It's no surprise that the Zimbabwean economy is in difficulty: the US and Britain have been imposing trade sanctions on the country for the past seven years...

Intervene? Haven't Britain and America already done enough damage?

WORKERS, JULY 2008 ISSUE

In all the coverage of Zimbabwe, it is rarely noted that the US and British states have been imposing punitive economic sanctions on the country since 2001. Western academics and journalists instead portray the crisis in Zimbabwe solely as the result of the land reform or of Mugabe's mismanagement.

As former Assistant Secretary of State on African Affairs, Chester Crocker, told the US Senate in 2001, "To separate the Zimbabwean people from Zanu-PF we are going to have to make their economy scream, and I hope you senators have the stomach for what you have to do." 'Make the economy scream', is exactly what President Nixon said he would do to Allende's Chile. The senators did as Crocker proposed.

Finance crippled
Under the USA's Zimbabwe Destruction and Economic Ruin Act, sorry, Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act (ZDERA), the US representatives at every international financial institution were instructed "to oppose and vote against (1) any extension by the respective institution of any loan, credit, or guarantee to the Government of Zimbabwe; or (2) any cancellation or reduction of indebtedness owed by the Government of Zimbabwe to the United States or any international financial institution." Due to the sanctions, foreign trade dropped towards near zero, and foreign direct investment in Zimbabwe fell by over 99 per cent. The US and British states, having knifed Zimbabwe in the back, now say, 'look, you spilled blood on the floor'.

There was huge US–British interference in Zimbabwe's internal affairs during the run-up to the 29 March elections:

• The US and British states threatened to keep the sanctions until Zanu-PF was ousted. NGOs distributing food threatened to cut off food aid if Zanu-PF won. Foreign governments and corporations funded the Movement for Democratic Change, as MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai admitted in a February 2002 SBS Dateline programme.
• Western-financed anti-Zanu-PF radio stations, including Radio SW Africa (financed by the US State Department) and the Voice of America's Studio 7, stepped up their broadcasts during the election period.
• MDC activists doubled as vote educators working for the US government-financed Zimbabwe Electoral Support Network and promoted the opposition under the guise of explaining electoral procedures.
• During the election campaign the Labour government increased its funding of civil society organisations in Zimbabwe opposing the government.
• Australia's government spent $18 million backing critics of Mugabe, two-thirds of it in the run-up to the elections.
• US and British diplomats spoke at MDC rallies.

The opposition had planned to use the elections according to the USA's familiar counter-revolution script – declare victory in elections before the first vote was cast, and then denounce any outcome other than a clear opposition victory as proof of electoral fraud.

Downtown Harare Photo: Damien Farrell/GNU FDL

But the opposition's charges of vote rigging fell flat when the results showed Zanu-PF losing its majority in the assembly and its candidate Mugabe trailing MDC leader Tsvangirai in the presidential contest. If the vote had been rigged, Mugabe's party would have sailed to victory.

The opposition needed a way to grab power without having to rely on the uncertainties of a run-off election on 27 June. It decided to copy its US and British patrons and invent a pretext for military intervention – a scare story of imminent genocide. Outside forces, preferably those of the former coloniser Britain, whose corporations still have a large stake in the country, would be called upon to intervene militarily to avert impending genocide and, in the process, install the MDC as the new government.

Early in April, MDC's secretary-general Tendai Biti appealed to his "brothers and sisters" across Africa not to "wait for dead bodies in the streets of Harare". "Intervene now," he demanded. Twelve days later, still with no sign of genocide, Tsvangirai called on the West to intervene. The next day a group of clerics warned, "If nothing is done to help the people of Zimbabwe from their predicament, we shall soon be witnessing genocide similar to that experienced in Kenya, Rwanda, Burundi and other hot spots in Africa and elsewhere." Two days later, Tsvangirai's spokesman Nelson Chamisa warned, "If something isn't done in a few days, this country is going to be converted into a genocide zone." Archbishop Desmond Tutu joined in, calling for British troops to go into Zimbabwe and insisted that this would not be aggression, claiming, "It is merely ensuring that human rights are maintained."

Violence
It is true that there has been politically motivated violence in Zimbabwe, but it has occurred on both sides, is political, not ethnic, and is too limited to count as genocide.

While Mugabe is portrayed as a monster egging on thugs to beat opposition supporters, he has often spoken out against violence. On 17 May, he told the country, "Such violence is needless and must stop forthwith." He added, "support comes from persuasion, not from pugilism. Genuine support for the party cannot come through coercion or violence." Zanu-PF has proposed a joint Zanu-PF-MDC committee to investigate political violence. On 14 May, police arrested 50 Zanu-PF activists. On 9 May they had arrested 58 opposition activists on suspicion of setting fire to the homes of Zanu-PF members.

The MDC claims to be the party of democracy, founded on non-violent principles, but its behaviour belies its claims. No sooner had it been born, with Britain acting as mother, father and midwife, than it was threatening political violence: "What we would like to tell Mugabe is please go peacefully," said Tsvangirai. "If you don't want to go peacefully, we will remove you violently." In the USA or Britain, a political leader who threatened to use violence to oust the government, appealed for foreign military intervention and economic warfare, and accepted funding from hostile foreign powers, would be branded a terrorist and traitor and locked up.

Of course, what Mugabe should have done was to follow the EU's example: refuse to hold nationwide elections at all, allow just one province to vote on his proposed constitutional changes, and then overrule their No vote. Then a servile press, for example Steve Richards of the Independent, would write that this was 'democratic to the point of paralysis'.

Now Tsvangirai is again calling for 'intervention to stop the genocide'. So are Lord Ashdown and The Times. 85 people have been killed, not all by ZANU-PF, but this does not constitute genocide. The Labour government has tried to get the UN Security Council to recognise the opposition's right to rule, but it failed, because the governments of South Africa, Russia and China all oppose any interference in Zimbabwe's internal affairs.

Moral authority? From Brown?

With all the bluster, and huffing and puffing by Brown and Miliband over events in Zimbabwe, with the calling for the overthrow of Robert Mugabe, with the stripping of Mugabe's knighthood and the cancellation of cricket tours, it's interesting to examine issues of moral authority. Nobody who has led, or supported, or voted for the illegal invasion of a sovereign state, Iraq, that led to the deaths of one million Iraqi souls and the displacement of six million refugees, has any moral authority to criticise Zimbabwe over human rights. Nobody who collaborated in the denial of the democratic choice of the Palestinian people, following their elections, and who consequently imposed economic sanctions on Gaza creating a replica of the Warsaw ghetto, has the moral authority to criticise Zimbabwe over its elections. Similarly, nobody who is coercing us into an anti democratic Euro State whilst denying us a say has any moral authority to claim to upholding democratic values. Nelson Mandela, who does have the moral authority to speak out on such issues, describes events in Zimbabwe as a "tragedy of the failure of leadership" and has probably got it about right, although he also knows that subsequent British governments have contributed heavily to the situation in that country over many years. He also knows that this situation will only be resolved by the people of Zimbabwe alone. Neighbouring African states may help if asked and if they choose to do so. South African President Thabo Mbeki, who is the mediator acting on behalf of the Southern Africa Development Community is accused of sitting on the fence and is called upon by Bush and Brown to condemn Mugabe and demand that he goes. Yet the role of a mediator is precisely to "sit on the fence", to be neutral in public and to try to find common ground between the parties. It seems that nothing can satisfy the demands of Bush and Brown, described on TV recently during Bush's visit to London as the "world's two most unpopular leaders". So much for Brown's claim to be guided by a moral compass.

top