The Zimbabwe Revolution Examined, Part II

Republic of Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe speaks with students from the University. He urged the youth to maintain the revolutionary principles of the national liberation struggle., a photo by Pan-African News Wire File Photos on Flickr.

Zim: The revolution examined

Wednesday, 19 June 2013 00:00
Eric Draitser

As I sit down to write the second part of my series on Zimbabwe, I am struck by the difficulty of the task before me. In the first article, Zimbabwe: The Revolution Continues, I attempted to illustrate the political and economic policies that

have made President Mugabe and Zanu-PF the hated enemies of Washington and London. In so doing, I attempted to position myself as a steadfast supporter of the revolution and unabashed enemy of the neo-liberal capitalist counter-revolution personified by Morgan Tsvangirai and his MDC-T.

The juxtaposition between these two opposing forces is critical in determining who is on the side of true independence, and who is on the side of the exploiters with their myriad, multi-coloured masks.

However, it is important to note that I am an observer and partisan, analyst and revolutionary. As such, I write from that perspective. I make no pretence, as many so-called journalists seem to be fond of doing, to objectivity: itself a fabrication of self-serving sycophants who aim to justify their corporate-imperialist propaganda by calling it “objective”.

In stating this at the outset, it is my desire to speak to those who, like me, support the decades-long revolutionary struggle and who understand that liberation is more than a cosmetic change of government. It is to these fellow revolutionaries and to the people of Zimbabwe that I write these words, hopefully outlining how I can be at once supporter and critic, advocate and counterpoint.

How does one position oneself as a critical supporter without alienating precisely those courageous revolutionaries who continue the liberation struggle in Zimbabwe and throughout the Diaspora? How does one address the inequities and mistakes while simultaneously countering the Western propaganda? These are questions that I cannot sufficiently answer. Rather, I defer to one of the greatest minds of modern civilisation to answer for me: — Karl Marx, 1843.

Mugabe and the Charge of Genocide

One of the most common attacks on Mugabe and Zanu-PF is the charge of mass killing and genocide. However, in order to examine these charges, they must first be placed into a political context. In doing so, one can begin to formulate a constructive critique rather than resorting to the usual Western propaganda: ‘‘Mugabe is Hitler in African nationalist’s clothing.’’

The most often cited example of what is termed “genocide” at the hands of Mugabe is what is known as the Gukurahundi — an operation by Mugabe’s 5th Brigade, which sought to put an end to the domestic insurgency led by supporters of Mugabe’s rival Joshua Nkomo. Mugabe’s detractors, especially those in support of Western puppet Morgan Tsvangirai, are fond of referring to the violence which took place during this period (mid to late 1980s) as genocide and the repression of domestic opposition.

There can be no doubt that there was political motivation in carrying out the operation, however, it is dishonest to pretend as if the entire operation were solely an effort by Mugabe to consolidate power. Rather, it must be understood that the offensive by Mugabe’s forces was part of a broader campaign to pacify a region that had been used both as a centre for destabilisation by the apartheid government of South Africa and as a base of operations of, what we might call today, and domestic terrorists.

As Andrew Meldrum of the New York Times reported back in 1987, “Olive Tree and neighbouring New Adam Farm, where eight other white Pentecostal missionaries or children died, were the scenes of massacres early Thursday by insurgents opposed to the Zimbabwe Government . . . The anti-government rebels have operated in the Matabeleland countryside surrounding this city since 1982, generally with violent protests against what they assert is Mugabe’s unfair treatment of the opposition leader Joshua Nkomo’s Zimbabwe African People’s Union and the Ndebele ethnic group supporting it.’’

This excerpt is telling because, contrary to the popular mythology constructed around this period, it shows that the killings that took place at the hands of the 5th Brigade were part of a larger political and military conflict that had its roots in the struggle for power in Zimbabwe after liberation. Rather than being clear evidence of genocide, reports from the ground at the time indicate that a complex political struggle was taking place, with various interested parties, including the apartheid government of South Africa, becoming involved.

In fact, the same New York Times article notes that, “Western diplomats in the region say the dissidents are believed to be receiving supplies and training from neighbouring South Africa. Some weapons have been traced to South Africa, and Radio Truth, a station that supports the dissidents, is beamed into Zimbabwe from South Africa.”

Essentially, the Matabeleland region had been made into ground zero of a regional destabilisation campaign using political dissidents as proxies. This is, of course, the usual strategy of white imperialists in Africa who have long since used ethnic and tribal divisions to execute their political, economic and military agendas.

Perhaps the most often cited study into what happened in the Gukurahundi is known as “Breaking the Silence, Building True Peace” conducted by the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe (CCJPZ). In this study, the authors meticulously document many of the atrocities committed during the conflict.

However, it mustn’t be forgotten that the study’s very first paragraph establishes the most important fact of all, “Zimbabwe was a seriously divided country at Independence in 1980. Ten years of war had not only served to liberate Zimbabwe but had created divisions within it. South Africa was also a hostile neighbour who wanted to weaken Zimbabwe.

There were problems between Zipra and Zanla, and outbreaks of violence (that) spilled over, such as at Entumbane in 1981.

By early 1982 there were groups of bandits in Matabeleland. Armed men were killing, robbing, and damaging property. The Government responded by launching a double attack in Matabeleland. The first attack was on the dissidents . . . The second attack was on Zapu, mainly in rural areas and at times in the cities . . .”

Many who have written about this period conveniently leave out the political and geopolitical context for the brutal violence in Matabeleland. This is of course because it is much easier, and more beneficial to Western propagandists who seek the destruction of Mugabe and Zanu-PF, to lay all the blame at the feet of Zimbabwe’s government.

However, a more nuanced understanding is needed. It should be noted that, given the chaotic nature of the conflict on the ground, undoubtedly atrocities were committed by both sides.

Universally recognised war crimes such as collective punishment — a violation of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention — were committed and those responsible should be held to account. However, to equate the fact that war crimes may have occurred with the idea that only one side was engaged in these crimes, is a gross distortion of the historical record.

As we critically examine these crimes, we should keep in the forefront of our thinking, US-Nato imperialist war against Libya, a war waged under the cover of humanitarian intervention. Left liberals were sold the war narrative under the illusion that, were they not to support war, great atrocities and genocide would follow. Naturally, genocide did follow, but it was at the hands of the “freedom fighters” US-Nato supported and equipped. The same narrative is now being sold vis-à-vis Syria where we’re told Assad is Hitler and the opposition are merely “freedom fighters”.

How will these stories be told 25 years from now and will the divide between reality and the narrative be as great as that in Zimbabwe? Mugabe, because of his land redistribution, indigenisation and self-sufficiency policies, has become the quintessential villain in the West, representing everything from brutal dictator to genocidal madman. As the demonisation continues, one must begin asking the most important question: Do they hate Mugabe because of his crimes, or do they hate Mugabe because he didn’t commit the right crimes?

Zimbabwe and the Plunder of the Congo

Another often cited criticism of Mugabe and Zanu-PF is their participation in the looting and plunder of the mineral resources of the DRC. This is a charge that must be understood in its larger, geopolitical context.

The on-going war and consequent genocide in the DRC, which have been more or less on-going since 1996, divided Africa along clear geopolitical lines. The major players involved in the plunder of the natural resources (especially mineral wealth) of DRC were Rwanda and Uganda (led by Paul Kagame and Yoweri Museveni), both clients of the United States.

They, along with their junior partner in Burundi, using smaller proxy forces inside Congo, instigated a bloodbath that continues to this day. It is against this backdrop of US puppets exercising regional hegemony with the American bully on the block supporting them that Zimbabwe entered into the conflict.

Intervening initially on the side of current DRC President Joseph Kabila and against former president Mobutu Sese Seko, Mugabe’s Zimbabwean forces essentially formed part of the core group of military advisors and officers aiding the Congolese in their fight against Rwandan and Ugandan proxy forces. Seen in this way, the involvement of Harare should be understood as neither purely humanitarian nor entirely self-interested. Mugabe genuinely wanted to aid Kabila and prevent the imperialist exploitation of his northern neighbour by the puppets of Western finance capital.

As noted in the United Nations “Report of the Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo”, “Zimbabwe has financed its involvement in the conflict in two different ways: (a) by using the defence budget — the bulk of Zimbabwe’s military expenses seem to be covered by the regular budget; (b) by indirect financing of the war through direct payment by some Congolese entities, mainly companies . . . the Panel has noted a practice (known as) “incentives for assistance” (in which) the former Government of the DRC used the potential of its vast resources in the Katanga and Kasai regions to secure assistance from its allies . . . Zimbabwean companies and some decision-makers have benefitted most from this scheme.”

The involvement of Zimbabwe in the conflict in DRC is not as straight-forward as some would believe, at a basic level, it was a defensive posture. Harare understood from the very beginning that the advances made by Rwandan and Ugandan proxies could represent an existential threat to Zimbabwe as they would be little more than US client regimes. Moreover, there is undoubtedly an element of real-politik — Mugabe saw collaboration with capitalist financier elements as a necessary evil in order to leverage these relations to the ultimate benefit of Zimbabwe.

One must be careful not to fall into the trap of Western propagandists who make the case that Mugabe was intimately involved in the actual genocide in DRC. My critique of that line of thinking would simply be that one must make a distinction between the real perpetrators of the genocide (Rwanda, Uganda, the US, European corporations, et al) and the minor actors such as Zimbabwe which was involved to a much lesser degree and had a real, strategic interest in maintaining stability on its border.

Domestic Repression & the Politics of Intolerance

Perhaps the most common criticism of Mugabe and Zanu-PF is that they have engaged in systematic repression of political opposition dating back to the early 1980s and the struggle for power between Mugabe’s Zanu and Nkomo’s Zapu factions. Leaving aside the conflicts surrounding the fast-track land redistribution programme, which are far too often cited as examples of Mugabe’s “crimes”, there are other examples that bear close scrutiny.

A recent example of a programme widely regarded by Western media and their so-called “experts” on Zimbabwe as domestic repression, is the programme known as Operation Murambatsvina which, as Michael Bratton and Eldred Masunungure note, was “A massive ‘urban clean-up’ campaign that was justified as a strategy to eradicate illegal dwellings and eliminate informal trade . . . Analysts and observers inside and outside the country commented that the crackdown was performed in an indiscriminate manner and with excessive force.” Such a programme is not one that should be justified or apologised for.

However, it must be understood in its proper context. When compared to the repression of the landless poor in South Africa, who have had their shacks and other dwellings demolished repeatedly by South Africa’s ruling ANC government, Operation Murambatsvina seems similar by comparison.

While the ANC has managed to maintain a squeaky clean image in the Western media despite the deadly violence visited upon the peaceful strikers at Marikana, Mugabe and Zanu-PF continue to be vilified for actions that, in many ways, pale in comparison. This is not to equate every situation in the two countries, as they are vastly different.

This article is the second in a three-part series of articles examining the political and economic landscape of Zimbabwe as elections approach. Eric Draitser is the founder of StopImperialism.com. He is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City. This article is reproduced from Counterpunch.