Last Updated: Wednesday, zimbabwe herald 9 July 2003
�US foreign policy towards Zim has no moral
underpinning�
By Lovemore Mataire
"Since when did Britain and America care for the human
rights of
Zimbabwe? When the land issue exploded in 2000? Or
when Ian Smith ruled
a semi-apartheid Rhodesia?" writes Antonio de
Figueiredo, a columnist for
the New African magazine.
These are questions that Zimbabweans should ask
themselves in the face of
recent statements by the US Secretary of State, Mr
Collin Powell, urging
South Africa and other neighbouring countries to take
strong action against
Zimbabwe.
Not only did Mr Powell's article in a recent New York
Times edition reveal
the inherent condescending attitude of America towards
developing nations
but also smacks of a policy hinged on a mentality of
people suffering from
colonial self-amnesia.
There is no doubt that the real reason behind the US'
belligerent attitude
towards Zimbabwe is not about human rights violations,
lack of democracy
or absence of the rule of law.
Analysts are agreed that the real roots of the US'
animosity towards
President Mugabe's Government is centred on the land
redistribution
programme which subverted the privileged position of
most whites in
Zimbabwe, the majority of which are of Anglo-Saxon
origin.
It is also evident that the US foreign policy towards
Zimbabwe is not driven
by an objective analysis of the situation prevailing
in the country but by
personal egocentric motives given the fact that key
architects of such a
policy have wives who are by birth Rhodesians.
The US Assistant Secretary of State, Mr Walter
Kansteiner's wife is said to
be of Rhodesian descent, just like the wife of Mr
Chester Crooker, the
former US Secretary of State.
Dr Godfrey Chikowore, a lecturer in the department of
International
Development Studies at the University of Zimbabwe said
the US' foreign
policy towards Zimbabwe has no moral underpinning.
"At this point in time, we could see these people as
an embittered lot. What
we are witnessing is a kind of unilateral approach and
an exhibition of
ignorance of the political, social and economic
situation in developing
nations such as Zimbabwe," said Dr Chikowore.
Dr Chikowore said Zimbabwe was a sovereign state with
equal rights in
much the same way as the US to structure its foreign
policy in a manner
that fits into the international paradigm as
prescribed by the United Nations.
He said the US' foreign policy towards Zimbabwe was an
ad-hoc one and
has no place in any of the United Nations provisions.
Dr Chikowore said he could not rule out the influence
of Mr Kansteiner's wife
in his attitude towards Zimbabwe especially on the
land issue.
He, however, said that Zimbabwe should continue making
its case clear on
all fronts � at the Sadc level, the African Union and
the UN for them to have
a justified approach towards the land issue and expose
the hypocrisy of the
US policy.
"We are in an emergency situation, the US foreign
policy is unpredictable
and the position of Bush and Powell are also
unpredictable," he said.
Offering a varied view, Mr Olley Maruma, a political
and social commentator
said the US' policy, especially towards developing
nations, was bound to fail
as has been the case in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"Their policy of intervention by subterfuge is coming
to an end. They might
be beating their chest but they are facing serious
problems in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
"(Tony) Blair (the British Prime Minister) is himself
facing serious problems
from his parliament on the country's conduct in Iraq,"
said Mr Maruma.
He ruled out any attempts by the US to militarily
intervene in Zimbabwe, as
had been the case in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Mr Maruma, however, said the US policy towards
Zimbabwe was driven by
the need to protect Anglo-American interests that were
being threatened by
the land reform programme.
He said Mr Chester Crocker was the one who crafted the
US foreign policy
that he termed constructive engagement, which
supported the apartheid
regime in South Africa and undermined liberation
movements in southern
Africa.
"Under such a policy Mugabe was called a terrorist
right up to the time of
independence. He is still, in their view, a terrorist
and that is the same
reason they are advocating a regime change," said Mr
Maruma.
US' policy is not so different from that of Britain,
which is also based on
racist colonial motives.
Britain's Secretary of State for International
Development Baroness Valerie
Amos once lived and taught at the University of
Zimbabwe. She was also
involved in a relationship with a local prominent
academic with a keen
interest on the land issue.
One would have expected Baroness Amos to have a deeper
and better
understanding of the land issue in Zimbabwe given her
stay in the country.
It, however, seems that Baroness Amos is aware of how
deep the land
issue runs not only in Zimbabwe, but also the whole
Southern Africa region.
She is quite aware of the political contagion of the
success of the agrarian
revolution in Zimbabwe, which is bound to threaten the
privileges of the white
landed class in the region.
Britain, with the aid of the US, led a diplomatic and
economic boycott
against Zimbabwe in order to disfigure and frustrate
the success of the
agrarian reform.
It is, therefore, not a coincidence that following the
end of the Iraq operation,
daggers are now drawn against Zimbabwe.
This attitude as exemplified by Mr Powell's article
meant to undermine all
governments seen to be unfriendly to Anglo-American
interests.
Mitayo Potosi
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
