Mugabe and the Anglos
Posted by CM on June 29, 2007
Featured in The Observer, Gambia :
Mugabe, The Anglos & Zimbabwe
by Dida Halake
This piece is a response to the vitriol that appeared in UK’s The Spectator magazine on May 19, 2007 titled “Shame on Mugabe’s Stooges.”
It was written by a former South African Boer called Rian Malan (the Boers established the Apartheid State). Much of the piece is given to nonsensical ranting against Mugabe and us Africans in general (because Zimbabwe has received the Chairmanship of the Commission on Sustainable Development at the UN thanks to the vote of the African Bloc).
I am not sure why the vitriol from this Boer got such prominence in UK, other than that Mugabe is Britain’s favourite bogeyman at the moment. Anyhow, The Spectator has given the piece prominence and it calls for a response from us Africans … Malan even dismisses the vital race issue in Southern Africa by saying “One understands the wounds of history but …”! No “buts” dear boy! Your like raped and plundered Africa, and even your pretentious clipped tones, “dear boy”, are still fed by the loot from that rape and plunder – as is your whole life-style in England and South Africa. But let us return to our hero, and your nemesis, Robert Mugabe.
Who is Robert Mugabe? When Malcolm X was accused of “reverse racism” by the United States’ middle-class anglo-protestants, his answer was simple : “Just like the Ford motor car, I am made in America.”
To know Mugabe and understand him we have to ask: “Who is Mugabe? What made him?” The answer that is accepted world-wide, except of course by the British & other Anglophiles who believe they have sole God-given possession of Truth, is that:-
• Mugabe is a product of the criminal 19th Century Cecil Rhodes conspiracy against the Ndebele and Shona people. Rhodes criminality was exposed and condemned, although the British Government subsequently honoured him with a knighthood;
• Mugabe is a product of the 20th century British colonial policy that disposed Africans of their land and made them slaves (or “squatters”) in their own countries, be it in Zimbabwe, South Africa or Kenya;
• Mugabe is a product of the illegal “white-state” of Rhodesia established in 1965 by the racist outlaw Ian Smith; an illegal state condemned by much of the world, although ironically but not surprisingly accepted and support by Britain, USA and Malan’s racist White South Africa. The history books tell us that “the British Foreign Secretary arrived with proposals so favourable to white Rhodesians that Ian Smith accepted them … one constitutional expert estimated the agreement meant that the earliest year by which majority rule was likely to be achieved was 2035.” (Meredith p. 320)
• Mugabe is a product of the 21st Century Anglo-American policy which says : “If you are not in agreement with whatever we do, then you are against us and we will destroy you – pure and simple.”
That, my dear Rian Malan, is Robert Mugabe : A “Marxist” terrorist demonised by the English and the Americans (The White-Anglo Tribe) but loved and admired as a “Freedom Fighter” by us black Africans and the rest of the Third World.
The controversy over Robert Mugabe In 1979 at the London Conference on Zimbabwe, which I watched nightly on TV news bulletins (I was then a student in Scotland) it was accepted that Mugabe’s ZANU guerrillas had put an end to Ian Smith’s statement “Not in a thousand years to black majority rule” in spectacularly heroic fashion. Mugabe strode to the Conference Hall like a victor, “a cold, austere figure bent on achieving revolution … threatened that Ian Smith and his ‘criminal gang’ would be tried and shot” (Merdith p.325).
We the young Africans in UK loved Mugabe just with the same fervour that the British
& Southern African whites like Blair and Malan despised him. The Rhodesians, the British and the Americans had tried to impose a black Anglican “moderate” called Bishop Muzorewa on the Zimbabwean people but relented when it became clear that there was only one person Zimbabwe wanted and that was Robert Mugabe.
The British and the Americans detested Mugabe from the outset because he was adamant that white rule and privilege must end at once. The British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the US President Ronald Reagan had called both Mandela and Mugabe “terrorists”. In the words of former Martin Luther King aide Andrew Young, the US representative at the talks, “The terrorists have more degrees on their side of the table than we have on our side.”
Mugabe’s people had a new attitude and it showed at the Conference. They were sure of their ground, cocky and unyielding. Nevertheless, Mugabe was forced to accept certain conditions – the most important of which was the entrenchment for some years of white interests in Zimbabwe (and agreeing to allow the “criminal” Ian Smith to walk away scot-free – and continue to live in the new Zimbabwe).
Mugabe more or less promised the British and the Americans that the whites would be left in possession of the lands that they had grabbed from the Africans by force – for a time.
That, to my mind, was a mistake and a recipe for future conflict. Mugabe should have started redistributing land to Africans straight away, but in an orderly manner, as happened in Kenya under Kenyatta. When years later Mugabe started to take land from whites to give to Africans, the British and the Americans reacted bitterly, feeling betrayed, and tried to come to their white cousins’ aid through vilification and demonisation of Mugabe and his regime. Until then, the British and the Americans had no argument with Mugabe.
The “Trouble with Mugabe” was therefore only because :
• He threatened land dispossession of Britain’s kith and kin (members f Blair’s Cabinet had family links to Rhodesia and South Africa);
• He threatened British & American business interests in Zimbabwe, British American Tobacco (BAT) and Lonhro Congloromete foremost;
• He indirectly threatened Britain’s white cousins and huge business interests in South Africa – where inspite of Mandela’s presidency whites still possessed all the best land which they had acquired through well-documented violence against Africans. Mugabe’s dispossession of whites in Zimbabwe was welcomed by Black Africans in South Africa, who looked to their own government for a similar solution to the land issue.
The British, and their American Anglo-cousins, set out on a huge propaganda offensive to isolate Mugabe and his Zimbabwe, helped in part by Mugabe’s megaphone denunciation of homosexuality – at a time when key members of Blair’s government were homosexuals and were passing a law to allow homosexual marriage in Britain (it is law now). They even allowed one of their former parliamentary candidates, a well-known homosexual activist”, to accost Mugabe on a visit to the UK by attempting a citizens’ arrest!” It does appear that the sexual proclivities of a few influential people in the Blair government influenced British national policy towards Mugabe and Zimbabwe.
All very well as the sort of now standard fare in defense of Mugabe, especially by those who do not have to live under his rule!
The point is : at what point does one get over admiring somebody because he eloquently articulates past grievances, to demanding actual positive achievement from him? How long will “the British done us wrong” be enough justification to support someone whose main “skill” is to simply stoke the feelings of wounded-ness? When do we go from there to then judging that person by the quality and effectiveness of the person’s proposed remedies to problems, historical or current?
While many Africans seem willing to settle for wallowing in whatever satisfaction comes from feelings of victim-hood, the rest of the world is zooming ahead!