Opinion / Columnist
Mbeki spills Tony Blair's beans
02 Dec 2013 at 15:21hrs | Views
I am hardly surprised by Thabo Mbeki's recent revelations about an attempted British military intervention in Zimbabwe. What Mugabe did to the white farmers angered the white establishment.
Although they feign a righteous concern over human rights and democracy, the real issue is bitterness over land. They are inconsolable.
If it was not about land, one would imagine they would be similarly exercised over human rights violations in Saudi Arabia where petty thieves have hands and feet hacked off for stealing bread and women are stoned for adultery. They are not. The Queen enjoys tea and biscuits with the Saudi King.
The white establishment (presumptuously masquerading as the international community) really cannot accept that a nigger had the final say and used force to sequestrate property from their white kith and kin. In the past they have had a monopoly on such force.
The British find such defeat intolerable and have done all within their power to bring down this errant nigger.
For many years the British have dismissed Mugabe's allegations of regime change as cheap electioneering. If the reader would allow a slight distraction: the contradiction does not escape me that an alleged dictator can also be accused of electioneering on the back of anti-British rhetoric. One wonders why an election-rigging dictator would need to win hearts and minds.
Last week, Thabo Mbeki gave weight to Mugabe's regime change allegations when he shared with Al Jazeera how Tony Blair sought to conscript the South Africans in a regime change military assault on Harare. The South Africans declined. Tony Blair has vigorously denied the allegations insisting that he made no such overtures.
To find the truth one need go no further than Tony Blair's own memoirs in which he admitted to being frustrated by Zimbabwe's neighbours who "protected" Mugabe. The question is what did Blair want to do that the neighbours he speaks of in his memoirs prevented him from doing?
But all this points to a more interesting issue. Over the years, Mugabe and Zanu-PF have been portrayed as ruthlessly oppressive. In the West the word dictator or despot precedes Mugabe's name. He is a killer, a Hitler of sorts. It is as though we in this country are helpless victims of a vicious mafia. All this is nonsense.
It is against this fictional background of a helpless population that the West has meddled in our affairs, painting their interest as benevolent. They want to help set us free. This portrayal of Mugabe is important and we will come back to it later on.
Tendai Biti responding to these allegations of British military intervention claimed that Tsvangirai would have refused to assume power if the British had invaded because he wants to assume power democratically. This is a contradiction in terms. If Mugabe really is a dictator then it is not possible to take power from him democratically in the same way that it was not possible for Mugabe to take power from Ian Smith democratically. I would hope this logic is obvious and apparent.
If Mugabe really is a dictator why don't the people of this country rise up and overthrow him? There was widespread disapproval for Ian Smith and the black population used military force to remove him. The MDC cannot allege that Zimbabwe is suffering under a dictator, but then refuse to engage in military action to remove the said dictator.
The logic I am employing here is quite straightforward.
The truth of it is that Mugabe is a dictator in the Western media and in opposition rhetoric. It is convenient to paint him as such, but the people on the ground do not share this position. If the MDC trained guerillas to destabilise Mugabe's Government (or regime if you so prefer) in the same way Mugabe operated against the Rhodesians would it enjoy popular support?
The answer is no. Would tobacco farmers volunteer themselves as mujibhas? I think not. How is it that nobody wants to die for this supposedly noble MDC cause? I find it rather amusing that the MDC claims they are fighting a vicious dictatorship from the comforts of Government funded accommodation in Highlands. You cannot have your cake and eat it. If the MDC really believes it has 90 percent support and has been cheated through election rigging then it should call for a uprising.
All this points to a synthetic crisis. One that has been manufactured in the corridors of Westminster and taught to witless subordinates in the MDC. The MDC does not actually comprehend the implications of what they claim. If they sincerely believe that Mugabe is a usurper they cannot then discount the use of military force to remove him.
One must have the courage of their convictions. The MDC does not believe Mugabe to be a dictator; their words are merely rhetoric. If it is not rhetoric then Tsvangirai should become a hero to the masses he claims are behind him and start an uprising in the same way that ZIPRA and ZANLA fought the Ian Smith dictatorship.
It comes back to the courage of one's convictions. It is philosophically unsustainable to argue that Mugabe is a Hitler, but that one prefers to overthrow him via the ballot. This is an idiotic and contradictory assertion. One can only conclude that the MDC parrots this dictatorship line for political convenience not as a matter of sincerely held conviction.
If it is the case that these are sincerely held convictions, which it is not, then one would then conclude that Tsvangirai is a coward unwilling to die for that which he believes in.
This dictatorship the MDC speaks of seems quite peculiar in its characteristics. The MDC previously controlled Parliament, this in a dictatorship. The MDC controls most urban local authorities, this in a dictatorship. The MDC leader, Morgan Tsvangirai is currently a guest of this supposedly dictatorial State, enjoying the comforts of a Government mansion in Highlands. What a generous dictatorship!
One only needs to look to Trudy Stevenson to see that this nonsense about Mugabe is merely rhetorical. If Mugabe truly is the ogre described in the Western media then why has Trudy Stevenson (of the MDC) not refused to represent his Government as ambassador? Surely, she should do the right thing and refuse to be associated with Mugabe and his Zanu-PF "rowdies".
I cannot imagine Zvobgo accepting a diplomatic post to serve under the Ian Smith regime during the height of the liberation struggle. You must put your money where your mouth is. If Mugabe is what the MDC alleges he is then Trudy Stevenson must do the right thing and refuse to serve Mugabe's Government abroad.
Thabo Mbeki has lifted the lid on an interesting topic, military action against Mugabe. The question is why no African government is ready to support it in the same way they supported the liberation struggle. Why is the opposition unwilling to take the military route if theirs is a righteous struggle and the masses are behind them as they claim?
The answer is rather straightforward, what they claim is at variance with reality. The West is desperately eager (to the point of military action) for Mugabe to go but Zimbabweans are not.
Ndatenda
Ndini muchembere wenyu Amai Jukwa
Although they feign a righteous concern over human rights and democracy, the real issue is bitterness over land. They are inconsolable.
If it was not about land, one would imagine they would be similarly exercised over human rights violations in Saudi Arabia where petty thieves have hands and feet hacked off for stealing bread and women are stoned for adultery. They are not. The Queen enjoys tea and biscuits with the Saudi King.
The white establishment (presumptuously masquerading as the international community) really cannot accept that a nigger had the final say and used force to sequestrate property from their white kith and kin. In the past they have had a monopoly on such force.
The British find such defeat intolerable and have done all within their power to bring down this errant nigger.
For many years the British have dismissed Mugabe's allegations of regime change as cheap electioneering. If the reader would allow a slight distraction: the contradiction does not escape me that an alleged dictator can also be accused of electioneering on the back of anti-British rhetoric. One wonders why an election-rigging dictator would need to win hearts and minds.
Last week, Thabo Mbeki gave weight to Mugabe's regime change allegations when he shared with Al Jazeera how Tony Blair sought to conscript the South Africans in a regime change military assault on Harare. The South Africans declined. Tony Blair has vigorously denied the allegations insisting that he made no such overtures.
To find the truth one need go no further than Tony Blair's own memoirs in which he admitted to being frustrated by Zimbabwe's neighbours who "protected" Mugabe. The question is what did Blair want to do that the neighbours he speaks of in his memoirs prevented him from doing?
But all this points to a more interesting issue. Over the years, Mugabe and Zanu-PF have been portrayed as ruthlessly oppressive. In the West the word dictator or despot precedes Mugabe's name. He is a killer, a Hitler of sorts. It is as though we in this country are helpless victims of a vicious mafia. All this is nonsense.
It is against this fictional background of a helpless population that the West has meddled in our affairs, painting their interest as benevolent. They want to help set us free. This portrayal of Mugabe is important and we will come back to it later on.
Tendai Biti responding to these allegations of British military intervention claimed that Tsvangirai would have refused to assume power if the British had invaded because he wants to assume power democratically. This is a contradiction in terms. If Mugabe really is a dictator then it is not possible to take power from him democratically in the same way that it was not possible for Mugabe to take power from Ian Smith democratically. I would hope this logic is obvious and apparent.
If Mugabe really is a dictator why don't the people of this country rise up and overthrow him? There was widespread disapproval for Ian Smith and the black population used military force to remove him. The MDC cannot allege that Zimbabwe is suffering under a dictator, but then refuse to engage in military action to remove the said dictator.
The logic I am employing here is quite straightforward.
The answer is no. Would tobacco farmers volunteer themselves as mujibhas? I think not. How is it that nobody wants to die for this supposedly noble MDC cause? I find it rather amusing that the MDC claims they are fighting a vicious dictatorship from the comforts of Government funded accommodation in Highlands. You cannot have your cake and eat it. If the MDC really believes it has 90 percent support and has been cheated through election rigging then it should call for a uprising.
All this points to a synthetic crisis. One that has been manufactured in the corridors of Westminster and taught to witless subordinates in the MDC. The MDC does not actually comprehend the implications of what they claim. If they sincerely believe that Mugabe is a usurper they cannot then discount the use of military force to remove him.
One must have the courage of their convictions. The MDC does not believe Mugabe to be a dictator; their words are merely rhetoric. If it is not rhetoric then Tsvangirai should become a hero to the masses he claims are behind him and start an uprising in the same way that ZIPRA and ZANLA fought the Ian Smith dictatorship.
It comes back to the courage of one's convictions. It is philosophically unsustainable to argue that Mugabe is a Hitler, but that one prefers to overthrow him via the ballot. This is an idiotic and contradictory assertion. One can only conclude that the MDC parrots this dictatorship line for political convenience not as a matter of sincerely held conviction.
If it is the case that these are sincerely held convictions, which it is not, then one would then conclude that Tsvangirai is a coward unwilling to die for that which he believes in.
This dictatorship the MDC speaks of seems quite peculiar in its characteristics. The MDC previously controlled Parliament, this in a dictatorship. The MDC controls most urban local authorities, this in a dictatorship. The MDC leader, Morgan Tsvangirai is currently a guest of this supposedly dictatorial State, enjoying the comforts of a Government mansion in Highlands. What a generous dictatorship!
One only needs to look to Trudy Stevenson to see that this nonsense about Mugabe is merely rhetorical. If Mugabe truly is the ogre described in the Western media then why has Trudy Stevenson (of the MDC) not refused to represent his Government as ambassador? Surely, she should do the right thing and refuse to be associated with Mugabe and his Zanu-PF "rowdies".
I cannot imagine Zvobgo accepting a diplomatic post to serve under the Ian Smith regime during the height of the liberation struggle. You must put your money where your mouth is. If Mugabe is what the MDC alleges he is then Trudy Stevenson must do the right thing and refuse to serve Mugabe's Government abroad.
Thabo Mbeki has lifted the lid on an interesting topic, military action against Mugabe. The question is why no African government is ready to support it in the same way they supported the liberation struggle. Why is the opposition unwilling to take the military route if theirs is a righteous struggle and the masses are behind them as they claim?
The answer is rather straightforward, what they claim is at variance with reality. The West is desperately eager (to the point of military action) for Mugabe to go but Zimbabweans are not.
Ndatenda
Ndini muchembere wenyu Amai Jukwa
Source - zimpapers
All articles and letters published on Bulawayo24 have been independently written by members of Bulawayo24's community. The views of users published on Bulawayo24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Bulawayo24. Bulawayo24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
