General Mujuru's demise, what the media missed!

On August 20, 2011, the nation laid to rest General Solomon Mujuru, who was mourned by thousands of Zimbabweans from all walks of life. The media coverage of his death and hero status was not seen since the death of Dr Joshua Nkomo. Except for the obvious attempts to swing the General's legacy towards the advancement of private interests, the political rivalry among Zimbabweans was set aside.

Indeed, he is everyone's undisputed hero.

For the first time, we saw the private sector publicly paying tribute to a national hero, having been used to seeing only government and parastatal bodies placing condolence messages in the media.

As the President recited General Mujuru's story, it was a tearful and sombre time that kept thousands rivetted to the podium while listening to a near one-and-a-half-hour-long speech that surprisingly seemed too short for the day.

As I see it, there are some historic issues of substance that the media missed. The death of General Mujuru came at a time when the world's superpowers, America, UK and others were bombing Libya through NATO.

While NATO's official mission was disguised as protecting civilians, its covert role was evidently that of being the Rebel Air Force. On one hand NATO bombed advancing Gadaffi forces ostensibly to prevent them from attacking populated rebel held cities, while they bombed and helped rebels attack cities in government hands.

"Protecting civilians", was in line with the strategy of "making noise from the east while striking from the west. Unfortunately many people were so attracted to the noise of civilian casualties that they ignored the real motives of the west.

What were the real interests of the west and what we can learn from these? Not long before the uprisings, Gadaffi had become a friend of the west. How they quickly reinvented themselves with the swift switch from riding the horse that Gadaffi had become, to riding the new horse called "rebels" is quite intriguing.

The reason why they switched horses is important to the national question under debate in Zimbabwe today, for example what constitutes national interests? As I see it, the resolution of this question will settle our politics forever and there will be no question of which political party has the right to govern or not?

This is premised on the fact that national interests are worth fighting for and those who challenge them provoke a fight. It is against this background that aspiring politicians be warned, lest they provoke civil wars.

What must Zimbabweans understand from this NATO role in Libya? The western action simply implies, "it does not matter which horse you ride, so long as it pumps oil for you".

As a people whose worldview has been shaped by western cultural and intellectual values, we can take a leaf from them. Here is what defines "national interests" and President Mugabe used General Mujuru's burial to make what is arguably a historic declaration that is cast in stone. If well studied, this could become a trans-generational vision.

In the cast of the biblical exhortation, "Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful." (Joshua 1:8), the President spelt out the "non-negotiables" for the nation. These were the words of a leader exhorting the future generation before passing on the baton. As he spoke, there was the feeling that the leader was looking for a Joshua - one who would hold on to the substance of "national interests".

Worthy of note was that the President was unusually very gracious to Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai considering the divergent national visions of the two leaders. Unlike previous heroes burials during which the President would take personal aim at Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, he appeared to embrace him as a son of the nation who needed public counsel. I suspect that many, including the Prime Minister himself, were pleasantly surprised at the favour that was extended in full view of the nation.

Apart from calling for non-violence, it seemed to me there was a departure from a radical position that Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai should never rule, to laying down the qualifying conditions for ascendency into the top office. These conditions were spelt out as non partisan but national values to be cast on the stone tablet. The President urged the electorate to freely choose between him and other leaders, but that's where the media seemed to have stopped and missed the most significant point.

This point is of historic national importance as it goes to define conditions for peace or no peace and violence or no violence in this nation. The President decreed the constants, the non-negotiables, the fixed positions for Zimbabwe, which are the vital national interests which every leader who wants to rule must subscribe to. In this regard, anyone working against these national interests should and must be defined as an enemy of the nation.

This, he stated as the gains of the struggle which are; freedom, independence, right to self determination, right to our land, right to our economic resources and right to becoming masters of our own destiny". He declared, "On these, do not even negotiate with your enemy". I think this is profound. As something that was fought for with blood, whoever seeks to reverse it must commit to fighting. It cannot be negotiated but can only be taken in a military defeat and even then, the next generations will live to fight another day.

It is important to analyse this visionary position in relation to NATO interests in Libya to see if it is only a personal position that perishes with time or if it is the truth that transcends generations of time. The first is to learn from the British and Americans themselves.

What do they call national interests? What are they prepared to die for? What are they prepared to kill for? We are all too aware that they have send troops all over the world to defend their "national interests". Every country has ownership of its land and resources and its people have the right to rule over them.

These are interests within their national territories.

Unlike smaller nations, which have intra-territorial interests, western countries have assumed extra-territorial interests to even claim title to resources that are in other people's countries. Historically, national interests have always existed. They have always been based on the need to survive, to live a healthy, secure and prosperous life. It is the sole object of existence and an "interest" and politics of every nation. Everything at our disposal that enhances our ability to live and enjoy life is of national interest and likewise anything that threatens the quality of our life is a threat to our national interests.

Historically, people have fought for such survival basic needs as water, food, health safety, physical security, spiritual values, shelter etc. Whenever the means of delivering these needs were threatened, wars were fought. This is exemplified by wars over land, trade routes and material possessions. The west fights for oil because it is a survival necessity at home. If energy was withheld, it would affect the quality of life of its citizens. Hence it is of "national interest" for them to secure energy even to the extent of shedding blood.

Our people are confused about what constitutes national interests? The opposition thinks removing President Mugabe from power is a national interest worth dying for. Therefore they are even creating heroes out of those who have set that goal as a life calling worth dying for. They are completely blind to the goal congruence between President Mugabe and the very westerners from whom they draw their inspiration. The compulsory land redistribution and indigenisation are all part of promoting the quality of life of Zimbabweans which America similarly fights for on behalf of her citizens. We may ask, what did Gen Mujuru and President Mugabe fight for? Is it not the wrestling of national interests of land and resources from the hands of those who have seized them as part of extra-territorial interests at the expense of locals? Are Zimbabweans capable of seizing extra-territorial interests outside their God given birth right?

As I see it, here is the case of "crucifying the saviour" through ignorance. There is no historical precedent of a people that cry out for self dispossession as we have seen in the opposition. On the contrary, history tells us that people have always fought to possess those things that enhance their quality of life. This is the logic of NATO's action in Libya, Iraqi, Afghanistan, the British in the Falkland Islands, etc. It is out of being gatherers of loot for their own people that the British, Boers, Rhodesians created their heroes.

Even though Fredrick De Klerk handed over South Africa to blacks, he is still no hero to his own people for there is no price for those that scatter. So, what is this new acquired psychological scatter disposition that defies present, historical and biblical realities? This can only be described as mental decadence, depravity and the downward spiral of man. Here we have a case of short sightedness versus farsightedness.

While the notion of focussing on bread and butter issues makes good sound to the ears, it is the case of short term gains with long term negative consequences. According to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, the nature of man is that he is not merely satisfied with basic needs such as "bread and butter". South Africa is a good example. While every citizen has a belly full of food, a revolution is brewing. As Zambia's MMD has done everything the west prescribed, why is it out of office? South Africa's generation led by Julius Malema is not satisfied with bread and butter issues. It wants more and it is the reason why it resonates with President Mugabe's vision. A man is different from a chicken which, when fed, is satisfied till it dies. The needs of man increase with satisfaction of the lower ones. It therefore follows that if we sell our national interests for bread and butter issues today, we will have to fight again to regain them as the young people ask questions as to why other races control their own God given national resources.

As the Heroes Day was commemorated this year, it did not feel right that the opposition was unveiling its own roll of heroes. As these people died for a vision and agenda of opposing the possession of our possessions, what kind of heroes will we have under an opposition government? It seems that there is a false assumption that democracy means weakness and that it cannot use force when required to do so. If democracy is used to prevent us from taking possession of our birth right, then it becomes an instrument of conquest.

Once again the American case study shows that their soldiers are not out to die for democracy around the world. An analysis of their Middle Eastern engagements will tell you what is important to them. They eat with dictators when they allow them access to their "national interests" and they attack democracies when they deny them their "Interests". A case in point is their friendships with former and current dictatorships in Egypt, Libya, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, UAE, China and Pakistan, which are based on the security of their interests. On the other hand, their indiscriminate attack of both dictatorships and democracies as exemplified by the nations of North Korea, Afghanistan, Cuba, Venezuela, Palestine, Iran, Myanmar and Zimbabwe clearly shows that democracy is not the issue but national interests are the issues. This may look like confusion and contradiction. The common thread of logic is national interests are worth fighting for.

-------------
David Chiweza is a retired Brigadier General and strategic thinker, author and businessman.