Dismiss Notice
You are browsing this site as a guest. It takes 2 minutes to CREATE AN ACCOUNT and less than 1 minute to LOGIN

Western Propaganda Turns Mugabe into a Tyrant

Discussion in 'Jukwaa la Siasa' started by Invisible, Jun 25, 2008.

  1. Invisible

    Invisible Admin Staff Member

    #1
    Jun 25, 2008
    Joined: Feb 11, 2006
    Messages: 9,095
    Likes Received: 140
    Trophy Points: 160
    ‘We’ve beaten Mugabe’ could be the slogan of political and media operators in Britain and elsewhere in the West, who like to fantasise that Mugabe is ‘Africa’s Hitler’, that he was as bad as the last 'evil' dictator demonised by the Imperialists

    Western governments despised what they considered to be Mugabe’s cheek, in particular his temerity in daring to seize white farms, to interfere in the Congo without a green light from the US, and his frequent denunciations of Western colonialism.

    Indeed, since the defeat of the white rulers of Rhodesia in 1980, Mugabe lived off his reputation as a brave warrior against Western arrogance in Africa.

    It was colonialism and imperialist intervention that gave him his base of support, which has always been a substantial one, despite, or perhaps because of, international hostility against Zimbabwe.

    As the African commentator Barrie Collins has argued: ‘Since the end of the Cold War, the USA and the UK have got used to a high degree of compliance on the part of African governments - and they are no longer prepared to tolerate those, like Zimbabwe, that insist on doing things their own way.’

    Bashing Zimbabwe played a dual role for Western officials and commentators. It allowed those of a conservative stripe to defend the historic reputation of colonialism by comparing it favourably with the rule of individuals like Mugabe.

    Eton-educated British observers loathed Mugabe because they considered him a symbol of African cockiness, who had humiliated Ian Smith (the white minority ruler of a self-declared ‘independent’ Rhodesia from 1965 to 1979) before the eyes of the world.

    Attacking Mugabe’s rule became a way of rehabilitating the image of old-fashioned, British-tinged colonialism.

    At the same time, one-time anti-colonialist radicals - including most notably the gay rights activist Peter Tatchell in the UK - focused their political energies on opposing Mugabe, describing him as intolerant and not sufficiently respectful of minority rights.

    At a time when political radicalism is on the wane in the West, some activists sought to recover their old campaigning spirit by taking potshots at the easy target of a beleaguered African state.

    Indeed, radicals often led the charge for tougher economic and political punishment of Zimbabwe - and frequently, they got what they asked for.

    From the late 1990s to today, Zimbabwe became the West’s favoured punchbag in the ‘Dark Continent’.

    Yet Western governments have chosen striking forms of intervention. Instead of militarily and directly intervening in Zimbabwean affairs - despite loud demands from the colonialist/radical alliance that they should do so - governments in the West pursued a more hands-off form of meddling in Mugabe’s regime.


    They used sanctions and economic blackmail; they funded opposition parties and ‘events’; and most revealingly they put pressure on South Africa, Tanzania and other nearby states to use their muscle to try to push Mugabe from power.

    This was effectively ‘blacked-up imperialism’, an attempt by Western powers nervous about being seen smashing their way into Africa to use local proxies to do their dirty work for them.



    The West "Puts Pressure" on Zimbawe to Change
    [Source]


    The media reports about Zimbabwe’s elections present them as a clash between the ‘evil’ Mugabe and the ‘heroic’ Tsvangirai, an electoral battle for Zimbabwe’s soul.

    Mugabe is depicted as having brought Zimbabwe to its knees, causing widespread poverty and enforcing terror and repression, and Tsvangirai is discussed as the harbinger of a dignified ‘revolution’ against Mugabeism.

    This is a fantasy. It ignores the key role played by Western governments and financial institutions in using sanctions, tough diplomacy and the proxy interventionists of the South Africa government and the African Union to isolate and harry Zimbabwe over the past decade.

    Such self-serving external meddling has contributed to Zimbabwe’s economic crisis - and it has dangerously distorted the political dynamics inside Zimbabwe and elsewhere in the south of Africa.

    Over the past 10 years, American and European governments cynically transformed Mugabe’s Zimbabwe into the West’s whipping boy in Africa, the state they love to hate, a country against which they can enforce tough sanctions to demonstrate their seriousness about standing up to ‘evil’.

    The West has imposed economic sanctions on Zimbabwe, warned off foreign investors, denied Zimbabwean officials the right to travel freely around the world, demonised Mugabe as an ‘evil dictator’, discussed the idea of military action against Zimbabwe, and used moral and financial blackmail to cajole South Africa’s president Thabo Mbeki to ‘deal with’ Mugabe.

    Objectively, this singling out of Mugabe’s regime as the ‘worst government on Earth, the most brutal, destructive, lawless government’ made little sense.

    No doubt Mugabe is a nasty piece of work, but then so are some of the government heads that the West is more than happy to work with.

    Indeed, one could argue that, over the past decade, there was more choice and openness in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe than there was in Rwanda and Uganda, both close political allies of America and Britain.

    No, Zimbabwe was labelled the demon of Africa, not in response to events on the ground in Zimbabwe itself, but in response to the needs and desires of governments in the West looking for a purposeful mission in international affairs.

    Western meddling pushed Zimbabwe to the precipice. Yet listening to the discussion of the elections, you could be forgiven for thinking that the country had suffered from a sudden, inexplicable case of Spontaneous National Combustion.

    The economic crisis is depicted as a peculiar phenomenon on a continent where there has mostly been economic growth in recent years. Where most of Africa’s economies have been growing at a rate of between five and six per cent recently, Zimbabwe is the only African country that had a negative GDP in 2007/2008.

    It is reported that the Zimbabwean economy has shrunk by more than a third since 1999, a ‘decline worse than in major African civil wars’, says one newspaper.

    Apparently there’s an unemployment rate of around 80 per cent, and inflation is running at 100,586 per cent.

    Yet the only explanation given for this economic nosedive is Mugabe’s seizure of colonial-era, white-owned commercial farms eight years ago.

    As the UK Guardian says: ‘The economic crisis is largely blamed on the seizure of white-owned farms that began in 2000, disrupting the agriculture-based economy.’

    It is true that foreign exchange earnings from these former white-owned farms have plummeted, causing major economic problems; but there is more to Zimbabwe than tobacco and the other cash crops once produced by the white farmers.

    A key driver of Zimbabwe’s economic crisis has been the West’s attempts to bring down Mugabe by turning the financial levers.

    Relentlessly, the American and British governments, and the European Union, economically punished Mugabe’s Zimbabwe for what they considered to be its political disobedience.

    In November 1998, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) implemented undeclared sanctions against Zimbabwe, by warning off potential investors, freezing loans and refusing to negotiate with Zimbabwean officials on the issue of debt.

    In September 1999, the IMF suspended its support for economic adjustment and reform in Zimbabwe. In October 1999, the International Development Association, a multilateral development bank, suspended all structural adjustment loans and credits to Zimbabwe; in May 2000 it suspended all other forms of new lending.

    In December 2001, the US passed the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, which decreed that Mugabe could restore relations with international financial institutions only if he agreed to conditions on Zimbabwe’s rule of law, the presence of its troops in the Congo, and the conduct of its internal elections.

    The American law also instructed all US members of international financial institutions to oppose and vote against any extension of loans, credits or guarantees to Zimbabwe.

    In 2002, then British foreign secretary Jack Straw declared that Britain would ‘oppose any access by Zimbabwe to international financial institutions’.

    Also in 2002, British officials threatened to withdraw financial assistance to other countries in southern Africa unless they, too, imposed sanctions against Zimbabwe.

    This led Benjamin Mkapa, then president of Tanzania, to complain that African members of the British Commonwealth were enduring ‘a bombardment for an alliance against Mugabe’.

    The European Union imposed ‘smart’ sanctions against Zimbabwe, refusing to allocate visas for travel in EU countries to Mugabe and his officials and freezing all of their economic assets in Europe.

    In the early and mid-2000s, both the World Bank and the IMF tried to dissuade states and institutions from extending financial credit to Zimbabwe. A Zimbabwean official claimed that:

    ‘Our contacts in various countries have indicated that these institutions are using all sorts of tactics to cow all those who are keen to assist Zimbabwe.’

    The economic punishment of ‘evil Mugabe’ by powerful Western forces had a massive impact on Zimbabwe.

    According to one critical observer, Gregory Elich, author of Strange Liberators: Militarism, Mayhem and the Pursuit of Profit, ‘Western financial restrictions made it nearly impossible for Zimbabwe to engage in normal international trade’.

    And ‘for a nation that had to import 100 per cent of its oil, 40 per cent of its electricity and most of its spare parts, Zimbabwe was highly vulnerable to being cut off from access to foreign exchange’.

    Elich argues that the impact of Western restrictions on trading and crediting with Zimbabwe was ‘immediate and dire’: ‘The supply of oil fell sharply, and periodically ran out entirely.

    It became increasingly difficult to muster the foreign currency to maintain an adequate level of imported electricity, and the nation was frequently beset by blackouts.

    The shortage of oil and electricity in turn severely hobbled industrial production, as did the inability to import raw materials and spare parts. Business after business closed down and the unemployment rate soared...’

    Alongside turning the screws on Zimbabwe’s economy, the West interfered politically in an attempt to undermine Mugabe’s government.

    America’s Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 authorised President George W Bush to fund ‘opposition media’ as well as ‘democracy and governance programmes’ inside Zimbabwe.

    In April last year, the US State Department confirmed for the first time that the US had sponsored ‘events’ in Zimbabwe aimed at ‘discrediting’ Mugabe.

    It is reported that the opposition party MDC also received financial backing and political direction from Britain, Germany, Holland, Denmark and the US.

    A small number of political observers in the West have questioned the wisdom of Western interference in Zimbabwe’s internal affairs.

    When America passed its Zimbabwe Act, US congresswoman Cynthia McKinney asked during a debate in the House of Representatives why US officials were enforcing politically-motivated sanctions against a mostly democratic country: ‘Zimbabwe is Africa’s second-longest stable democracy. It is multi-party.

    It had elections last year [in 2001] where the opposition [the MDC] won over 50 seats in parliament. It has an opposition press which vigorously criticises the government and governing party.

    It has an independent judiciary which issues decisions contrary to the wishes of the governing party.’

    Indeed, one of the ostensible reasons why America passed the Act was to protest against the presence of Zimbabwean troops in the Congo.

    Yet, in 2001, both Uganda and Rwanda also had troops in the Congo; and neither Uganda nor Rwanda allowed opposition political parties or a free press.

    Yet both were allies of America, and received considerable economic backing from the US.

    Mugabe was no doubt a rotten ruler; his party certainly used pressure and even force in order to secure victory in general elections in the late 1990s and the 2000s.

    Yet that is not why he was singled out as a ‘tyrant’ and an ‘African Hitler’. It was political considerations in the West that elevated Mugabe to that position and transformed Zimbabwe into a pariah state.

    Western governments despised what they considered to be Mugabe’s cheek, in particular his temerity in daring to seize white farms, to interfere in the Congo without a green light from the US, and his frequent denunciations of Western colonialism.

    Indeed, since the defeat of the white rulers of Rhodesia in 1980, Mugabe lived off his reputation as a brave warrior against Western arrogance in Africa.

    It was colonialism and imperialist intervention that gave him his base of support, which has always been a substantial one, despite, or perhaps because of, international hostility against Zimbabwe.

    As the African commentator Barrie Collins has argued: ‘Since the end of the Cold War, the USA and the UK have got used to a high degree of compliance on the part of African governments - and they are no longer prepared to tolerate those, like Zimbabwe, that insist on doing things their own way.’

    Bashing Zimbabwe played a dual role for Western officials and commentators. It allowed those of a conservative stripe to defend the historic reputation of colonialism by comparing it favourably with the rule of individuals like Mugabe.

    Eton-educated British observers loathed Mugabe because they considered him a symbol of African cockiness, who had humiliated Ian Smith (the white minority ruler of a self-declared ‘independent’ Rhodesia from 1965 to 1979) before the eyes of the world.

    Attacking Mugabe’s rule became a way of rehabilitating the image of old-fashioned, British-tinged colonialism.

    At the same time, one-time anti-colonialist radicals - including most notably the gay rights activist Peter Tatchell in the UK - focused their political energies on opposing Mugabe, describing him as intolerant and not sufficiently respectful of minority rights.

    At a time when political radicalism is on the wane in the West, some activists sought to recover their old campaigning spirit by taking potshots at the easy target of a beleaguered African state.

    Indeed, radicals often led the charge for tougher economic and political punishment of Zimbabwe - and frequently, they got what they asked for.

    From the late 1990s to today, Zimbabwe became the West’s favoured punchbag in the ‘Dark Continent’.

    Yet Western governments have chosen striking forms of intervention. Instead of militarily and directly intervening in Zimbabwean affairs - despite loud demands from the colonialist/radical alliance that they should do so - governments in the West pursued a more hands-off form of meddling in Mugabe’s regime.

    They used sanctions and economic blackmail; they funded opposition parties and ‘events’; and most revealingly they put pressure on South Africa, Tanzania and other nearby states to use their muscle to try to push Mugabe from power.

    This was effectively ‘blacked-up imperialism’, an attempt by Western powers nervous about being seen smashing their way into Africa to use local proxies to do their dirty work for them.

    To their credit, many African officials refused to play the game. The African Union turned down Western suggestions to send forces to Zimbabwe in 2005, arguing that ‘it is not proper for the AU commission to start running the internal affairs of members’ states’.

    Though South Africa’s Mbeki has become involved in Zimbabwean politics, he has also, to the irritation of Western observers, insisted that the future of Zimbabwe ‘has never been a South African responsibility’.

    Zimbabwe captures both the West’s sense of caution in international affairs and also its inexorable drive to interfere wherever and however it can.

    As the former British foreign secretary Margaret Beckett argued, Britain cannot be seen explicitly interfering in Zimbabwe because we are ‘the old colonial power’ - yet at the same time Britain apparently has a ‘responsibility’ to spread democracy around the world.

    The end result of this schizophrenic approach to African affairs and international affairs more broadly - a political defensiveness combined with a desire to do something seemingly purposeful and proper - is an unpredictable, ravenous, behind-the-scenes form of meddling in other countries’ affairs, a kind of ‘cowardly colonialism’. And it can have dire consequences for people in the third world.

    On the basis of little more than the fact that they needed a focus for their international pretensions, Western governments have put Zimbabwe into an economic straitjacket and warped its internal political process.

    If the sanctions, blackmail and withdrawal of trade have helped to push Zimbabwe’s economy into freefall, then the relentless backdoor political interventions have disempowered the people of Zimbabwe.

    The dynamic of Western intervention caused Mugabe to become more entrenched and paranoid about outsiders - and it encouraged the MDC to look to Western officials and radicals for their favour and flattery rather than to build a meaningful grassroots movement inside Zimbabwe.

    Indeed, for all the talk of a ‘revolution’ in Zimbabwe, both during minor street protests last year and during the elections this week, many people actually seem quite resigned about Zimbabwe’s fate.

    As one report recently said: ‘The opposition hasn’t been able to mobilise tens of thousands of people…’

    Lots of the current news coverage continually shows Zimbabweans queuing up for hours to buy a newspaper for a few thousand dollars so that they can read about the elections.

    This footage is supposed to show how bad inflation has become in Zimbabwe, but it also reveals something else:

    That the West’s attempted strangulation of Mugabe’s regime reduced the people of Zimbabwe to observers rather than masters of their fate, who look to the front pages of newspapers to find out what might happen next in their country.
     
  2. Kichuguu

    Kichuguu Platinum Member

    #2
    Jun 25, 2008
    Joined: Oct 11, 2006
    Messages: 6,945
    Likes Received: 282
    Trophy Points: 180
    Mugabe hafai na anaiaibisha Zimbabwe na Afrika nzima; hayo madai ya USA na UK ni uongo anaotumia kujstfy hali ngumu ya nchi yake bila kuangalia madhara ya utawala wake mwenyewe. Mugabe ameanza kupigwa vita na watu wake kutokana na uongozi mbovu tangu mwaka 1997 hata kabla hajanyang'anya hayo mashamba. Alikurupukia kunyang'anya mashamba yale kusudi kulinda kiti chake wakati wa uchaguzi wa mwaka 2000 alipokuwa na wakati mgumu sana kisiasa. Katika kampeini hizi za sasa amekuwa anarudia maneno hayo kuwa hataondoka madarakani mpaka amemaliza kugawa mashamba yote ya wazungu.
     
  3. W

    WembeMkali JF-Expert Member

    #3
    Jun 25, 2008
    Joined: Jun 16, 2007
    Messages: 282
    Likes Received: 0
    Trophy Points: 0
    Mkuu Kichuguu....

    Ardhi siyo jambo la kupuuzia katika nchi iliyo huru.Wewe fikiria leo hii ungekuwa Tanzania halafu ardhi yote yenye rutuba iko kwa wahindi na wazungu wachache na wanaendelea kukuambia kuwa watu weusi hawawezi kumiliki ardhi kwa kuwa hawawezi kuzalisha wewe ndugu yangu ungelielewaje hilo???? na mbaya zaidi mkijadili suala hilo kwa kuwa linahusu wazungu wachache then UK na Marekani inaweka vikwazo vya kiuchumi na kukataa kulipa fidia kama mlivyokubaliana utalielewa hilo?

    Afadhali kama Zimbabwe ingekuwa ni nchi ya viwanda tungesema basi hawa ndugu zetu weusi wataenda viwandani lakini Zimbabwe ardhi ndiyo viwanda,ndiyo maisha,ndiyo utu sasa utafanyaje??? Hata Tsvangirai mwenyewe anaelewa kuwa akiigusa issue ya ardhi itakuwa ndiyo mwisho wa urafiki wake na UK na Marekani....upoo hapo mkuu

    -Wembe.
     
  4. Richard

    Richard JF-Expert Member

    #4
    Jun 25, 2008
    Joined: Oct 23, 2006
    Messages: 6,854
    Likes Received: 2,360
    Trophy Points: 280
    Britain and its allies are to blame for the problems in Zimbabwe. They want to impose Tsvangirai as the President of Zimbabwe, why? It is clear they want Mugabe out because they are aggrieved as a result of the land reform programme.

    Had it not been for the sanctions imposed by Britain and its allies, no one will want to her about Tsvangirai in Zimbabwe. Britain is making a big mistake in their involvement because even if they prevail in doing so, the majority of Zimbabweans will not forgive them. They should shut up and concentrate on their own problems.

    Even if they impose Tsvangirai as the President he will not last as he has no mandate to be the President of Zimbabwe. He is power hungry also.
     
  5. M

    Mwafrika wa Kike JF-Expert Member

    #5
    Jun 25, 2008
    Joined: Jul 5, 2007
    Messages: 5,195
    Likes Received: 7
    Trophy Points: 0
    Bila kujali motive ya westernes, mtu anayesababisha mamilioni ya raia wake kukimbia nchi kwa njaa na matatizo mengi hastahili kuwa kiongozi Afrika.

    Hawa ndio wanaipa nguvu dhana ya Ngabu....wanaabisha Afrika.
     
  6. jmushi1

    jmushi1 JF-Expert Member

    #6
    Jun 25, 2008
    Joined: Nov 2, 2007
    Messages: 16,047
    Likes Received: 39
    Trophy Points: 145
    Sasa tukate issue!
    Na zitto mumlete hapa na kikwete wake tuwape somo waache uzandiki!
     
  7. K

    Kamundu JF-Expert Member

    #7
    Jun 25, 2008
    Joined: Nov 22, 2006
    Messages: 1,915
    Likes Received: 28
    Trophy Points: 145
    We should not blame western coutries for anything in Zimbabwe while we are doing nothing!. If we all care then lets us do something to fix the problem instead of blaming western coutries everyday, if Mugabe real care about blacks farmers where are they now? In south Africa and treated like animals. We should stop blaming western coutries and step up as Africans.
     
  8. Kubwajinga

    Kubwajinga JF-Expert Member

    #8
    Jun 25, 2008
    Joined: Jan 23, 2008
    Messages: 2,188
    Likes Received: 14
    Trophy Points: 135
    Unfortunately hizi propaganda ndio pia zimewafanya wakuu wetu ikiwa ni pamoja na wabunge vijana kama Zitto, kumuona kuwa Mugabe ni kituko cha Africa. Upande mwingine wa shilingi wala hawahangaiki nao tena kuungalia.


    Shame on them all.
     
  9. Richard

    Richard JF-Expert Member

    #9
    Jun 25, 2008
    Joined: Oct 23, 2006
    Messages: 6,854
    Likes Received: 2,360
    Trophy Points: 280
    Mkuu,

    Mugabe has tried every method in his power to escape from the grip of the international bankers and corporations, without success. He refused to implement IMF measures, stopped repaying his loans for a time, and seized the land of white farmers and redistributed it to his supporters.

    He demolished working class shantytown districts, leaving thousands homeless in "Operation Murambatsvina," and suppressed all opposition with the utmost ruthlessness.

    In his latest bid to maintain an autarkic economy that did not depend on international finance or Western companies he has turned to China, which has become one of the major backers of his regime. China's need for platinum and chromium to feed its booming economy gave Mugabe the chance to survive a little longer. Mugabe's "Look East" policy saw trade between the two countries increase to US$100 million.

    So it is this method in which the white farmers who were feeding Zimbabwe and all over suddenly evicted, they will come back to Zimbabwe, the deer country without Mugabe, just wait and see through.
     
  10. jmushi1

    jmushi1 JF-Expert Member

    #10
    Jun 25, 2008
    Joined: Nov 2, 2007
    Messages: 16,047
    Likes Received: 39
    Trophy Points: 145
    Nilsema na wapambe wakanipa majina!
    Sasa aseme INVISIBLE KWANI YE KIAZI!
     
  11. Invisible

    Invisible Admin Staff Member

    #11
    Jun 25, 2008
    Joined: Feb 11, 2006
    Messages: 9,095
    Likes Received: 140
    Trophy Points: 160
    Ebwana eh, nami kiazi mkuu. Ni mitizamo tu!
     
  12. jmushi1

    jmushi1 JF-Expert Member

    #12
    Jun 25, 2008
    Joined: Nov 2, 2007
    Messages: 16,047
    Likes Received: 39
    Trophy Points: 145
    Ila tunawaomba viongozi wetu wasikilize na vilio hivyo vya viazi.
    Nashukuru sana kwa makala hii.
    Pia kama una ushawishi wowote tunaomba mjadala huu uendelee na uwe ni hoja peke yake kwani ni muhimu sana.
     
  13. Invisible

    Invisible Admin Staff Member

    #13
    Jun 25, 2008
    Joined: Feb 11, 2006
    Messages: 9,095
    Likes Received: 140
    Trophy Points: 160
    I will beg em Mods to keep this topic separate from others.

    We can not have same views over Zimbabwe issue, and that's what's debating.
     
  14. Nyangumi

    Nyangumi JF-Expert Member

    #14
    Jun 25, 2008
    Joined: Jan 4, 2007
    Messages: 508
    Likes Received: 0
    Trophy Points: 0
    Hapa sikubaliani kuwa Britain na USA ndo wanataka kumuweka Tsvangirai, kwani ndo wanaompigia kura!! Ni kweli kuwa Britain na USA hawamtaki Mugabe, lakini sio wao wanaompigia kura. Ila hata Wazimbabwe ambao ni wapiga kura hawamtaki pia.
    Karibu vingozi wote wanasiasa hukimbilia kupata support toka Britain na USA, JK akiwepo, Seif Shalif nk.
    Uwezo wa kuongoza ulishafika kikomo. Viongozi wazuri kama J: Nyerere na N. Mandela hutambua hilo na ndo maana waliachia nafasi ili wengine waendeleze walipoishia na kurekebisha pale walipokosea.
    Kuwa kiongozi mzuri ni pamoja na kutambua aina ya mbinu utakayotumia katika kutatua matatizo mbalimbali na sio kutumia rungu la madaraka tu, kwa sababu unalo.

    Hivi ni mapenzi gani aliyonayo Mugabe ya kuwaua watu wake ili awape ardhi? Wakina nai hao anaotaka kuwapa ardhi kwa kwa gharama ya Damu, Maumivu makali, njaa, maisha magumu na ukimbizi?

    Wananchi wa Zimbabwe wanajua kuwa wanahitaji hiyo ardhi, lakini waligundua mapema kuwa Mugabe hana mbinu bora za kuwapatia hiyo ardhi zaidi ya kuwaingiza ndani ya matatizo.
     
  15. F

    Fundi Mchundo JF-Expert Member

    #15
    Jun 25, 2008
    Joined: Nov 9, 2007
    Messages: 4,697
    Likes Received: 32
    Trophy Points: 145
    Jana waingereza wamemnyang'anya Mugabe honorary knighthood waliyompa! Hii nayo tutasema ndiyo sababu hali ya Zimbabwe iko hivyo? Waafrika wakati wa Iddi Amin, waliwashutumu mataifa ya magharibi kwa kum'demonize'. Mwaka 1975-76 wakampa uenyekiti wa OAU na mwaka unaofuata(1977-1979) Uganda ikaingia kwenye United Nationa Commission on Human Rights, bila shaka kwa msukumo wa mataifa ya kiafrika. Wakati wote huo Idi Amin alichukuliwa kama shujaa ati kwa vile aliwafukuza wahindi.

    Leo, wote tunashuhudia, ndugu zetu wakiteswa na kuuawa kwa sababu tu ya kusupport upinzani. Leo hii tunaangalia nchi iliyokuwa ni bread basket na moja ya mataifa yaliyoendelea katika afrika, wananchi wake wakigeuka kuwa omba omba na wauza vitambaa vya kushona nchini mwetu. Bado tunakataa kumwita mchawi, mchawi, ati kwa vile aliwanyang'anya wazungu mashamba akawapa cronies wake! Mugabe ni abomination na heri Mwenyezi angemchukua mapema awanusuru wananchi wa Zimbabwe.
     
  16. jmushi1

    jmushi1 JF-Expert Member

    #16
    Jun 25, 2008
    Joined: Nov 2, 2007
    Messages: 16,047
    Likes Received: 39
    Trophy Points: 145
    Kama US na UK hawataki kumweka Tsivangira...Then ni nani huyo wanayetaka kumuweka?

    Ama sijakuelewa?

    Be specific unaposema hawataki kumweka!

    Je ni kwanini hawajafanya lolote kule Darfur?

    AMA ZIMBABWE TU NDO WENYE SHIDA?

    SISI WENYEWE WENYE SHIDA AMBAYO WAO WENYEWE WANAIJUA KUTOKANA NA KASHFA ZOTE NA HATA BALLALI KUKIMBILIA KWAO...Kama hii ndio demokrasia na haki....! Then...

    WAPI BALLALI?

    Waache haya mambo mapema la sivyo nitawatoa nishai na wataumbuka!
     
  17. jmushi1

    jmushi1 JF-Expert Member

    #17
    Jun 25, 2008
    Joined: Nov 2, 2007
    Messages: 16,047
    Likes Received: 39
    Trophy Points: 145
    Ninakataa kwa nguvu zangu zote vita hivi vya zimbabwe kwasababu najua kinachoendelea!

    Naomba tusidharauliane maoni yetu!
    Mpango huu ulishapangwa kitambo!

    Blair alimpa Bush support Iraq kinyume na matakwa ya wananchi ili na yeye apewe sapoti huko zimbabwe!

    Mugabe ni saddam wa Blair kama ilivyo Saddam kuwa Mugabe wa Bush.
    Dili lilishapangwa kule kwenye g8 summitt!
     
  18. Richard

    Richard JF-Expert Member

    #18
    Jun 25, 2008
    Joined: Oct 23, 2006
    Messages: 6,854
    Likes Received: 2,360
    Trophy Points: 280

    Mugabe is a determined and capable nationalist leader, but he has proved incapable of breaking free from the grip of imperialism. His entire perspective has proved to be bankrupt. Zimbabwe has remained in a position of semi-colonial dependence from 1980 onwards.

    The crisis that Mugabe faces in Zimbabwe is only the most acute expression of what is happening to regimes throughout the continent. A long-established political formation is unravelling before our eyes. Kenya was pitched into crisis following its recent election. In South Africa, Jacob Zuma is challenging President Thabo Mbeki. In each case, the form of the political crisis and its intensity is different, and yet all express the same phenomenon. The African nationalist movement has lost its social base and all semblance of political legitimacy.

    Mugabe was able to work with Western governments and the international financial institutions for 20 years. He only rejected their dictates when he realised that he risked undermining his own power of patronage.

    Tsvangirai is a former trade union leader and his party is composed of businessmen and a smattering of union bureaucrats. The MDC advocates free market measures and it has the backing of the United States and European governments.

    The group of businessmen and trade union officials around Tsvangirai simply want their share of power and the wealth that goes with it.

    The International Monetary Fund Structural Adjustment Plan that Tsvangirai advocates would mean destroying the few jobs that remain in the public sector, privatising the parastatals that still run utility services and opening up Zimbabwean agriculture to the world market. Tsvangirai’s backers in the West have made it clear that they want the money supply controlled to halt inflation.

    Sasa tusichoelewa hapa ni nini? Mugabe anafanya sawa na alivyofanya Sadam Hussein ya kujaribu kupingana na nguvu za ubeberu na kwa Sadam Ilikuwa ni rahisi kuvamiwa kwa sababu ambazo zinajulikana, ila kwa Zimbabwe ni lazima pawe na watu kama Tsvangirai kwani nguvu za kijeshi zinawafanya wakoloni wa zamani waji-feel guilty.
     
  19. Lunyungu

    Lunyungu JF-Expert Member

    #19
    Jun 25, 2008
    Joined: Aug 7, 2006
    Messages: 8,827
    Likes Received: 29
    Trophy Points: 135


    Zimb ardhi na Tanzania madini na mambo mengine na tunakufa tunajiona unasemaje ?
     
  20. jmushi1

    jmushi1 JF-Expert Member

    #20
    Jun 25, 2008
    Joined: Nov 2, 2007
    Messages: 16,047
    Likes Received: 39
    Trophy Points: 145
    Pia viongozi wetu ni muhimu wa consult na MADIBA ili kujua kama Ana msimamo gani!
    Kumbuka this man is THE MAN OF PRINCIPLE NA NI SHUJAA WETU ALIYEBAKI!
    Kujua msimamo wake ni muhimu la sivyo vita itakuwa kubwa sana na wakuituliza ni wazungu na wachina na waingereza watakaogawana Afrika UPYA!
    Mark ma words guys!
    Mpango wa kurudi na kuichukua AFRIKA UPO!
     
Loading...