[A-List] "Jacob Zuma: US and her Western allies want South Africa to attack Zimbabwe militarily"

["james daly" <james.irldaly@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In which case preventing Zimbabwe from getting arms would be helpful.  -- J. 
D.

http://www.herald.co.zw/inside.aspx?sectid=33679&cat=10

Let's unite, defend Zimbabwe

Posted: Tuesday, April 29, 2008
By Reason Wafawarova
April 28, 2008
The Herald

THE United States' ruling elite is gleefully keeping fingers crossed in an 
envisaged opportunity that presents a Zimbabwe they see as ready for the 
picking.

On the 15th of April, US ambassador to the UN, one Zalmay Khalilzad, 
described Zimbabwe as "the most important and urgent issue in Africa".

Said Khalilzad: "It would be very surprising that we will have a meeting on 
Africa in which quiet a number of African leaders will be there and not talk 
about the most important issue, the most urgent issue on that continent, 
being Zimbabwe."

Now, Jendayi Frazer, the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, 
has been gallivanting across Southern Africa lobbying, or is it arm twisting 
the regional leaders one by one, in her assignment to ensure an ouster of 
President Robert Mugabe and the liberation nationalist party, Zanu-PF.

Zimbabwe's former colonial master and the US's trusted lapdog supporter and 
ally, Britain, has been running all over the show in a bid to restore her 
battered sense of supremacy over the affairs of her former colonies – states 
whose affairs Britain runs through the Commonwealth. David Milliband, the 
British Foreign Secretary has already told the world that his country cannot 
wait to have Zimbabwe back in the Commonwealth.

Milliband's most unassuming boss, Gordon Brown has already complained that 
his patience is "wearing thin" on Zimbabwe and he reckons that this personal 
feeling can safely be interpreted to be representative of the attitude of 
the "international community" a term now cynically monopolised by the West 
with arrogant disregard for the rest of this world.

South Africa, under Thabo Mbeki has refused to be the equivalent of the 
pre-1979 Iran, an Iran that was the hub of US interests in the Middle East, 
and the West is badly looking for an alternative to Mbeki. When the shah of 
Iran was ousted by a popular revolt in 1979, the US created Saddam Hussein, 
just across the border in Iraq. Hussein, immediately attacked Iran on behalf 
of the US and for eight years he was armed to the hilt by Washington – 
killing millions of Iran civilians and Iraq Kurds in the process.

The recent utterances by Jacob Zuma to the effect that the US and her 
Western allies wanted South Africa to attack Zimbabwe militarily are not 
only revealing but also very characteristic of US foreign policy.

The so-called quiet diplomacy approach by President Thabo Mbeki has not only 
irked George W Bush and his administration but it has also been seen as a 
failure to establish a client state in Southern Africa.

If South Africa could play an Israel in the region, then the US interests 
would be protected – interests vested in the region's natural resources and 
possibly the setting up of AFRICOM; that unwelcome idea of a US military 
base meant to control Africa.

It is this background that makes the US consider Zimbabwe the "most 
important and urgent issue on the continent" of Africa. Khalilzad was only 
speaking on behalf of George W Bush's administration. This is the official 
US State Department's position and it is the same view held by the UK and 
the rest of the West.

Tsvangirai becomes so relevant because Zimbabwe has a history of military 
supremacy in the region. They played major roles in stopping Angola's Jonasi 
Savimbi, defeating Mozambique's Renamo and also in stopping the overthrow of 
Laurent Kabila of the DRC in 1998.

Zimbabwe is rich in its agricultural potential and in natural resources, 
like platinum, gold, coal and other minerals. It has a relatively big 
population by the region's standards, a population estimated at 14 million.

Above all, Zimbabwe has Morgan Tsvangirai, a man who rides on the suffering 
of people – a suffering in which he has played a major role as the chief 
mobiliser of economic sanctions from the West. Zimbabwe has Morgan 
Tsvangirai, a man Washington can deeply trust as a tabula rasa in terms of 
policy. The man is ideologically illiterate and that is the perfect scenario 
for the US. He is motivated by power and money and not by popular policies 
and for Washington, there is no better candidate.

Morgan Tsvagirai, if ever allowed to rule, is most likely going to 
neutralise the militant war veterans of Zimbabwe's liberation war. He is 
most likely to restore the white dominated agrarian regime, as was the case 
before 2000. He is most likely going to carry out Washington's instructions 
on the sub-region – that without causing so many problems like Mbeki of 
South Africa is seen as doing.

A Morgan Tsvangirai-led Zimbabwe is likely to be armed to the hilt by 
Washington – all for purposes of whipping each country in the region into 
the imperial line.

It is hoped that South Africa will remain relatively controllable, as is the 
case right now and that it does not develop into another Iran in a region 
where Zimbabwe will be playing an Israel.

The West's reaction to Israeli offensive was revealingly fraudulent and 
unusually more apparent. Just a day before the capture of Corporal Shalit, 
on the 24th of June 2006, Israel had kidnapped two civilians in Gaza, the 
Muammar brothers. Obviously, this was a far more serious crime than the 
capturing of a soldier, especially when one considers that the Muammar 
brothers were abducted to Israel in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

They were swallowed into the Israeli prison system, where over 1000 people 
are currently held without charge, hence kidnapped. There was neither notice 
nor reaction in the West, in fact in the West nothing happened in Palestine 
on the 24th of June 2006.

There is general agreement to the two-state solution to the 
Israeli-Palestine conflict among the Arab states, including Iran, and 
Hezbollah has also said they would respect this kind of a

solution, although it is not exactly their preference. Hamas has also 
indicated that it is prepared to negotiate for a settlement in the two-state 
terms.

The United States and Israel continue to block this political settlement, as 
they have done for the past thirty years, never mind the brief and 
inconsequential exceptions often meant to hoodwink the Palestinians before 
each major onslaught. Denial of this attitude is preferable in the West, but 
the victims of US-Israeli brutality do not exactly enjoy this kind of 
luxury.

US-Israeli rejection of reality is not only in words, but also more 
importantly, in action. With precise and decisive US backing, Israel has 
been systematically pursuing its programme of annexation and dismemberment 
of shrinking Palestinian territories, and imprisonment of what remains by 
taking over the Jordan Valley. This is the so-called convergence programme, 
which Washington astonishingly calls "courageous withdrawal."

This is exactly why the Palestinians are facing national destruction. The 
only meaningful support for Palestine is from Hezbollah, which was formed in 
reaction to the 1982 invasion of Lebanon.

Hezbollah is basically a prestigiously supported group, mainly because of 
leading the effort to force Israel to stop its aggression on Lebanon in 
2000, as well as for its popular social service provision programmes.

The US-Israeli planners would want Hezbollah and similar Islamic 
organizations like Hamas severely weakened or most preferably destroyed – 
just like the PLO had to be evicted from Lebanon in 1982.

In the same way, the US would want every liberation movement in Southern 
Africa severely weakened if not completely annihilated. Zimbabwe's Zanu-PF, 
Namibia's SWAPO, Angola's MPLA, Mozambique's Frelimo, Zambia's ousted UNIP 
and South Africa's ANC are all viewed in the same light with Hezbollah, 
Hamas and every other popular Islamic group.

The Western dream to weaken or annihilate these popular movements can only 
be enhanced when people like Morgan Tsvangirai, Alphonso Dhlakama and others 
like them, avail themselves as willing mercenaries to push forward the 
reactionary imperialist agenda.

The main reason Hezbollah has not been destroyed is that it is deeply 
embedded within Lebanese society that it cannot be eradicated without 
eradicating much of Lebanon just like its virtually impossible to destroy 
Hamas without eradicating much of Palestine.

It still remains very hard for the US to destroy Zanu-PF without having to 
eradicate much of Zimbabwe. The same goes for all the other liberation 
movements and even the ousted UNIP of Zambia just refused to die under the 
spirited efforts by Fredrick Chiluba.

Chiluba even tried to arrest everyone who mattered in UNIP and he even 
attempted to make legislation that would strip Kenneth Kaunda of his right 
to Zambian citizenship and identity.

No doubt, a Tsvangirai government, if ever there could be one, would be 
assigned to do similar efforts on Zanu-PF and what the West now calls 
Mugabeism.

This is the kind of Zimbabwe that Washington would want. They want a 
Zimbabwe that is totally divorced from its own liberation legacy, a Zimbabwe 
totally disenfranchised by their own history and a Zimbabwe totally depended 
on the Western doctrine of donor funding.

This is why the MDC derides war veterans, preaches the gospel of the 
"international community" more than they preach nationalism and above all 
believe in borrowing more than they believe in production.

When they say Zimbabwe is on the brink they mean the country is on the brink 
of being a client state to Washington.

We are on the brink of servitude to Western ideals and economic supremacy. 
Can this be allowed to happen? If yes, the question is why?

Some have written this writer saying if the people want imperialism and 
Western domination, let them have it. In other words, a country can be 
handed over to its oppressors if the oppressors are cunning enough to 
deceive a large chunk of the population.

This is the predicament that Zimbabwe finds itself in, a very sad and 
precarious predicament. The envisaged run off in the presidential election 
is just but the last option to choose between rule by Washington and 
self-determination.

That is the plain truth, despite the apparent temptation for people to try 
and stop the economic crisis via the ballot box.

People are being coerced to vote for the lifting of sanctions while handing 
their sovereignty right in the hands of the US-UK alliance.

Are we going to stand aside and look?

Is Sadc going to stand aside and watch?

Are Zimbabweans in their majority going to allow this travesty to occur?

It is homeland or death.

Together we will overcome.

Reason Wafawarova is a political writer and can be contacted on 
wafawarova@xxxxxxxxxxx


________________________________