If Only Mugabe Were White

[Unicorn]

Patson Chipiro, a democracy activist, wasn’t home when Robert Mugabe’s thugs showed up looking for him.

So they grabbed his wife, Dadirai, and tormented her by chopping off one of her hands and both of her feet. Finally, they threw her into a hut, locked the door and burned it to the ground.

That has been the pattern lately: with opposition figures in hiding, Mr. Mugabe’s goons kill loved ones to send a message of intimidation. Even the wife of the mayor-elect of Harare, the capital, was kidnapped and beaten to death.

When the white supremacist regime of Ian Smith oppressed Zimbabweans in the 1970s, African countries rallied against it. Eventually, even the white racist government in South Africa demanded change and threatened to cut off electricity supplies if it didn’t happen.

Yet South African President Thabo Mbeki continues to make excuses for Mr. Mugabe — who is more brutal than Ian Smith ever was — out of misplaced deference for a common history in the liberation struggle. Zimbabweans suffered so much for so many decades from white racism that the last thing they need is excuses for Mr. Mugabe’s brutality because of his skin color.

Life expectancy in Zimbabwe has already dropped from the low 60s to the high 30s. It’s true that he has created more trillionaires than any other country, but that’s only because inflation may be as much as 10 million percent. Anyone with $90 is a trillionaire in Zimbabwean dollars, and buying a small loaf of bread costs one billion Zimbabwean dollars.

When I grew up in the 1970s, a central truth was that Ian Smith was evil and Mr. Mugabe heroic. So it was jolting on my last visit to Zimbabwe, in 2005, to see how many Zimbabweans looked back on oppressive white rule with nostalgia. They offered a refrain: “Back then, at least parents could feed their children.”

Africa’s rulers often complain, with justice, that the West’s perceptions of the continent are disproportionately shaped by buffoons and tyrants rather than by the increasing number of democratically elected presidents presiding over 6 percent growth rates. But as long as African presidents mollycoddle Mr. Mugabe, they are branding Africa with his image.

To his credit, Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa has taken the lead in denouncing Mr. Mugabe’s abuses, and Nelson Mandela bluntly deplored Mr. Mugabe’s “tragic failure of leadership.” Mr. Mandela could also have been talking about Mr. Mbeki’s own failures.

The United States doesn’t have much leverage, and Britain squandered its influence partly by focusing on the plight of dispossessed white farmers. (That’s tribalism for Anglo-Saxons.) But there is a way out.

The solution is for leaders at the African Union summit this week to give Mr. Mugabe a clear choice.

One option would be for him to “retire” honorably — “for health reasons” after some face-saving claims of heart trouble — at a lovely estate in South Africa, taking top aides with him. He would be received respectfully and awarded a $5 million bank account to assure his comfort for the remainder of his days.

The other alternative is that he could dig in his heels and cling to power. African leaders should make clear that in that case, they will back an indictment of him and his aides in the International Criminal Court. Led by the Southern African Development Community, the world will also impose sanctions against Mr. Mugabe’s circle and cut off all military supplies and spare parts. Mozambique, South Africa and Congo will also cut off the electricity they provide to Zimbabwe.

If those are the alternatives, then the odds are that Mr. Mugabe will publicly clutch his chest and insist that he must step down. There will still be risks of civil conflict and a military coup, but Zimbabwe would have a reasonable prospect of again becoming, as Mr. Mugabe once called it, “the jewel of Africa.”

Some people will object that a tyrant shouldn’t be rewarded with a pot of cash and a comfortable exile. That’s true. But any other approach will likely result in far more deaths, perhaps even civil war.

How do we know that sanctions will work? Well, we have Mr. Mugabe’s own testimony.

In a 1987 essay in Foreign Affairs, Mr. Mugabe called on the U.S. to impose sanctions on white-ruled South Africa for engaging in a “vicious and ugly civil war” against its own people. Mr. Mugabe demanded that the world “accept the value of sanctions as a means of raising the cost” of brutal misrule.

If only Mr. Mugabe were a white racist! Then the regional powers might stand up to him. For the sake of Zimbabweans, we should be just as resolute in confronting African tyrants who are black as in confronting those who are white.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/opinion/29kristof.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

[Qwerty489]

My thoughts are with the Zimbabwean people, and I certainly think a less oppressive government would be beneficial to organized labor in Zimbabwe. That being said, I offer support to the people in my own way, and I will not line up with the imperialist bourgeois states, who have no respect for the people of Zimbabwe, and are no doubt positively salivating at the prospect of a mass-foreign-privatization if they can get a western crony into power.

[spartan]

When I grew up in the 1970s, a central truth was that Ian Smith was evil and Mr. Mugabe heroic. So it was jolting on my last visit to Zimbabwe, in 2005, to see how many Zimbabweans looked back on oppressive white rule with nostalgia. They offered a refrain: “Back then, at least parents could feed their children.”

That says everything about just how bad Zimbabwe has really become.

The fact that black Zimbabweans oppressed for decades by the white minority government of what was then Rhodesia, would welcome back those days as at least they had food to eat is shocking to say the least!

All these regional African leaders have to stop hiding behind their wars of liberation comradery shite as it is starting to make people associate black majority rule with failure and the cronyism of the Apartheid which they overthrew.

The last thing this region needs is the UN authorising a US/UK led invasion where the deposed white elite is put back into power to "stabilise" the situation in the region.

What worries me most though is the fact that no one (Not even the African Union) will be willing to send troops into Zimbabwe to get rid of this madman as Zimbabwe has nothing which they can exploit unlike Afghanistan (Oil pipelines) and Iraq (Oil).

It looks like all we can hope for is that the 84 year old Mugabe soon drops dead but even then will Mugabe's elite be willing to give up power knowing full well what will happen to them if they lost power to the Zimbabwean people who have had to suffer at their hands?

All we can hope for i suppose is that the Zimbabwean people rise up against this dictatorship.

The Zimbabwean people have spoken they do not want Mugabe, so why then is this man still in office?

Mugabe says that only god can get rid of him, well perhaps the Zimbabwean people should "arrange" a meeting between the two.

[Faux Real]

This is really not shocking because most heads of state in the African Union are dictators anyway.

[Qwerty489]

Sad fact is, African economy these days is based on a single concept, 'economic rape'. No skills are transfered, no development in industry made, the natural resources and raw materials are pulled out of the ground and carted off to the 'First World' so the rich and corrupt bourgeois in power in Africa can have nice western luxury goods and keep their people in ignorance and squalor.

America doesn't want Africa to create its national industries, they want Africa to limit her production to agricultural and mineral raw materials, which can be sent for industrial processing to America. In other words, they want the African economies to be a mere appendage of the American economy.

It's important to understand also how neo-imperialism and exploitation distorts the development of real capitalist relations in production by keeping an entire part of the country underdevelopment, uneducated and practically living the Dark Ages, while the elite in power reap the rewards.

Yes, Mugabe is bad, but the only reason the West is so obsessed with getting him out of power is because he is selling his resources to China, a rival capitalist power of the United States. It's bourgeois competition on a national scale.

[spartan]

This is really not shocking because most heads of state in the African Union are dictators anyway.
Exactly!

The west was saying how at the recent meeting of African heads of state Mugabe should be criticised for what has been happening in Zimbabwe and i was just left thinking Why? Everyone knows that most of these leaders are just as bad as he is!

Words in this situation dont make any difference (Mr. Mugabe has made that very clear with his continuing dictatorship over Zimbabwe) actions however will!

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The fact that black Zimbabweans oppressed for decades by the white minority government of what was then Rhodesia, would welcome back those days as at least they had food to eat is shocking to say the least!It's anecdotal evidence, but even if it was it verifiably true it would hardly be "shocking." There are people in Chile who wish Pinochet still ruled just as there are people in the Dominican Republic who openly long for the days of Trujillo.

* * *

The working class has no duty to line up politically with Mugabe, but we certainly shouldn't line up with the State Department and the imperialists in the UK in attacking Zimbabwe. The job of workers in the imperialist countries is to oppose their "own" rulers, not to facilitate their overseas exploits.

[Lost In Translation]

My heart goes out to the people of Zimbabwe. What Mugabe is doing is ruthless. But then nothing we can do seems to make any difference, or have we done anything?

EDIT: we as in the major powers in the world.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It's not very useful to tie the working class in with its rulers. "We" have nothing in common with "them".

And they are doing something: working to overthrow Mugabe and get one their puppets in power.

[Andropov]

Mugabe must go.
I would support anyone gaining power over Mugabe.
People are starving to death.
Time is of the issue.
We need a change quick.
A famine is growing in Zimbabwae, action is needed now.

[RedHal]

Mugabe must go.
I would support anyone gaining power over Mugabe.
People are starving to death.
Time is of the issue.
We need a change quick.
A famine is growing in Zimbabwae, action is needed now.

Western imperialists love to hear this, especially from so called "leftists". Better study a bit more on the situation, and why the western media is so focused on Zimbabwe, there are countless brutal dictators in Africa. Free Tibet!, Free Darfur!, Free Myanmar!, Free Zimbabwe! the "leftists" shout, while the Western imperialists smile..............

[Cheung Mo]

Muagbe is not a leftist or even a progressive. Ignoring anything else he's done, we can agree from first principles that leftists don't quote Hebrew myths introduced to Sub-Saharan Africa by European barbarians as justification for the extrajudicial execution of homosexuals.

[spartan]

Western imperialists love to hear this, especially from so called "leftists". Better study a bit more on the situation, and why the western media is so focused on Zimbabwe, there are countless brutal dictators in Africa. Free Tibet!, Free Darfur!, Free Myanmar!, Free Zimbabwe! the "leftists" shout, while the Western imperialists smile..............
Dont be an idiot Mugabe aint no leftist and nor is he some popular democratic leader being picked on by the west.

He is a dictator who isnt even wanted by his own people who showed this when they voted for the opposition in the parliamentry elections despite the threat of kidnap, beatings and murder.

He has and continues to rig elections in his favour to hold onto power, he has also committed genocide against his own people (Matabeland) with the help of the apparently leftist state North Korea.

All in all stop defending this monsterous dictator and as for Imperialism dont make me laugh! There is nothing Zimbabwe has that would make the Imperialists go in there all guns blazing (Unlike Saddam and Iraq who had oil) so stop bringing up that typical emotional response to leftists who are against real dictators who make their citizens lives a living hell.

Mugabe even use's food as a bargaining chip against his starving opponents!

Tell us when you are back in the real world.

[Ultra-Violence]

^^^^^
spartan

i think u missed read that post i dont think the writer was supporting Mugabe in anway but how mainstream "leftist" support those so-called causes or what evere they believe it to be ,also he meant celebritys(bono,angelina) and their charity nonsense when it should be a global more deeper rooted peoples movement that i belive is what we'd all like

[Unicorn]

^^^^^
spartan

i think u missed read that post i dont think the writer was supporting Mugabe in anway but how mainstream "leftist" support those so-called causes or what evere they believe it to be ,also he meant celebritys(bono,angelina) and their charity nonsense when it should be a global more deeper rooted peoples movement that i belive is what we'd all like
In the Marxist circles a bigger problem is that some people have a knee-jerk reaction to support any scumbag dictators because of their perceived "anti-imperialism".

Also, Mugabe has a history of deceitfully posing as a communist in the 1960s and 1970s.

[spartan]

^^^^^
spartan

i think u missed read that post i dont think the writer was supporting Mugabe in anway but how mainstream "leftist" support those so-called causes or what evere they believe it to be ,also he meant celebritys(bono,angelina) and their charity nonsense when it should be a global more deeper rooted peoples movement that i belive is what we'd all like
Perhaps i did but just because i dont supprt Mugabe doesnt mean that i am supporting western Imperialism against Mugabe.

The problem lots of leftists have is that they immediately think that if you are against someone who is also unpopular with the Imperialists, you are in favour of Imperialist action against that person.

Mugabe must be overthrown by the Zimbabweans themselves (Even though i dont see that happening) or his African neighbours (African Union military action) after a UN resolution calling on them to do so.

Hell all his African neighbours would have to do is block trade (Easy to do seeing as Zimbabwe is a landlocked country which relies on it's neighbours to allow goods through their territory) and cut off his electricity supply and the madman will suddenly become very sane.

[Chapter 24]

In the Marxist circles a bigger problem is that some people have a knee-jerk reaction to support any scumbag dictators because of their perceived "anti-imperialism".

Also, Mugabe has a history of deceitfully posing as a communist in the 1960s and 1970s.

I'm pretty sick of that, too. I saw a debate in the Maoist subforum about the "Free Tibet" movement and one of the posters stated that as leftists we should support any movement that goes against U.S. imperialist interests - including groups like the Taliban, who have brought unspeakable horror to the people of Afghanistan.
But there's a difference between terrorist organizations like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and revolutionary groups like the Zapatistas - the Taliban and Al-Qaeda wish to impose backwards, primitive religious law onto civilian populations in an effort to wipe out any free thought, the latter fights for the liberation of their land and control over their own resources.
Being an anti-imperialist does not mean blindly submitting to hostile reactionary groups or supporting tyrants like Mugabe or Kim Jong Il.

[Comrade_Scott]

Exactly!

The west was saying how at the recent meeting of African heads of state Mugabe should be criticised for what has been happening in Zimbabwe and i was just left thinking Why? Everyone knows that most of these leaders are just as bad as he is!

Words in this situation dont make any difference (Mr. Mugabe has made that very clear with his continuing dictatorship over Zimbabwe) actions however will!
dude just ask yoursekf where was it held? fucking sharmel shake EGYPT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! fucking mubarak who opposes any party that may beat him lybia criticised him hmm........ pot kettle black??

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Being an anti-imperialist does not mean blindly submitting to hostile reactionary groups or supporting tyrants like Mugabe or Kim Jong Il.

It sure doesn't. But it sure as hell doesn't mean we should pave the way for our own imperialists to meddle in Zimbabwe's affairs.

Again: The job of workers in the imperialist countries is to oppose their "own" rulers, not to facilitate their overseas exploits.

Who rules Zimbabwe is a question for Zimbabweans, not the Washington, London, or liberals in the imperialist countries posing as leftists.

You can say you're for "humanitarian intervention" to make yourself feel better, but that's only lining up with the imperialists under the cloak they currently prefer. The new excuse for imperialist intervention globally is "humanitarian intervention." The same imperialists who propped up some of the bloodiest dictatorships in history have now made it a mission to make the world safe for "democracy".


...as for Imperialism dont make me laugh! There is nothing Zimbabwe has that would make the Imperialists go in there all guns blazing

Do you really believe that the imperialists have no special interests in Zimbabwe? Really??

Why do you think "the dictator Mugabe" gets so much coverage and condemnation while places like Saudi Arabia are never mentioned? Why do you think there's so much focus on Darfur while a much bloodier conflict rages on in DR of Congo with little coverage? Why do you think there's all this talk about Tibet while Puerto Rico remains a colony that's rarely spoken about?


Mugabe must be overthrown by the Zimbabweans themselves (Even though i dont see that happening)...

Right, which is why you defer to the imperialists.. despite statements to the contrary.


or his African neighbours (African Union military action) after a UN resolution calling on them to do so.

So you support imperialism meddling in Zimbabwe by proxy, through one of its puppet governments in Africa?

The UN you say! The UN in nothing but a fig leaf that the imperialists use to cover their actions. That's why Che said the UN's flag was discredited way back in the 60's. It has only gotten worse since then. Look into the UN's bloody occupation of Haiti to see what kind of "peace" UN "peacekeepers" bring.

The AU you say! The AU is made up of neocolonial countries dominated by imperialism. The AU is not some independent body that acts on behalf of the toiling mass of Africa. And for all your talk of dictatorship, I guess you're willing to turn a blind eye to the fact that the AU involves the participation of other African dictators. I guess their "not as bad," right?

The imperialists only intervene in other countries for their own interests, and with their own reasons.

The communist position is clear, we oppose the ambitions of imperialists everywhere and "our own" capitalist rulers at home.

This article is of relevance here: No imperialist intervention in Sudan! (http://www.powr-prm.org/nointerventioninsudan.html)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Something Severian said in a similar thread on Sudan should be repeated here:


What is to be done by who, is the question. All this discussion on "to intervene or not to intervene" is from the viewpoint of the ruling classes, discussion what they ought to do. But their armies are not at our disposal, and the working class has no army or independent foreign policy. That's the problem which has to be solved before we can usefully discuss solving the problems of Darfur, etc., etc.

[Ultra-Violence]

The problem lots of leftists have is that they immediately think that if you are against someone who is also unpopular with the Imperialists, you are in favour of Imperialist action against that person.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
BINGO!

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The problem becomes when "leftists" pay more attention to and take more action opposing a regime (which is a target of the imperialists) then they do their "own" rulers.. and when they parrot the line of the imperialists who are actively interfering in the country in question in the process.

Anyway, you can oppose a regime politically while still defending the imperialist-oppressed country its rules from imperialist interference.

[Chapter 24]

You can say you're for "humanitarian intervention" to make yourself feel better, but that's only lining up with the imperialists under the cloak they currently prefer. The new excuse for imperialist intervention globally is "humanitarian intervention."


I never suggested such "humanitarian intervention", and I agree that the fate of Zimbabwe is in the hands of the Zimbabweans themselves. What I said was that an administration that is against or unpopular with imperialist governments should be judged based on domestic and foreign policy, not on whether or not they have imperialist ambitions.
Even though I am not a Zimbabwean or North Korean, I still have a right to be concerned for the future of troubled nations. But of course, as you said before, there is no reason to be more concerned with the conflicts of nations outside your own.

[spartan]

So you support imperialism meddling in Zimbabwe by proxy, through one of its puppet governments in Africa?

What you mean the same Imperialist puppet governments who have consistently defended Mugabe, have refused to criticise him and his sham elections and demand that he lets the MDC govern Zimbabwe seeing how they won the parliamentry elections and also wont cut off trade with Zimbabwe to force Mugabe to at least compromise?

The imperialists only intervene in other countries for their own interests, and with their own reasons.
Yes i know this but what does Zimbabwe have to offer for the Imperialists?

There is a reason why the Imperialists will happily get rid of one bad dictator (Saddam) but not do the same with another equally bad dictator (Mugabe) and it's because Zimbabwe doesn't have anything that they can exploit unlike Iraq which has oil and Afghanistan which apparently "needed" an oil pipeline built through it after the US invaded.

Also the Imperialists wont get involved in Zimbabwe as their Imperialist rival China has intrests in Zimbabwe. (Just like it does in the equally deplorable Sudan who committ genocide against their own people and get away with it)

Out of intrest what do you suggest the solution to Mugabe and Zimbabwe is?

Doing nothing is simply out of the question as this man happily starves people who support opposition parties, kidnaps, tortures, rapes and kills political opponents, intimidates people at polling stations to vote for him and rig's elections to keep himself in power!

Why aren't the Zimbabwean people violently resisting Mugabe?

If it's because they cant as Mugabe's grip on the country is so tight what the hell can be done then?

The only other realistic solution would be for his neighbours to cut off trade which would probably just make the situation far worse as the only people to suffer will be the Zimbabwean people who are already suffering as it is!

There are only four ways this can go:
1) Zimbabweans rise up against Mugabe and overthrow him. (Hopefully this is what will happen though the main opposition party keeps on stating that they dont want to lower themselves to Mugabe's level)

2) Mugabe's neighbours apply the pressure and isolate him via cutting off trade with landlocked Zimbabwe. (Unlikely as his neighbours are all liberation war comrades who look out for their own and have shown themselves as unwilling to even criticise Mugabe except when pressured by the Imperialists, and this course of action is likely to really piss off China who, like i said earlier, have exstensive intrests in Zimbabwe. This will also only effect the Zimbabwean people, who are already starving, even more badly)

3) Imperialists come in to "liberate" Zimbabwe with the full blessing of the UN. (Unlikely as first off they will have trouble getting into landlocked Zimbabwe especially as all the coutries surrounding it are friendly to Mugabe, plus Zimbabwe has nothing to offer the Imperialists in return for all this action except good PR and good PR doesn't bring in the bucks)

4) Mugabe dies. (Though this doesn't guarantee that the regime he has built up will just crumble overnight, indeed they will more than likely become even more entrenched fearing what will happen to them if the opposition got into power)


The communist position is clear, we oppose the ambitions of imperialists everywhere and "our own" capitalist rulers at home.

Yes i agree but didn't Marx support US Imperialism against Mexico?

[Hiero]

What people are ignoring is that Mugabe is somewhat popular. Where or not he rigid the election, he can still garner a significant amount of support. I think his support base is in sections of the poor peasants. My main criticism of Mugabe is that he screwed around with the imperialist so long until he go on with land redistribution. In my view, he is a bad national leader, a revisionist.

Some in this thread have given some ideas for change in Zimbabwe. One is people will magical rise up. I doubt it, it would be civil war between the imperialist backed MDC and the nationalist ZANU-PF.

Secondly sanctions only hurt the people. People cry that Mugabe starves his own people. What is their solution? Starve them more through sanctions.

I hope that the resolution to the problems in Zimbabwe is that the progressive and Marxist-Leninist elements in the ZANU-PF come to power and purge Mugabe and his supporters from their ZANU-PF for their incompetence. All other "solutions" fall into the hands of imperialists and the remains of the settler nation in Zimbabwe.

[Axel1917]

Mugabe must go.
I would support anyone gaining power over Mugabe.
People are starving to death.
Time is of the issue.
We need a change quick.
A famine is growing in Zimbabwae, action is needed now.

I hate to burst your bubble, but the history of Africa so richly confirms the Theory of Permanent Revolution, in that the capitalists arrived too late on the historical scene to play a progressive role of any kind. Just look - no matter what capitalist thug has ruled a poor African nation, nothing has gotten any better.

This article has been around for awhile, but I would definitely recommend reading it:

http://www.marxist.com/which-way-out-zimbabwean-nightmare.htm

I am forced to rely on the article since I do not have time to make highly detailed posts riddled with citations, most unfortunately.