countries who, by mere historical and geographical coincidence happen to sit on top of oil, minerals, rich soils or any other resources must ensure that "they stand off, and do not seek to stay" the West.
Every nation, must in this context acknowledge that Western civilisation in general and the US in particular are the "historical vanguard", according to Wilson.
Accordingly, US hegemony and Western dominance is supposed to be viewed as the realisation of history's purpose, and what that dominance and hegemony achieves is meant to be for the common good of humanity, the untainted and merest truism, free of need for evaluation or criticism.
This is the logic that says it is the weaker countries that need to adjust to Western benchmarks without questioning.
Zimbabwe must diligently study the benchmarks that have been laid down by the US-UK alliance and indeed vigorously adhere to such principles if at all any form of Western developmental aid is to be expected in the country.
After all the primary principle that drives US foreign policy is rooted in Wilsonian idealism as carried out by the Bush administration in its realisation that foreign policy is "the imperative of America's mission as the vanguard of history, transforming the global order and, in doing so, perpetuating its own dominance," guided by "the imperative of military supremacy, maintained in perpetuity and projected globally."
When President Obama's speech writers make him talk of world leaders "who are on the wrong side of history" this is the history that they are talking about a history whose "vanguard" is the United States.
According to this Wilsonian doctrine history has a "discernible direction and destination" and in this context the United States "comprehends and manifests history's purpose".
By virtue of its unique comprehension and manifestation of history's purpose, America, and indeed the Western community, are naturally obligated, to act as Western leaders determine to be best, for the good of all humanity, regardless of whether those others from various parts of the world understand it or not.
It can only be the foolish and resentful that may seek to stay the West and that may seek to refuse to stand off as the West is marching forward.
The African Union and Sadc cannot in this sense refuse to "stand off" on Zimbabwe. They cannot be the "vanguard of history" in determining the political events in this centre of global interest in Africa. Simply put, the African Union and Sadc have no capacity "to comprehend and manifest history's purpose".
It is only the West that is entitled to transform the global order and any political transformation that seeks to sideline the West cannot be valid, by definition and by design.
For seeking to discern the direction and destination of its own history, Zimbabwe has been subjected to the ancient law of nations, the law of conquest, albeit by sheer brute economic strangulation.
For seeking to pick up the battered brother and guaranteeing the future of a fellow African State, Sadc and the African Union have both attracted threats and ridicule from the West. According to the merits of the imperial grand strategy, they simply have no locus stand no minimum right "to transform the global order".
This is the background upon which the current arrangement of an inclusive government in Zimbabwe is based a background of the wounded ego of those who bestow upon themselves the inalienable right to shape the destiny of all others.
Zimbabwean politicians themselves are not any less unfortunate. There is on the one hand a camp of combative oral revolutionists vowing never ever to allow imperialistic forces a free reign over the affairs of the country while a good number among these has no clue on how best to counter Western strangulation for the good of the revolution they purport to be cadres to. They are simply hopeless rhetoricians.
On the other hand there are Wilsonian idealists who believe that they have lofty ideas based on democracy, prosperity, freedom, happiness and unrestricted equality for all. These are the people so blinded by absolute ambition and raw zeal that to them everything in the political field is a big discovery. Talk of one smitten by the zeal of the novice.
Playing up people's emotions by carrying out revisionist autopsies of the regrettable Gukurahundi era is not going to grow the economy and neither is it going to heal the sick, feed the hungry or employ the unemployed.
It may surely make the explorer feel like the excellent diagnostic practitioner who blames the bacteria for the disease but after the blame it will be called upon the good practitioner to provide the solution.
The African Union and Sadc will not be done any good by a bunch of Zimbabwean politicians who are stuck in the politics of personal interests. That would only play right into the hands of those detractors who would want to see the African initiative in Zimbabwe plunging into humiliation.
What Africa needs to see in Zimbabwe is honesty, initiative, creativity, hard work, accountability, sacrifice, goodwill, commitment and a clear vision. The country cannot continue to be stuck in debating and quarrelling over the dreams of individuals at the expense of the common good of the country's national vision as guided by the national interest.
Individuals will always have dreams but those who confuse their personal dreams with the national interest must never be allowed to find their way into public offices, let alone into government or parliament.
