|
UK, SA whites cannot champion human rights in Zimbabwe This is a continuation of an article in which the ANC
youth league takes a critical look at the international campaign against
Zimbabwe led by Britain and Australia, supported by elements within South
Africa, aimed at preserving white minority interests in the two Southern African
countries.
This is even despite the advert by 30 national sports associations in Zimbabwe carried by The Daily News on January 4 2003, in support of the hosting of some Cricket World Cup matches by Zimbabwe. In this advert, this is what they said: "We, the Zimbabwe national sports associations, do hereby express our full support for the Zimbabwe Cricket Union's hosting of the six matches of the International Cricket Council World Cup 2003 . . . We have supported and will continue to support the ZCU over what we see as purely a sporting matter. Resultantly, we hold it most unfortunate that there are efforts being made now within and outside Zimbabwe to politicise the event." But, of course, we cannot pretend that we are not familiar with this kind of sickening hypocrisy which makes the UK/Australia section of the white Commonwealth be so determined to wreck the Africa-hosted Cricket World Cup whereas no such attempts were made during the Manchester games. In our country, those who are opposed to President Mugabe today are the same people and forces who were opposed to the struggle for the liberation of Zimbabwe. They wanted the perpetuation of colonialism in Zimbabwe, but pose today as the best friends of the formerly colonised people of Zimbabwe. They opposed sanctions against the Smith regime in Rhodesia, and now demand sanctions against the Government of Zimbabwe on the basis that they are the best friends of the black masses of Zimbabwe. They are as opposed to a genuine resolution of the land question in our country, to eradicate the legacy of colonialism and apartheid, as they are to a similar outcome in Zimbabwe. Yet they claim to be among the greatest defenders of the interests of the black people of Zimbabwe. These forces have opposed every single initiative our country has taken since 1994 to bring about fundamental social change, for the benefit of all South Africans. They have done this because their task is to defend white privilege as much as they can, for the benefit of a minority of our people. And yet these very defenders of white minority privilege at home are most vocal in their denunciation of the Government of Zimbabwe, pretending that they are passionately committed to act in solidarity with the masses of the people of Zimbabwe for progressive change. The Democratic Party/ Democratic Alliance led by the racist Tony Leon and his friends are intent on the perpetuation of white minority privileges both in South Africa and Zimbabwe, forever devoted to kith-and-kin. Their attempt to camouflage themselves as non-racist and democratic, by waging a strident campaign against President Mugabe, will not hide their true nature and intent. Those whose principal task is to advance their kith-and-kin in Zimbabwe, both in our country and in UK/Australia, have the expectation that this progressive African government in our country, whose own struggle was in great measure about land justice, as in Zimbabwe, will for strange reasons become their shop-stewards and spokespersons against a sister people also fighting injustice! They hope that our movement will abandon the honour it has earned as the champion and custodian for the rights and aspirations of the African majority! Accordingly, they demand that this African country should join the fray, led by the UK/Australia section of the white Commonwealth that shouts and hurls insults at the Zimbabwean Government for daring white minority property. South Africa gets accused of "silent diplomacy" and being soft on Zimbabwe as though there was anything such as "loud diplomacy". Regardless of the fact that nobody has demonstrated evidence of the achievements of so-called aggressive strategy towards Zimbabwe, nevertheless the point continues to be made that the South African government must become Tony and John's foreign ministers in Zimbabwe. Surely, they know as well as we do that agreeing to do this once will surrender forever South Africa's independence and sovereignty. It must be boldly re-stated here that the principal problem in Zimbabwe is not the lack of respect for the rule of law or property rights, but it is the persisting landlessness of the African majority! Solve this problem, other resultant problems shall be resolved! But, this problem and its related problems shall not be resolved by pursuing that old, dead and stinking colonial stratagem of creating client states in Africa, formed of the political outfits of colonialism, pseudo-democratic parties of all sorts. We will now cross the Indian Ocean and proceed to Australia. The positions adopted by Prime Minister John Howard with regard to Zimbabwe should also not surprise us. The political school of thought to which he belongs has traditionally seen the defence of kith-and-kin as one of its central and distinguishing features. The long-standing Keep-Australia-White immigration policy derives from this. This accounts for the gross inhumanity towards Asian refugees shown by the government of Australia. When 400 000 people marched in Sydney to extend an apology and a hand of reconciliation to the aboriginal people of Australia, Prime Minister John Howard refused to join them. And yet when ugly stories were told of how Australians had abused and mistreated British orphans sent to Australia during and after the Second World War, Prime Minister John Howard did not hesitate immediately to extend apologies to his British kith-and-kin. In a January 29, 2002 article in ZNET, entitled "Australia: Apartheid?", the journalist John Pilger wrote about the inhumane policies of the Howard government towards black refugees. He reported: "For many, there is the spectre of comparison with apartheid South Africa. The other day, Andrea Durbach, formerly of Cape Town and now a prominent human rights advocate in Sydney, said she did not believe the horrors of apartheid South Africa would ever be reproduced in Australia. 'What may be coming is not as crude,' she said. "The language is not as crude. It's much more subtle; it's much more consensual.'" Having written of the harsh treatment of Asian refugees by the Howard government, Pilger said: "The treatment of 'white' illegal immigrants is very different. In 2001, there were 6 160 Britons who had overstayed the duration of their visas, and as many Europeans. None goes to a detention camp and most are given a bridging visa. It is said that Howard's "tough stand" against the combined "threat" posed by helpless refugees and international terrorists gave him his election victory last November." Commenting on the long-standing White Australia policy, the encyclopaedia, Wikipedia said: "Supporters of a tougher anti-illegal immigration policy, notably Prime Minister Howard, argue passionately and persuasively that it has nothing whatever to do with race, and everything to do with the fundamental right of any nation to defend its borders. Many observers, however, claim that the real objection to the current wave of asylum seekers is at least partly or religiously based. In that sense, the inchoate fear of "the other" that motivated the White Australia Policy is said to be alive and well." After the re-election of John Howard in 2001,Tony Kevin, writing in the Canberra Times, said: "(Many Australians) are ashamed because Australian voting majorities endorsed leaders who had gloried in treating desperate and defenceless fellow human beings with cold cruelty." In its February 1, 2002 issue, the Sydney Morning Herald reported on the response of South Africans who had immigrated to Australia, to Prime Minister Howard's immigration policies: "Keith Wolfson emigrated to Australia from South Africa in 1977. His patience and hope were at an end. He was tired of being part of a reviled minority of whites who wanted to see the end of apartheid. Like many South Africans in Australia, he is experiencing a jarring sense of d�j� vu as he watches Phillip Ruddock (minister responsible for immigration) and John Howard defend their policy on asylum seekers." "Other South Africans say Ruddock's use of rhetoric to manipulate public sentiment is reminiscent of the apartheid era. Just as blacks were pointed as sub-human, undeserving of the vote or citizenship, so the Howard government has dehumanised the asylum seekers. Separate development was portrayed as being good for blacks, just as Ruddock says that denying refugees rights of appeal to the courts would be good for them." And yet, the same John Howard who cannot stomach non-European immigration into Australia poses as a great defender of the rights and welfare of the black people of Zimbabwe! We will not spend too much time on the matter of racism in the UK and an approach to asylum seekers that is informed by the same impulse driving the government of Australia. Many people already know much of this. Nevertheless the references below explain some of the story. Writing in The Guardian of May 22, 2001, Abdulrazak Gurnah said: "The debate over asylum is twinned with a paranoid narrative of race, disguised and smuggled in as euphemisms about foreign lands and cultural integrity. The Anglo-Saxon species is once again rumoured to be on the verge of extinction, when a glance around the world shows how successfully it has invaded and displaced others." In an Editorial published on December 28, 2002, The Guardian wrote: "The 2002 (immigration) Act � fourth in nine years � looks set to become as infamous as the immigration acts which denied asylum to persecuted British passport-holding East African Asians more than 30 years ago. Like its notorious predecessors, the 2002 Act was the product of a labour government panic over asylum numbers. The author of the latest Act, (Home Affairs Minister) David Blunkett, even admitted as much in an article in The Times: 'We can only defeat the right if we tackle issues of public concern'. No one disputes that a progressive government should address such issues; it should not, however, adopt the right's solutions. Alas the 2002 act is peppered with such ideas, even though they were rejected earlier by Labour." Our responsibility as a movement is to work with the people of Zimbabwe to give such assistance as may be required to help them solve their problems. Our government as well as the Commonwealth will also have to do the same. However, despite the latter's resolution to assist Zimbabwe to deal with food shortages and economic recovery, it has not done anything, perhaps for the reasons that Jonathan Steele propounded in his article in The Guardian. In his 2002 article we have cited, Seumas Milne said: "The struggle over power and land has brought Zimbabwe to a virtual state of civil war; unemployment and inflation are rampant; living standards have plunged; while Aids is taking a horrific toll (and Mugabe promotes a grim homophobia). Zimbabwe needs to find its own way to a peaceful political evolution and a return to the progressive reforms of Mugabe's early years in power. But these are issues for Zimbabweans to settle. Outside interference can only make that process more difficult - and Britain is the very last country to dictate to its once-captive subjects." Our task is not to interfere, but to work with the people of Zimbabwe, our immediate neighbours, to help them arrive at solutions that will benefit all the people of Zimbabwe, our region and the rest of Africa. Those, whose principal task is to advance the interests of their kith-and-kin in Zimbabwe, have nothing to teach us as to what we should do. http://www.anc.org.za/youth/docs/zimdoc_comments.html The
Mulindwas Communication Group
"With Yoweri Museveni, Uganda is in anarchy" Groupe de communication Mulindwas "avec Yoweri Museveni, l'Ouganda est dans l'anarchie" |
