| ï
Blairâs
misapplied tactics costly
By Nathaniel Manheru
Those who care to follow the history of
boxing will tell you that nothing is more lethal to a bullying boxer than a blow
that misses its target, more so if that target happens to be a slippery midget.
As the hefty blow whips and whistles past emptiness, it drags along its
ponderous owner, soon to park and rest him ungainly into a misshapen pile, a
perfect conclusion to misapplied and misdirected, boomeranging pugnacity. Such
is the story of Britain versus Zimbabwe, Blair versus Mugabe.
Blair flew
to Abuja specifically and exclusively to ensure that his arch-enemy, Robert
Mugabe, was buried indefinitely, ironically buried on African soil. This was an
obsession, one he hoped would deepen Zimbabweâs isolation, in the process
inversely raising his own sagging domestic fortunes, badly repeatedly hurt by a
series of blunderous policies and foreign misdaventures.
Twice rigged,
twice shy
So desperate was Blair for this outcome that his machinery
went into reckless anxiety, once it seemed like South Africaâs Thabo Mbeki was
about to rob him of this be-all-and-end-all outcome.
Apparently, Mbeki
appeared ready to veto Zimbabweâs indefinite suspension, causing Blairâs
propaganda machinery to quiver and panic. In a hope of pre-emption, the Blair
machinery went into full swing, duping the western media by casting Mbeki as the
only stumbling block to an otherwise consensual view on Zimbabweâs indefinite
suspension.
The western media obliged and became willing tools for
piling pressure on Mbeki and his Sadc colleagues who had dared Britain by taking
a public position against Blair and Howard, the racist duo.
Except all
this was a lie. For a start, Britain was not a member of the Committee of Six
that was set up by Obasanjo to find a way forward on Zimbabwe.
Its
actions therefore amounted to prepossessing the committee, in fact rigging the
outcome of the deliberations of that committee, much like phoney intelligence
reports were used to rig Britain into an unjust war in Iraq.
Secondly,
within the Committee of Six, Howard, that latter-day Magwitch-turned prime
minister of Rhodesians in Australia, was isolated, with the rest of the
committee members urging for Zimbabweâs reinstatement.
He walked out, in
the process forcing a compromise decision which came in the form of a
face-saving suspension that gave an ill-fated successor Committee of Seven the
latitude to reinstate Zimbabwe sooner than later, after a perfunctory visit to
Zimbabwe.
Again the racist duo rigged the committee, clearly
demonstrating to the world who wields real power within that club.
Except these were spectacular own-goals.
The fact of the British
propaganda machinery installing itself as the spokes-machinery for a supposedly
sovereign committee comprising heads of state and government of sovereign
countries, clearly gave Britain the omniscience and omnipotence of a creator,
gave it a coveted loco parentis role.
Needless to say this confirmed
Zimbabweâs repeated charge that Britain sought to keep the Commonwealth a club
of slaves under itself as the foremost and indisputable colonial slave-owner.
Equally, the fact of an Australia playing servitor and poodle to
Britain, very much recalled the age-old agreement between Britain and her
dominions requiring that the latter to lend unconditionally support Britain
internationally.
Indeed, this is why the Union Jack flies high in those
countries; why the same countries thoughtlessly join Britain in her adventurous
wars against the Muslims, yes, in our case why Australia appropriately took the
felons of UDI at the close of the empire in 1980.
And of course within
the Club, there is a clear gradation, with Britainâs dominion subalterns rated
mightier than all natives put together, which is why Australiaâs Magwitch rigged
and vetoed repeatedly: in the troika and in the committee of six.
A club
of commons indeed!
Night-Wood or Knighthood?
So what did Blair
take back home? Well, he carried back victory against Her Majestyâs
Common-wealth!
Try as hard as his spin doctors may, Abuja was Tony
Blairâs ponderous, mortal blow against the Club. He exposed the Commonwealth for
what it really is, a partisan vehicle of effete Britainâs declining influence of
world affairs.
Zimbabwe lost absolutely nothing, unless of course the
strange joy of traumatised slaves coming together to share the masterâs latest
excesses, can be called a loss.
The club yielded no tangible benefits
the country, in fact kept it psychologically chained to its past oppressor,
while giving him a convincing excuse for pursuing a meddlesome policy against
it.
If Britain wants to deal a real blow against Zimbabwe, she has to
look elsewhere, well beyond the club.
Indeed, this is why Blair is now
talking about going back to an increasingly reluctant European Union for
"tougher" sanctions against Zimbabwe.
He is desperate, so desperate that
the most he hopes do against Mugabe is stripping Mugabe of "honorary knighthood"
he is said to have received from the British queen in 1994! How devastating to
Mugabe and Zimbabwe!
Clearly Blair is clutching at straws.
Zimbabwe may very well have achieved what it has sought to tell the
world, namely that the trouble is its bilateral relations with Britain, arising
from the consequences of colonialism. With the Commonwealth out of the way,
Zimbabwe can, hopefully with the same speed and boldness, now proceed to
demonstrate the bilateral scope of this altercation by moving decisively against
British interests.
Foremost should be the severing of diplomatic ties
with Britain, which ties at any rate, bring zero benefits to it, except to allow
Donorai good cover for espionage and hurting the national interest. This should
be accompanied by the forging of relations with other associations, including
those combining Francophone and Lusophone countries.
Second, Zimbabwe
must vigorously enforce its laws against dual citizenship. Apart from ridding us
of bad apples, this will yield more land for our people.
Third and
perhaps more important, more land must be acquired and redistributed to the
landless.
The financial benefits from the countryside must then be
re-invested and partnered with non-British capital for greater indigenisation of
the economy so the 300 or so British companies are squeezed out. Proving that
there is abundant life after the Commonwealth is the best lesson Zimbabwe can
give to the Third World.
When the hand that steals is
bitten.
I notice the pseudo-economist, John-the-son-of-Robert admits to the fact
that Zimbabweâs exit from the Commonwealth passes for nothing more than useless
"psychological problem" for never-never investors he claims will be wary of
investing in a country that walks out of useless clubs at will.
"If a
country has the cheek and temerity to breach international agreements at the
drop of a hat, do you think it can attract foreign investors?" he asked what he
thought was a rhetorical question.
Well, this is not a rhetorical
question and Robertson needs a vigorous answer, whether or not this pleases
Kadenge, his lackey in the so-called Zimbabwe Economic Society.
It is an
all-too-familiar variant to the same arguments Rhodesians gave against black
majority rule.
Standards will collapse; natives will be at each otherâs
throats; communists will take over; the economy will collapse; there will not be
any sugar to sweeten your tea . . . blah, blah, blah!
Nonsense!
In the first place Robertsonâs foreign investors are all-British first
and foremost.
Well, he knows as well as I do, that Britain declined
years and years ago as a significant foreign investor.
She is as
unlikely to recover this position, as the world is unlikely to go back to
mercantile capitalism.
Is it not telling enough that the nearly men of
British politics, those men represented by Tony Blair can now ascend to British
premiership?
What capital does New Labour command, let alone wield?
If Britain still had meaningful overseas investments, would it be so
reckless in its foreign policy?
Robertson, when you look at the nominal
300 British companies here in Zimbabwe, what investment story do they give you?
Virile capital?
Come of it son of Robert. Whether you like it or
not, the capital of the future is non-British, non-Anglo-American even. This is
why the two countries have become warrior states; why they think military power
is the way to regain global economic supremacy.
Meanwhile the epicentre
continues to shift to the East, a terrain completely unknown to the likes of
John Robertson.
Can Robertson tell us why the US dollar is in a tailspin
against the Euro? Can he tell us why the French describe the British economy as
a flea-market, indeed why Zimbabweans call it Unit K, Chitungwiza? Can he tell
us why his Britain prevaricates on entry into Euro-land? Indeed, can he tell us
why confident investing powers have to use administrative military powers to
close out other countries from contracts for rebuilding Iraq, to create monopoly
capitalism of the 19th Century and before? Are those what you term investors?
Why are they in chaotic Iraq if what they want is an environment of peace,
quietness and international agreements?
Beatrice bruises her Bull
Throat!
This weekâs issue of the British Guardian made quite some
hilarious reading.
Reporting on the so-called human rights lawyer, one
Ms Beatrice Mtetwa, whom the paper says got one of those meaningless awards for
defending one Andrew Meldrum, the paper gravely noted that the said lawyer
"needed treatment for severe bruising and cuts to her face, arms, ribcage and,
most interestingly, legs and throats!"
Now, now, now, how does one get
cuts to the throat from police action, male police action at that!
I am
sure that like Shona, the Swazi language makes a clear distinction between a
neck and a throat.
Or is it a case of Linda of the Deep Throat fame?
|
