AFRICAN DICTATORS AND HOW THE WEST DEALS WITH THEM
by Charles Quist-Adade
I am turned off by Mugabe's stubborn and single-minded zeal to rule Zimbabwe for life. However, I am equally appalled by double standard of Western governments and their parroting media, who have made a whipping horse as they turn a blind eye to other African power-drunk despots. The question that demands an answer is: "Why Mugabe and not, say Eyadema of Togo or Mubarak of Egypt?"
For the last number of years, three charges have been leveled against the beleaguered Zimbabwean leader: One, he has entrenched himself in power for far too long (23 years). Second, he has ruined the otherwise thriving economy through mismanagement and corruption. Third, he has a terrible human rights and democratic record.
Mugabe has sinned and he deserves to be taken to task. However, there are questions that cry for answers. The first question is: Is Mugabe the only long-ruling African president? The African and Third World political landscape is dotted with many leaders who entrenched themselves in power even longer than Mugabe. Let's look at the facts: The following African presidents have either ruled longer than Mugabe or are about to catch up with him: Gnassingbe Eyadema of Togo, 35 years and counting; Omar Bongo of Gabon, 35 years; Gadaffi, 33 years; Albert Rene of Seychelles, 25 years; Arap Moi of Kenya, 24 years; Obiang Nguema of Equitorial Guinea, 23 years; Dos Santos, Angola, 23 years; Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, 21 years and counting.
According to the New African magazine, 23 presidents, almost half of Africa's 53 leaders, have among them, served 429 years in office-and average of 20.42 years. The magazine notes that what the average of 20.42 years says is that in Africa, it is not unusual for presidents to "stay too long", which is not to say is a good thing.
The second question, which logically flows from the first one is: Why has the "international community (read the West) singled out one of the 21 leaders for roasting-more so when Mugabe's 22 years is only slightly above the average? At the heart of the anti-Mugabe diatribe is the land redistribution issue. After years of listening to Western sermon of "go slow on land reform," Mugabe, who only five years ago was considered one of Africa's finest rulers in the West found the temerity to take on the powerful white landlords in Zimbabwe. Yes, he might have used the land issue as a political gimmick to win the elections, but why did the West maintain discrete silence all these years over the alleged human rights abuses and economic mismanagement in Zimbabwe until Mugabe raised the "the spectre" of land re-distribution in earnest? Surely, his human rights abuses, corruption and economic mismanagement did not begin yesterday!
The third question is: Why is the West so united in its condemnation of Mugabe? The answer to this question can be couched in this simple aphorism: "Blood is thicker than water." The Euro-American blood is thicker than the African water running through the Limpopo River. This is simply a kith and kin matter; no two ways about it. Otherwise, why have the other 20 African presidents mentioned earlier on in this article whose, economic, democratic and human rights records are no better than Mugabe's left off the hook? The answer lies in the simple fact that they are not threatening white land interests in their countries.
It will be utter naivete` for one to believe the cock and bull story peddled in "international media", including the Canadian establishment media that the "international community" wants Mugabe out purely for altruistic reasons ("they love the poor Africans so much they want Zimbabweans to have more democracy"). As Baffour Ankomah editor of the New African explains: "There is everything 'imperialistic, white, British, [and] American' about it. It is, in fact, kith and kin politics wrapped up in genuine concern for the "poor" Zimbabweans." That explains the West's uninhibited zeal to bankroll the opposition party, Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), which promises to go soft on land reform if should come to power.
Let us not disregard that the Zimbabwean land issue is not any different from those of neighbouring South Africa and Namibia, where there are also kith and kin white farmers. The domino effect of a successful land distribution process in Zimbabwe is not difficult to predict.
The Western media's one-sided and hypocritical rendition of the Zimbabwe story deliberately ignores or obfuscates one other truth: Mugabe had the audacity to sent to troops to help Congo end the loot of its (Congo's) diamonds by Western companies. Frankly, Mugabe has become a convenient whipping horse of the West because he mustered courage to thumb the West in the nose.
If indeed the West was genuine about its concern with democratic governance, it would have imposed similar sanctions it has imposed on Zimbabwe on Madagacar, where the opposition reported massive fraud in the first round of the recent presidential elections. Despite the fact that the opposition candidate, Marc Ravalomanana, and independent sources gathered evidence from 75% of polling stations showing him to have won 52% of the votes, Madagascar's constitutional court, under the influence of President Dider Ratsiraka, ordered a second round of voting, which he (Ratsiraka) won.
Interestingly enough, Ratsiraka refused entry of European Union (EU) election observers. Where are EU sanctions against Madagascar? This is an obvious double standard.
Furthermore, Nigeria, with a government that has completely failed to curb the ethnic and religious violence that has claimed thousands of lives over the past two years, is also immune to EU sanctions. Likewise, Angola, whose aircrafts bombard civilians on a daily basis, has not been subjected to any sanctions. This is another example of a double standard.
Zimbabwe's new press law is another charge against Mugabe. But is Zimbabwe's press law unique? Are there not similar laws in even the so-called free West and other countries that restrict journalistic freedom? In Britain alone there are 50 pieces of legislation that gag journalists. In fact, there is no difference between Zimbabwe's press law and Britain's Treason and Felony Act of 1848 (still in force), which threatens anyone advocating the downfall of the monarchy to be "deported for the term of his or her natural life." What is good for the goose should be good for the gander, shouldn't it be?
Mugabe's debacle is not unique in the sordid history of Africa-Euro-America relations. When President Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana was overthrown in 1966, Robert W. Komer (national security assistant to President Lyndon Johnson) is quoted as writing this congratulatory assessment to the president on March 6, 1966: Nkrumah was doing more to undermine our interests in Africa than any other African.
Neither is the trans-Atlantic unity to manipulate public opinion both in the West and in Zimbabwe in order to unseat an African leader new. As New African reports, on February 6, 1964, when the coup against Nkrumah was being planned in Washington, William C. Trimble, the then director of the State Department's West Africa Desk, wrote a memo to his bosses, entitled, "Proposed Action Program for Ghana," which said in part: "Although Nkrumah's leftward progress cannot be checked or reversed, it could be slowed down by a well conceived and executed action program. Measures which we might take against Nkrumah would have to be carefully selected in order not to weaken pro-Western elements in Ghana or adversely affect our prestige and influence elsewhere on the continent."
He continued: "US pressure, if appropriately applied, could induce a chain reaction, eventually leading to Nkrumah's downfall. Chances of success could be greatly enhanced if the British could be induced to act in concert with us. "Intensive efforts should be made through psychological warfare and other means to diminish support for Nkrumah within Ghana and nurture the conviction among the Ghanaian people that their country's welfare and independence necessitates his removal."
A year later, the policy had worked so well that the American Ambassador in Ghana, William Mahoney, was able to tell the CIA director, John McCone, at a meeting in McCone's office on March 11, 1965:"Popular opinion is running strongly against Nkrumah, and the economy is in a precarious state."
On February 24, 1966, Nkrumah was overthrown in a bloody military takeover in what is now known as a CIA tele-guided coup d'etat. The question then is: Will Mugabe suffer the same fate as Nkrumah? Your guess is as good as mine.
This article first published in TRANS SAHARA NEWS
All Content Inclusive, Copyright © Trans Sahara News 2002
