Western Imperialism: Third World's Real Foe

Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and Fidel Castro of Cuba. The two nations have a long record of solidarity and mutual cooperation.
Originally uploaded by Pan-African News Wire File Photos

Western imperialism: Third World’s real foe

By Dambudzo Mapuranga
Zimbabwe Herald

THE story of social movements in Africa and Latin America makes interesting reading about the lengths at which Western countries will go to maintain a grip on African and Latin America resources.

From coups, assassinations, razing of entire villages, starvation of nations and when all else fails full-fledged war.

South-South Co-operation will in the end prove to be the salvation of Africa and Latin America as it decreases dependency on Western Aid programmes and creates a shift in the international balance of power.

Between the two of them Latin America and Africa have the world’s largest reserves in most of the earth’s natural resources and yet their people have the highest figures in poverty, food shortages, and earned incomes.

The debate on strengthening and improving economic ties through joint investment, trade agreements, energy and oil sharing by the developing World has been met with criticism by Western countries who fear that their clutch on developing World resources will be weakened as these nations start speaking with one voice.

The two continents have no permanent members on the Security Council and their co-operation should lead to a defence and security alliance that ensures that the developing world is guaranteed total freedom in choosing political systems and economic policies that benefit their countries and not the Northern Hemisphere.

South-South Co-operation is a threat to Western hegemony and this threat has become greater with the emergence of China as a new economic power which seeks to invest and trade with Africa and Latin America using a mutually beneficial model instead of the aggressive model the West uses when dealing with the developing World.

On this front, the West has sought to demonise China as a key player on the world economy in order to push it out.

There has been a growing realisation by the developing world that there are many ways to skin the cat so to speak and one does not have to be dictated to by the West to order to achieve economic growth.

Mutual respect is not a term that can be attributed to any dealing the West undertakes with the developing world.

While China has based its deals not only on mutual respect and concern for diversity, it has also escaped the minefield of non-interference in domestic politics of Africa and Latin America.

China has been well in advance of the G8 by cancelling $10 billion of the debt it is owed by African States, it has offered debt relief to 31 African countries as well as opening the prospect of zero tariff trade.

The multilateral aid and investment agendas promoted by the West seem more and more distasteful and unattractive.

Instead of learning from past mistakes, the West under one of their propagandistic words “international community”; which is meant to paint a favourable picture of their vulture practices, has embarked on a new offensive to discredit those who further the South-South Co-operation agenda and advocate for social democracy as an alternative to Western notions of democratic governance hinged on protection of corporate interest over the masses.

Michael Doyle in the book Empires writes, “ Empire is a relationship, formal or informal, in which one state controls the effective political sovereignty of another political society.

It can be achieved by force, by political collaboration, by economic, social, or cultural dependence. Imperialism is simply the process or policy of establishing or maintain an empire.”

In a Press statement on August 21, 2002 US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs in the Bush administration, Walter Kansteiner said that President Mugabe’s Government was “irrational” and the US was taking measures to “correct the situation by providing Zimbabwean opposition forces — such as trade unions, pro-democracy groups, and human rights organisations, with advice, training, and finance to overthrow Mugabe and establish a new regime”.

One of Britains main newspapers, The Guardian in an editorial three days after this statement, embraced the Bush administration’s pronouncement of using dirty tricks in Zimbabwe.

The editorial titled “Zimbabwe Endgame” celebrated the fact that finally the US had decided to add more fire power into Britain’s fight with Zimbabwe.

As far as the Guardian was concerned, it was perfectly acceptable to overthrow a foreign government when it was in Britain’s interest to do so and in this situation.

In this case, Britain had a greater interest than America because it was her sons and daughters’ interests that were at stake.

In her article “ British Guardian backs dirty tricks in Zimbabwe”, Ann Talbot writes that “A readiness to turn a blind eye to the truth and to employ every form of political hypocrisy has become an essential requirement of the liberal apologists for imperialism”.

Ann Talbot’s statement has not only been true in the case of Zimbabwe, but also in the case of the election fraud in Afghanistan where the US and Britain allowed their puppet to steal an election in order to guarantee protection of their interests.

Radical political scientists or as I would call them more enlightened political scientists have believed that the US offered Britain assistance to remove in a quid-pro-quo arrangement.

The US would join on Britain’s crusade against Zimbabwe in exchange for support in the war against Saddam Hussein.

The two countries are yet to provide one shred of evidence to back their Weapons of Mass Destruction claim against Saddam Hussein.

The ongoing inquiry in Britain about the Iraqi War is likely to leave many in Britain’s ruling class with at the least egg on the face, but vindicate those who for so long have been campaigning against Western Imperialism.

While the global media establishment dismissed Britain’s colonial history in Zimbabwe as “barely relevant” and has maintained that the day Morgan Tsvangirai takes office as the day history begins, the African continent has taken a different route.

An AU communiqué in 2002 warned that the political situation in Zimbabwe was being worsened by Britain, which was refusing to acknowledge its heinous history in Zimbabwe and the role it had to play to reverse its past mistakes and was instead seeking to globalise a bilateral issue.

For so long the west has sought to wipe the slate clean of colonial crimes, by its governments, corporations and individuals.

One recalls Clare Short’s rather haughty letter seeking to absolve Britain from paying compensation over appropriated farms.

And yet it was her Queen and Government who signed every charter that took land from black Zimbabweans rewarding Britons for service to Her Royal Majesty.

Blaming Zimbabwe’s situation on mismanagement and dressing up its imperialism as a humanitarian project, the western media is just as guilty as its government of crimes against the people of Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwe is a victim of continued colonial oppression and its present condition can be traced directly to its status as one of Britain’s last former colonies.

At independence, Zimbabwe inherited all the debts of the former colonial regime. Under the direction of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, Zimbabwe incurred more debt.

In 1998, it owed US$5 billion and was allocating more than a third of its export earnings towards debt repayments.

Now the debt is more than its annual gross domestic product.

The structural adjustment programme designed by the World Bank and IMF worsened the economic decline as in many other former colonial countries.

Western countries then began tightening their control of these countries as a means to avert revolt by the masses that sought economic freedom from international institutions that had caused them economic ruin.

By funding opposition parties who are championed as messiahs from the economic failures of liberation movement governments the West has managed to protect the interests of its mining companies, big business and international financial institutions while those of small farmers, agricultural workers and urban masses are neglected.

One does not starve and stifle people in order to give them freedom. Plotting assassinations and invasions from across oceans is not benevolence but brutality.

As late as July of this year, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, was still encouraging and lobbying for the overthrowing of President Mugabe.

In an interview with Stern, a German weekly Blair said: “I think if you can get rid of Mugabe, get rid of him. The guy has destroyed the country. There are many people in his country who have died who should not have died because of what he has done. If you can you should, but you obviously have to operate in careful limits”.

The many he talks about were of course the white farmers who lost land due to the land reform programme and the weekly unashamedly sought to bring outrage to its readers by highlighting the “plight of fellow whites in Zimbabwe.”

Tony Blair, with his war-mongering ally George Bush, have blood on their hands and yet he continues to call for more blood.

These words were meant to encourage German Chancellor Merkel to stay strong in her resolve to bring about regime change as it became apparent that Gordon Brown was losing support back in Britain and there was need for more action to support the opposition forces in Zimbabwe.