|
The world is changing, it has ushered in a new era in political, economic and social dimensions. It is true that in society everything is in constant motion. Things are not static. Developing countries are feeling the bite of the tick, a parasite on the skin of human beings. It sucks the blood whilst it enjoys the ride. Politics in developing countries has taken a negative direction. Many opposition parties like the Tsvangirai-led MDC are being created or established in order to certify the interest of the foreigners. A money game is now playing a pivotal role. Western power houses are supporting anyone who comes out opposing any legitimate government of the day. It is being noticed that the same people or governments who yesteryear supported the undemocratic governments and oppressors have come back in another formula. They are, however, using indigenous people in order to pretend that the liberated countries are not practising democracies and the rule of law. However, the imperialists want to recolonise Third World countries by using "remote control". The so-called opposition parties and leaders are used to destroy their own countries by claiming to be democratic in their political activities. In the real sense, they are stooges or puppets of the West. They are funded in order for them to organise gangsters to destabilise the legitimately elected governments. The sponsors have nothing to lose since the money that is being used was sourced from developing countries� resources, which they reaped during and after the colonial era. In Shona, we say "Nguruve yazvikanga namafuta ayo" (the pig has been fried with its own fat). The opposition parties are indirectly using their own resources in destroying their economy. They promise the sponsors to take over the lifeline � natural resources. The other weapon being used by opposition parties is violence in order to present a bad image of the ruling governments. If the government reacts on violent perpetrators, journalists and photographers are seen taking part in order to castigate those in power by saying there was no rule of law or democracy. But one wonders who practises democracy � the one who liberated people from the shackles of colonialism where human rights, democracy and the rule of law were never in existence and those who waited for other people to bring freedom, tranquillity and independence? The latter are always opportunists who hide when things are bad and come out when the situation is favourable. The Western governments are happy to see conflicts in developing countries, which they have created. When it comes to elections held in Africa, Western countries usually say they were not conducted in a free and fair manner; they are only free and fair when the opposition wins. The impression one gets is that all developing countries are not able to manage or conduct elections on their own. Results are endorsed when the opposition party has won. Everyone with a clear mind will tell that these are imperialist intrigues. One once asked: Is it necessary to invite monitors and observers from outside the continent? Political development in Third World countries is being controlled by remote control. Industrialised countries are taking advantage of the divisions that they have created by working with the opposition parties in most Third World countries. Those who resist arm-twisting are severely punished politically and economically. Many governments in the developed world claim that democracy, respect for human rights and good governance are not being practised when one country says no to the looting of its natural resources. A vicious campaign by the Western world to divide the African continent has openly surfaced. The Western leadership, apart from using opposition parties, also try to use other African leaders to squeeze other government leaders by accusing them of not practising democracy. African countries need to work closely in order to counter these heinous practices by the West. The new phenomenon of development in Third World countries will create mistrust among our leaders. Outsiders, who do not know the cultures and traditions of Third World countries, are interferring in our affairs. The indigenous people of these countries have no chance of choosing the leaders of their own choice and cannot determine their destiny. One would agree with Dr Tafataona Mahoso�s analysis that some countries in Africa have witnessed an ongoing campaign against fellow countries, where leaders and intellectuals deemed to be unfriendly to the US and UK have become victims of targeted sanctions; where intellectuals and experts critical of the US-UK position on a certain country are barred or moved from forums and workshops funded by US and UK donors; where even NGOs which are not agitating for treason against the elected Government of a country are sanctioned and denied funding; where an endless conveyor belt of lies has been created, including illegal radio broadcasts, to promote treason against the country. In analysing these political developments in the Sub-Saharan region, one will conclude that the Western governments want to grab the bosom of the nerve centre of African natural resources. In doing so they have to act on what they call "a regime change" by replacing the present and legitimate governments with their surrogates. These surrogates are promised that if they form a new government, they would receive everything they want from the West. The West in return demands for a banana republic where they (West) rule by using remote control. They are only friends when the West controls the means of production. When the puppets realise that their chances of survival are being threatened and try to raise some concerns, the Western leadership looks for others who are prepared to allow the West to continue reaping the natural resources; the farmers will be blamed for not recharging the remote battery. One of local minister once said: "We cannot agree when some want to turn to the left and others to the right on fundamental issues such as land and good governance. When the time comes, I see no problems and we will be able to solve our problems without outside interference." He went further to say: "I believe that Zimbabwe problems can only be solved by Zimbabweans and not by people in Britain and America. When the British and Americans come to bring us together, their interest is to pursue their own global interests." One can conclude that Africa has been infiltrated to destabilise and derail the revolutionary gains achieved during and after the decolonisation. One took an example of the situation in Zimbabwe on the land reform programme by saying "Land reform unstoppable as Africa takes cue from Zimbabwe". The issue of land in Zimbabwe has brought a new twist in Africa. Some leaders on the continent have already visited Zimbabwe to study the situation. One would agree with a report in The Herald of May 8 2003 which said that President Robert Mugabe�s Government, war veterans and the general people of Zimbabwe have made history by making Zimbabwe the first African nation to successfully redistribute land to indigenous people. Other African countries have realised that they are sitting on time bombs, which can only be safely detonated through addressing the critical issue of land. The African continent had ushered in a new era of development in protocols and actions. We should not ignore the principles of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) because the body played a pivotal role in the decolonisation of the continent and economic thrust during the post-independence period. The African Union (AU) has a daunting task and challenges in handling Africa�s political, military, social and economic undertakings because the big powers are exerting political pressures on us. Military bases are being set up by the big powers in some African countries, which is worrisome. Africa is being frightened by these developments. Before we talk more about the activities of the African Union, it is important to take note of the highlights of the UN Charter. After the loss of millions of lives in the First and Second World Wars, the world needed a new phenomenon of maintaining international peace and security. The Charter of the United Nations clearly defined the world that we should be building. This is the world that the founders of the UN wanted � a world of peace and security, solidarity, dignity and equality of all human beings. In principle the Charter when drafted had some loopholes where developing nations were and are still at no much benefit. The United Nations, imperfect as it may be, is the only instrument that governs the international political system and gives legality and legitimacy to our actions. One would agree with Ben Okri, in his work, "Way of Being Free" when he said that "it would seem a miraculous feat, but it is possible for the undervalued ones to help create a beautiful new era in human history. New vision should come from those who suffer most and who love life the most". Those who want developing counties to depart from the principles of the Charter want us to believe that the powerful, the rich and the technically advanced should rule the world using their economic and military might. It should be noted that the imbalances in the UN especially in the Security Council makes developing countries think that the democracy that we talk about is meaningless the few so-called mighty power houses determine the future of this world body. However, it is being observed that the development world want the developing countries to build a world where the rich and powerful can impose their will on the poor and weak. The former is changing governments in power by ignoring the legitimacy of popularly elected leaders. They claim that those governments or leaders are not practicing democracy, human rights and the rule of law. But if democracy represents the majority of people and regularly conducting elections according to the constitution of the land, the one who is elected at a particular time regardless of which party should be legitimized. The developed world want developing nations to build a world where the rich and powerful can change regimes at will. Some of the sentiments above were raised by the South African Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr Nkosazana C. Dlamini Zuma to the National Assembly � Cape Town on 25 March 2003. She notices that rich and powerful nations want a world where the lives of the innocent and weak are not protected. It is a world of the survival of the fittest. This will lead to a new world order outside the framework of the UN. The role of the Secretary General is diminishing because of the divisions in the Security Council. If these divisions continue the role of the Secretary general and his team shall be noted as spectators or watchdogs. One does not mean that the Secretary General and his team are not intelligent, they are, but the situation becomes uncontrollable. In future UN will be reduced to become a "State" or heavy-handed. One asked, is democracy being practiced in UN activities? The answer is a big no. If the laws that govern the norms and operations of UN prevails few countries could not determine the day-to-day activities of this world body. It has been noticed in several occasions that some of the developing world leaders have suggested or propose to balance, in real sense, the activities of the Security Council. The proposals were and not taken seriously but only with an observatory mood. The fall of the previous Millennium and the rise of the new one means something in the development of developing nations. The African continent is not spared in good, bad and ugly moments where many revolutionary patriots died during the liberation of the continent. History was established by those leaders who championed the rebirth of Africa from colonialism, racism and apartheid. The birth of the African Union (AU) goes hand in hand with the launch of the New Partnership for Africa�s Development popularly known as (NEPAD). The Constitutive Act of the African Union replaces the Charter of the OAU, and will not be the continuation of the Organization of African Unity under a different name, but it has the capacities built into it to improve the economic, political and social development of the African people. The post cold war era did not usher in a period of security, democracy, stability and development. We seem to have entered in phase of internal conflicts, fights for the control of the natural resources including the most tragic genocide in most parts of Africa. However, the establishment of the AU has given new opportunities to examine the security situation on the continent. The continent should move forward in championing economic revolution. Following the achievement of political independence as envisaged by the founding fathers of the OAU in 1963, it is now pertinent to focus the continental body. One would agree with Munetsi Madakufamba in SADC TODAY Vol.5 No 6 January 2003 when he said that the OAU was transformed into the AU, with an even tougher mandate of seeking Africa�s economic development, positioning Africa as a global player and manacles of poverty. The sentiments are absolutely correct if his analysis was based in theory. But if we consider theory and practice in order for the AU to get the criterion of the truth there are some anticipated obstacles in implementing economic emancipation through NEPAD. NEPAD is a holistic, integrated sustainable development initiative for the economic and social revival of Africa. It is a pledge by African leaders, based on a common vision and a firm shared conviction that they have a pressing duty to the African people to eradicate poverty and to place their countries, both individually and collectively, on a path of sustainable growth and development and at the same time, to participate actively in the world economy and body politic. The initiative is anchored on the determination of Africans to extricate themselves and the continent from the malaise of underdevelopment and exclusion in a globalising world. It is a call for a new relationship of constructive partnership between Africa and the international community to overcome the development chasm. The partnership is to be founded on a realization of common interest, obligations, commitments, benefit and equality. The initiative is premised on African states making commitments on good governance, democracy and human rights, while endeavouring to prevent and resolve situation of conflicts and instability on the continent. It should be observed that the above sentiments on the establishment of NEPAD was a noble idea and the theory is appreciated. But further, let us analyse the practicality of the prevailing situation in Africa regarding way forward of NEPAD. One would ask that who is controlling the means of production at the moment in Africa before we analyse the relationships in the new partnership? When NEPAD was being discussed some time in year 2002, the leaders said that NEPAD was founded on a hardheaded assessment of political and socio economic realities in Africa today. They said that they could not underestimate the challenges involved in achieving NEPAD�S objectives, but share a common resolution to work together even more closely in order to end poverty on the continent and to restore Africa to a place of dignity in the family of nations. In spite of these commitments by the African leaders, if the current means of production is under the control of the minority still oppressing the indigenous majority, the work on developing the Millennium Partnership for the African Recovery Programme (MAP) will not produce desired results. Africa is growing a stiff resistance if those who are controlling the means of production are still the ones of yesteryear, the very people who invaded Africa. They still have firm connection with those whom we want them in the new partnership. From a political point of view it is not an offence to say that if NEPAD champion or conduct her economic activities on political rhetoric, it shall hit on the hard rock. NEPAD should not be used as a political gateway to impose conditions to member states in African continent. I was happy to read that a core mass of leadership has developed both on the continent and abroad that are genuinely committed to the regeneration of the continent. Also, the NEPAD provides three key new elements, namely Africa developed, managed and owned; it brings the concept of a new partnership (with mutual commitments, obligations, interests contributions and benefits); and Africa is undertaking certain commitments and obligations in her own interests which are not externally imposed conditionality. If the above sentiments shall be honoured in practice NEPAD will not be used as a political tool. It has been observed that many statements have been said from external anticipated partners about good governance, democracy, human rights and the rule of law as pre-conditions of partnership in Africa; one wonders who are the judges to tick the passing or failing marks. Africa should still know that they are their own liberators. Africa Unite. Dr John Shumba Mvundura, PhD
ZIMBABWE�S AMBASSADOR TO LIBYA
The
Mulindwas Communication Group
"With Yoweri Museveni, Uganda is in anarchy" Groupe de communication Mulindwas "avec Yoweri Museveni, l'Ouganda est dans l'anarchie" |
