In search of the truth about Robert Mugabe By Mark P. Fancher
Not long ago, columnist Nat Hentoff attacked the African Union and African leaders for failing to condemn Robert Mugabe, the President of Zimbabwe. For some time now, Mugabe has been accused of a series of tyrannical acts by the British and American governments, and their respective media. The latest of Mugabe's purported crimes is the bulldozing of shacks in Zimbabwe's urban center, and the forced relocation of the inhabitants to rural areas. After taking Africa's sitting heads of state to task for not criticizing this operation, Hentoff wrote: "[The displaced persons] have also been abandoned by the justly venerated Nelson Mandela, who has marred his autumnal years by refusing to say a word in criticism of Mugabe. I asked an African, a longtime human rights worker concerning the continent, why Mandela will not speak, when his condemnation of this horrifying injustice would, should he offer it, reverberate around the world. The human rights worker replied that Mandela still sees Mugabe 'as a liberator of his nation in the long, bitter struggle on the continent in which so many, including Mandela, suffered so much. He will not condemn this man.'" For many of us who have studied western treatment of African leaders since the era of independence, red flags go up immediately when we observe ferocious, obsessive, continuous attacks on a particular African head of state. Such actions bring immediately to mind the vicious CIA-sponsored smear campaigns against Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, and Patrice Lumumba of Congo in the 1960s. Western imperialists had strategic economic and geo-political reasons for wanting both of these men removed from power, and ultimately both leaders were eliminated. Nkrumah was driven into exile. Lumumba was assassinated. Although both were accused by the west of heinous acts, history has shown both to have been targets of carefully orchestrated propaganda. Thus, when we see a non-stop barrage of screaming headlines about Mugabe (in the British press in particular), it is prudent to recall that there are two sides to every story, and a proper judgment cannot be made without hearing both. The mainstream western press has charged that the bulldozers leveled the shacks of countless innocents and children, leaving all of them cold, desperate and homeless. However, the British-based magazine New African, states in its August/September issue that the operation was a clean-up campaign that was aimed at eliminating illegal activities and health hazards. The magazine stated: "Some people in Harare [Zimbabwe's capital], for instance, did not know until the clean-up that they were neighbors to 'farmers' with a cattle herd of up to 10, several goats and over 100 pigs, let alone countless chickens, squeezed in some makeshift quarters in some of the residential suburbs of the capital. Or that they shared a residential address with a 'well-manned' brothel, harmful not only to their children, but husbands too...On the economic front, the economic benefits of the clean-up were even more immediate and far-reaching. For example, after the illegal tapping of electricity was broken in shanty settlements, demand for power, 35 percent of which Zimbabwe imports, dropped by two per cent." With respect to persons who were displaced, the magazine reports that the flip-side of the operation is a three trillion (Zimbabwean) dollar program to develop affordable housing and vending areas for persons rendered homeless by the clean-up. One individual interviewed by the magazine received a newly-constructed home less than one month after his shack was destroyed. This person's new home was one of 4,000 such units that became available in his region alone. New houses are under construction throughout the country. In the same way that the mainstream press never reported the Zimbabwean government's perspective on the clean-up operation, historical context was never provided for Zimbabwe's efforts to reclaim for Africans land that had been stolen and occupied for generations by British settlers. It was not until Mugabe began to move seriously toward land reclamation a few years ago that he was transformed in media portrayals from a responsible African statesman into a wild-eyed dictator. Yet, for anyone who knew history, the only remarkable fact was that Mugabe had delayed acting on the land issue for nearly two decades. Shortly before Mugabe and the liberation forces known as the Patriotic Front won Zimbabwe's independence in 1980, a mediated meeting was held at Lancaster House in London to bring armed hostilities to an end. At that meeting, the Patriotic Front declared: "The essential questions we have posed constantly to ourselves and which we insist must be understood by all seriously concerned with a solution include the following:...What will be the future of the people's land?" The Patriotic Front answered its own question at that time by making clear its plans to reclaim the land for Zimbabwe's people. In response, England and the U.S. voiced concerns about potential white flight, and made promises that if land reclamation were delayed, the two western governments would facilitate land reclamation by compensating white landowners. Years later, when Zimbabwean war veterans reached the limit of their patience in waiting for land, and the U.S. and England failed to provide even a hint of plans to make good on their promises, Mugabe began to take matters into his own hands. Amidst the criticisms of his handling of the land issue have been many credible voices that have characterized the process as both reasonable and fair. Some Africans on the continent and in the diaspora have raised questions about Mugabe and his approach to issues confronted by his country. Given the controversies, this is not surprising. It is also healthy, because critical analysis is crucial to Africa's progress. However, any evaluation of Mugabe, or any African leader, cannot be dictated by the Nat Hentoffs of the world, who believe they have a license to tell Africans who they should condemn. We need to make independent judgments after considering both sides of the story. When Nelson Mandela, Olusegun Obasanjo (Chairman of the African Union), other African leaders, and the majority of Zimbabwe's voters choose to resolutely refuse to join the chorus of hysterical allegations against President Mugabe, we need to pause, remember our history, and consider seriously the implications of these Africans' deafening silence. _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
