we have a Zimbabwe thread - Laissez's Faire

Nov. 30, 2017 03:41:57 #1

Synergy

Post rating: ~

cars posted:
bump until we have a Zimbabwe thread

so i found a couple of articles that seem to explain the military coup and some brief history of class struggle in Zimbabwe pretty well

here's the first one:

What is Behind the Military Coup in Zimbabwe?

by Gregory Elich

Long-roiling factional conflict within Zimbabwe’s ruling ZANU-PF political party exploded last week in a military coup that quickly seized control of the government and state media. The coup was led by Commander of Zimbabwe Defense Forces Constantino Chiwenga, who is closely aligned with former vice president Emmerson Mnangagwa.

Emboldened by President Robert Mugabe’s declining mental sharpness and physical health in recent years, Mnangagwa actively maneuvered to ensure that he would succeed the president. Mnangagwa served as one of Zimbabwe’s two vice presidents. From that position, he and his supporters, known as Team Lacoste, became embroiled in a bitter struggle with younger party members who coalesced around Secretary of Women’s Affairs Grace Mugabe, wife of the president, and whose group was known as Generation 40, or G40.

As early as 2015, Mnangagwa began reaching out to opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai to discuss plans to implement a five-year transition government, in which both men would play a leading role. The unity government would compensate and “reintegrate” dispossessed former owners of large-scale farms. Reuters obtained hundreds of internal documents from Zimbabwe’s Central Intelligence Organization that revealed the plan. “Key aspects of the transition planning described in the documents were corroborated by interviews with political, diplomatic and intelligence sources in Zimbabwe and South Africa,” reports Reuters. The same sources left open “the possibility that the government could be unelected.” In one report, it was said that Mugabe feared that Mnangagwa would attempt to reverse land reform.

According to the documents, senior military officials met with Tsvangirai, many of whom were “saying it is better to clandestinely rally behind Tsvangirai for a change.” Security officials also secretly met with Mnangagwa to discuss Mugabe. “They all agree that Mugabe is now a security threat due to his ill health.” Not surprisingly, “four people with direct knowledge of coalition-related discussions about post-Mugabe rebuilding” indicated that Great Britain had at least peripheral involvement in discussions, and British ambassador to Zimbabwe Catriona Laing was said to favor “Mnangagwa to succeed Mugabe.”

Such behind the scenes machinations did not sit well with G40, and mutual recrimination escalated between Team Lacoste and G40 in recent months. In an explosive politburo meeting on July 19, Minister of Higher Education Jonathan Moyo played a damning video that exposed Mnangagwa’s plans. The video accused him of “working to systematically undermine President Robert Mugabe by capturing the party and state institutions.” The video also revealed that General Chiwenga was deeply involved in those plans. Audio recordings of Zimpapers journalists stated that “they are working to further VP Mnangagwa’s succession agenda and that they work closely with General Chiwenga.”

The video claimed that Mnangagwa’s allies in government were using their positions “to advance his bid to unconstitutionally and criminally succeed President Mugabe…The objective was to seize control of the party. That scheme is outlined and detailed in a successionist strategy document that was published in 2015 entitled Blue Ocean.” Quoting the Blue Ocean Strategy document, the video said: “Critical positions must be secured in these institutions and the personnel must be given instructions to hoard dossiers on the G40 brass and all echelons of the party.”

The Blue Ocean Strategy sought to use the dossiers “to make it toxic for anyone to be associated with the G40 group.” Other tactics included attacks on the character of G40 members, and infiltrating the group and creating discord. “Seeds of distrust must be sown in that alliance with the First Lady with immediate effect,” the document urged. The campaign to discredit G40 was intended to clear the path to power for Mnangagwa.

By marshaling an impressive array of evidence, the video made a persuasive case, which the military coup on Mnangagwa’s behalf has amply confirmed.

Mnangagwa did not react with equanimity to the video. Moyo says that he responded to the presentation by “making a shocking statement to the effect that while he was in Mozambique, during the liberation struggle, people who made interventions such as my presentation to the Politburo on 19 July would have ‘their head separated from their shoulders’.” The effect of Mnangagwa’s statement, Moyo continued, “was to threaten me with murder.”

Given the opportunity to answer Moyo’s charges, Mnangagwa delivered an 85-page report to President Mugabe in September. Mnangagwa claimed he was loyal, and without providing evidence, accused Moyo of being a CIA agent and that along with his cohorts in G40, was plotting against Mugabe. Mnangagwa asserted that Moyo was spreading falsehoods about an impending coup. “Professor Moyo concocted a story that his cousin Major Nkosana Moyo who is with the Presidential Guard informed you of a planned coup by the army and install me as the country’s new leader.” Moyo’s warning had been no falsehood.

On October 11, Mnangagwa went on the counterattack in a formal presentation at a politburo meeting. He repeated the allegation that Moyo was a CIA spy, which he asserted the U.S. Embassy in Harare had confirmed — as if the CIA is in the habit of announcing who its spies are. Mnangagwa pointed to Wikileaks documents concerning discussions Moyo held with U.S. officials during the years when Moyo was not a member of ZANU-PF. An official who attended the politburo meeting reported that Mnangagwa “said the whole army was loyal and played two video clips of General Chiwenga pledging loyalty to the national political leadership.”

Mnangagwa accused Moyo of “harbor an agenda of destroying the party whether from within…or otherwise.” As proof of that intent, he quoted Moyo as having said, “Now, if your uneducated mind translates reform as destruction, to hell with you. That is not my problem, and I want to repeat that very statement that the best way to reform ZANU-PF is from within.” It is odd that Mnangagwa would be so uncomprehending as to choose such a statement to bolster his claim that Moyo was out to destroy the party. Mnangagwa added that he has “been trying to understand how a party as solid as ZANU-PF can at any given time be said to be in need of reform.”

The bulk of the speech was devoted to quoting Moyo from his years outside the party, when he made some critical remarks, and which Moyo has never denied. Mnangagwa argued that Moyo “deceived” the Central Intelligence Organization into telling President Mugabe that “the army wanted to commit a coup,” and that Moyo “knows truly well that all these are lies and fabrications.”

Member of Parliament Shadreck Mashayamombe, Mnangagwa continued, unjustly claimed that the army would carry out a coup “in a brazen and bizarre attempt to tarnish my name. What has happened since then? Why should people believe your coup claims now when you have lied about that before?” How different those questions look now!

In his response, Moyo pointed out that Mnangagwa had failed to address any of the issues he had raised in his earlier presentation concerning Mnangagwa’s plan to topple the government. Regarding Wikileaks documents, Moyo pointed out that there are many more documents referring to Mnangagwa than him. Furthermore, unlike Mnangagwa, Moyo never met a foreign official while he was in government without the presence of foreign ministry officials.

Moyo revealed that when he was an independent candidate in the 2005 election, Mnangagwa helped fund him and other opposition candidates. Indeed, it was Mnangagwa who led the establishment of the short-lived United People’s Movement. “Throughout the planning process, we had several strategizing meetings…but you have not owned up to that. Instead, you have given a presentation that presents you as ‘comrade loyal’ when that is far from the truth.”

The evidence for Mnangagwa’s perfidy was too abundant to ignore, and on November 9 he was expelled from ZANU-PF and removed from his position as one of Zimbabwe’s two vice presidents. Minister of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing Saviour Kasukuwere submitted a report to the politburo which listed other members of the plot to overthrow the government.

Soon thereafter, Mnangagwa turned up in South Africa and issued a statement threatening that President Mugabe and those around him would be driven from the party “in the coming few weeks.” Ominously, he added that his supporters “will very soon control the levers of power” and he “shall return to Zimbabwe to lead you.”

Zimbabwe security forces went on high alert following Mnangagwa’s threats. A source close to Mnangagwa said, “This is no longer a game, gloves are now off, and I can tell you he will be back as promised. He arrived in China where he will meet key contacts.”

General Chiwenga issued a statement condemning Mnangagwa’s opponents and warning darkly that due to political instability, “the military will not hesitate to step in.” ZANU-PF chairman Simon Khaya-Moyo responded by saying the statement suggested “treasonable conduct” and “was meant to incite insurrection and violent challenge to the constitutional order.”

The cause of Zimbabwe’s current predicament, Western media inform us, is a simple one. President Mugabe’s wife harbored political ambitions to one day assume the highest office in the land. There is nothing else that one needs to know. Let us leave aside the temptation to wonder why mainstream media, with its near universal adoration of former president Bill Clinton’s wife for her political ambitions, somehow find it reprehensible for a strong black woman in a similar relationship to have political aspirations.

For her part, Grace Mugabe has sent mixed signals on succession, so it is unclear what her exact thoughts were on the matter. What is certain is that President Mugabe blundered in not arranging an orderly transition to a successor while he was in a stronger political position, and that failure left the door open for schemers like Mnangagwa and Chiwenga.

The reality is that Grace Mugabe’s political base was too narrow and she was too unpopular for there ever have been a chance of her winning an election. Much of what support she did have would have evaporated upon President Mugabe’s demise. It is not even clear that Grace Mugabe had any chance of being named to take Mnangagwa’s place as vice president. It would be up to the upcoming party congress in December to choose the vice president, President Mugabe announced. Furthermore, many reports indicate that President Mugabe favored Defense Minister Sydney Sekeramayi as his successor. President Mugabe was well aware of his wife’s lack of widespread support and that her candidacy in a presidential election would be political suicide for ZANU-PF, in that she would be a rallying point for the opposition.

General Chiwenga did not wait long to make good on his threat to launch a military coup. The government attempted to snuff out the rebellion before it started and dispatched a police paramilitary unit to the airport to arrest General Chiwenga upon his return from China. However, military intelligence caught wind of the plan and an army unit blocked the attempt, allowing Chiwenga to evade arrest. According to an official with knowledge of the incident, “When Chiwenga came, a team of soldiers dressed in National Handling Services (NHS) uniforms got inside the airport, while police positioned themselves to seize him. The soldiers reacted and disarmed them. The soldiers took off the NHS uniforms, revealing their camouflage fatigues, resulting in the police fleeing.” The army immediately set its long-planned coup in motion on the night of November 14-15, eliminating opposition by attacking policemen at the Parliament building and seizing the police paramilitary camp and armory.

Armored vehicles and tanks rolled through Harare, taking control of key points. Gunfire was heard throughout the city, as the military hunted down and arrested every Mugabe supporter and member of G40 it could lay its hands on, not shying from the use of violence. According to one source, “The first casualty of the operation was Mugabe’s head of security,” Albert Ngulube. “He was grabbed right at Mugabe’s gate and taken to detention where he was brutally beaten.” Another source reported that soldiers took Ngulube’s “cellphone, watch and gold chain and later detained and interrogated him. He was heavily battered. He has some cracks on his head and could have died.”

As one source reported, “Troops arrived at Kasukuwere’s house and shot their way into the residence before shelling it from about ten minutes…The families then escaped to Mugabe’s house…Moyo’s house was also stormed by soldiers.” Secretary of Youth Affairs Kudzai Chipanga and his wife were forced to strip naked and sit on the floor at a police station, where he was ordered to repeat the criticisms he had publicly made of General Chiwenga. Then he was severely beaten. The military later forced him to appear on television and apologize for having denounced Chiwenga’s threat to carry out a coup.

Two Canadian journalists were falsely accused of working for the Central Intelligence Organization, and told by soldiers to lie on the ground. One of the journalists says, “And then they started beating us up. Anything that they had, with sticks, butt sticks, and at times they were using the guns that they had and someone was even saying ‘Hey, you can shoot them’.” Soldiers also walked on the journalists and the beatings lasted 15 to 20 minutes.

When an army unit attacked the home of finance minister Ignatius Chombo, it shot dead his three guards. Social media rumored that $10 million had been found in his home, but the photos posted proved to be disinformation. One photo was actually taken in Nigeria and the second photo in a police raid in Brazil. As one wag tweeted, juxtaposing a photo of the Brazil stash with the same photo identified as Chombo’s home, “Boxes of cash on the left were first found by police at apartment in Salvador, Brazil in September. Last night, same bags were found at house of Zimbabwe Finance Minister by the army.”

“Basically, there is no government in Zimbabwe,” said an inside source. “Cabinet failed to seat on Tuesday because all ministers chose to stay away, fearing for their lives.” Among those who were arrested was Masvingo provincial minister Paul Chimedza, who failed in his attempt to flee the wave of repression sweeping the nation.

The long-planned coup to install Mnangagwa was underway, but it was important for the military to present a façade of legality to appease the African Union. Enormous pressure was applied on President Mugabe to resign and appoint Mnangagwa as vice president. That would allow Mnangagwa to take over the reins of power in a legal manner. President Mugabe refused to buckle under intimidation, describing the coup as illegal – which, indeed, it was.

Opposition backers predominate in the cities, whereas Mugabe’s support is heavily concentrated in rural areas, where it can have little political effect. Western media portray the demonstration that was held in Harare to celebrate the coup as expressing the united voice of the people. All Zimbabweans, we were told, are happy at the turn of events. The demonstration represented the opinion of some people, but in what nation is there a monolithic political view? It is interesting how demonstrations only represent the “will of the people” when the cause is to the liking of Western elites. That said, economic difficulties – not entirely unrelated to Western sanctions – have contributed significantly to political dissatisfaction.

War Veterans’ chairman Chris Mutsvangwa, an ardent Mnangagwa supporter, revealed that the Army had capitalized on the Harare demonstration in an ugly bid to threaten Mugabe into capitulating. “The army gave the dictator a message earlier,” he said. “Either he steps down, or they will let the people into his mansion to take him. The army is threatening to unleash the people and let Mugabe be lynched. The generals said they will not shoot the people for him. Instead, they will abandon their posts and leave him to his fate.”

The army was eager to install Mnangagwa as president, and Mugabe was not playing ball. The coup had long been in preparation, and as a leading opposition figure divulged, “a lot of talking was going on” between the army and “different factions to discuss the formation of a transitional government.” Discussions between the army and the opposition had been underway over the last several months.

According to a member of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), the plan by the army to bring the opposition into the government was “a done deal,” and was said to have “tacit agreement from regional powers.”

Following the coup, Mnangagwa returned to Zimbabwe and began preparing to establish a transitional government that he would lead. It appears that South Africa may be playing some sort of role behind the scenes, as one source hinted. “The parties have been asked to prepare position papers ahead of the visit by Zuma’s envoy. Morgan Tsvangirai will present on behalf of his coalition, while Mujuru will present on behalf of her coalition.”

On Sunday, in the absence of Robert Mugabe’s supporters, ZANU-PF voted to expel the president from the party, and in his place appointed Emmerson Mnangagwa as head of the party. Mnangagwa and his backers were out for vengeance, and ZANU-PF announced that Grace Mugabe and G40 members would be prosecuted. That still left the coup leaders without the means of “legally” installing Mnangagwa in power, so Mugabe was given a deadline of 24 hours to resign, or he would face impeachment on Tuesday.

Western officials are keen to see the transitional government adopt economic policies to their liking. “It’s a transition to a new era for Zimbabwe; that’s really what we’re hoping for,” acting U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Donald Yamamoto said. A European Union spokesperson announced that the EU is “committed to support Zimbabwe in the preparation of credible elections and the delivery of political and economic reforms.” It can be expected that it will not be long before Western economic advisors are paying visits to the transitional government, urging it to enact reforms to liberalize the economy to suit Western investors.

See source notes here: https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/21/what-is-behind-the-military-coup-in-zimbabwe/

Nov. 30, 2017 03:48:08 #2

Synergy

Post rating: +

Clearing the Smoke and Mirrors Around Zimbabwe

Netfa Freeman
29 Nov 2017

“The West, led by Britain and the U.S., have been engaged in a regime policy against the Southern African nation for the last 18 years.”

Reasons for examining what is happening in Zimbabwe are many but few to none can be found in accounts by major news media or from liberal progressive pundits. Such accounts are busy reinforcing the over simplified and misinforming narrative that forcing out former 93 year-old president Robert Mugabe marks the end of 37 years of brutal dictatorship that has driven the country into economic disaster.

The over simplified version being fed to the general public is that everything kicked off after Mugabe fired a disagreeable vice-President. Zimbabwe is to be seen as just another African country with a long reigning dictator who presides over the repression and impoverishment of his own people who really are unable to govern themselves without the aid of the benevolent West.

Since the November 14th reports that Zimbabwean army tanks were seen heading towards the capital Harare in the middle of rising tensions between President Robert Mugabe’s ZANU PF and the military, led by one of Zimbabwe’s Vice-Presidents, Emmerson Mnangagwa, the ultimate political outcome is still unfolding. In short, the story has seen Mugabe first put under house arrest by the military, many of his high level supporters arrested, and eventually, after initially appearing to refuse, Mugabe was pressured into resigning to be replaced by Mnangagwa who was sworn into office last Friday.

“Greg Elich also challenges the portrayal that ‘All Zimbabweans… are happy at the turn of events.”

Unsurprisingly, these new political developments reawakened the Western news media’s fixation with Zimbabwe because the West, led by Britain and the U.S., have been engaged in a regime policy against the Southern African nation for the last 18 years. The accompanying media campaign makes it necessary to look for an honest examination of “What’s Behind the Military Coup in Zimbabwe ” -- as in the recent CounterPunch article by Greg Elich. Using an assortment of sources that include a September Reuters report claiming to have obtained hundreds of internal documents from Zimbabwe’s Central Intelligence Organization, Elich dispels distracting narratives like the claim that the coup was to prevent maneuvers by Robert Mugabe’s wife Grace from becoming his successor. Elich also challenges the portrayal that “All Zimbabweans… are happy at the turn of events,” explaining why photos and footage mainly showing demonstrations in the capital Harare “aren’t necessarily reliable. Opposition backers predominate in the cities, whereas Mugabe’s support is heavily concentrated in rural areas, where it can have little political effect.”

The rural areas are also where Zimbabweans have most benefited from the fast track land redistribution policy initiated in 2000.

Liberal progressives like activist Bill Fletcher , who also hosts and produces the Washington DC based radio show ARISE, gives progressive cover to old and misinformation and falsehoods about Zimbabwe. In these portrayals it is acknowledged that Mugabe and many of the ZANU-PF leadership are not your typical “African dictator” variety and instead arose from the liberation struggle. But on the November 24th show of ARISE Fletcher buttressed old and refuted lines straight from imperialism’s talking points.

Among these points are the claims that ZANU-PF’s 2000 fast track land reclamation was a failure and only benefited cronies of the party and President Mugabe; that the political and economic mission of the opposition party Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) is unclear; and that the dire economic conditions of the country are due solely to the corruption, irresponsibility, and mismanagement of Mugabe.

“Bill Fletcher buttressed old and refuted lines straight from imperialism’s talking points.”

It would have been difficult for the show to feature any other angle, given that one of the guests was Scott Taylor, professor at Georgetown University Walsh School of Foreign Service, whose credentials include serving as a consultant for USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development), the African Development Bank, and the World Bank.

Flecther’s other guest was Nii Akuetteh, founding Executive Director of the Open Society Initiative for West Africa (OSIWA), an arm of George Soros’ “network of foundations."

Much of the misinforming propaganda being resurrected by Western media and reinforced by liberal progressives has been refuted in the 2010 major study, Zimbabwe's Land Reform: Myths and Realities , by Institute of Development Studies Fellow Ian Scoones, with Zimbabwean colleagues Nelson Marongwe, Blasio Mavedzenge, Felix Murimbarimba, Jacob Mahenehene and Chrispen Sukume. The book challenges five myths through a detailed examination of field data:

Myth 1 - Land reform has been a total failure

Myth 2 - The beneficiaries have been largely political 'cronies'

Myth 3 - There is no investment in the new resettlements

Myth 4 - Agriculture is in complete ruins creating chronic food insecurity

Myth 5 - The rural economy has collapsed

The book uses evidence to argue that the land reform program may well be the foundation needed for broad based economic efficiency and new livelihoods in the fight against poverty.

The study finds that while production crops for export declined, other crops “such as small grains, edible beans and cotton” for domestic use increased or remained steady. “A core group of 'middle farmers' -- around half of the population in the Masvingo study areas -- are generating surpluses from farming.”

There is substantial agricultural production on small farm holders, with the majority producing enough to feed their families and sell to local markets in good rainfall years.

“Significant investment in the new land has included plot clearings, well digging and home building. In addition, schools have been built, roads cut and dams dug. New market connections are being forged, unleashing a dynamic entrepreneurship in the rural areas.”

“A core group of 'middle farmers' -- around half of the population in the Masvingo study areas -- are generating surpluses from farming.”

We can be sure that the major factor impacting the Zimbabwean economy was not the shopping habits of First Lady Grace Mugabe. This is not to say there was no mismanagement of the economy on the part what is a parliamentary government. The major factor responsible for the spiraling inflation is, however never mentioned by the major media. That would be the pervasive EU and US sanctions against Zimbabwe -- a type of warfare without guns and bombs. The hypocritically entitled “Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001,” a.k.a. ZIDERA, is the U.S. sanctions legislation that explicitly designed to damage the economy by denying any extension of credit and loans to the government or any balance of payment assistance by international financial institutions. They also actively dissuade investments in, or trade with the country. This has had devastating effects on the ordinary citizens of Zimbabwe in multitude of ways, a fact that Western media and liberal progressive pundits never fail to ignore.

The symptoms of these sanctions are pinned on “Mugabe’s economic mismanagement.” Rarely does anyone ask scrutinizing questions like those of Ugandan journalist, Timothy Kalyegira: “Before the Mugabe Government started uprooting the white farmers in 2000, his Government kept inflation at 5 percent, 8 percent (or 11 percent in difficult years.) How, then, does a country with all the same factors and leaders from 1980 to 2000 suddenly (because the white commercial farmers have been uprooted) see inflation soar to world record levels in a space of just six years starting in 2000? And how is it that a stable Zimbabwe has an inflation rate 1500 times higher than Somalia, a country without a government since 1991?”

“The major factor responsible for the spiraling inflation is the pervasive EU and US sanctions against Zimbabwe -- a type of warfare without guns and bombs.”

The Western press is notorious for largely ignoring Africa. So we should ask why Zimbabwe so easily makes breaking news and headlines when the repression and rape of countries ruled by U.S.-allied leaders like Uganda, Rwanda, and Congo goes virtually unnoticed.

The renewed attention is because imperialism’s protracted strategy is apparently bearing fruit. Unable for a host of internal reasons to raise its hegemony through the opposition party MDC, which they literally created and poised to usher in a neo-liberal agenda, current developments seem to bare out the assertion of former U.S. Ambassador to Zimbabwe Christopher Dell who in 2007 wrote in a leaked Wikileaks cable , “Our policy is working and it’s helping drive changes here. What is required is simply the grit, determination and focus to see this through. Then, when the changes finally come we must be ready to move quickly to help consolidate the new dispensation…”

We now seem to be witnessing a “say it ain’t so” moment. Since the resigning of Mugabe and the instatement of Mnangagwa as Zimbabwe’s President, a number of foreign officials have paid “courtesy calls” to the new president, including Britain’s Africa Minister Rory Stewart, who pledged that Britain is ready to strengthen its relations with Zimbabwe and, “On sanctions, I have to be clear, there are now very few sanctions on Zimbabwe. Sanctions are left on a few individuals. The only outstanding question here is of international financial assistance from organizations like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, but we have already begun discussions to have the embargo lifted.”

Imperialism would hardly make such a commitment unless they were certain their economic interests were secured.

“We should ask why Zimbabwe so easily makes breaking news when the repression and rape of countries ruled by U.S.-allied leaders like Uganda, Rwanda, and Congo goes virtually unnoticed.”

Amid rumors that that land would be returned to large-scale white farmers, Emmerson Mnangagwa declared to the contrary that “the land reform program was unavoidable and shall not be reversed.” But he promised that those white farmers who lost property would receive compensation.

At the moment it looks as if one of only two of Africa’s remaining hold outs from imperialism’s world domination has succumbed to pressure. But there is much more to unpack and the people’s struggle is a story that never ends.

The lessons for the international struggle for self-determination, justice and against capitalist imperialism are always more complicated than we can get from the most readily available sources.

The people of Zimbabwe and the whole of Africa must find a way to forge an expressly anti-capitalist mass movement toward processes of participatory democracy where the people can devise and implement their own social programs that benefit the most disenfranchised classes. Much like the movements that emerged in Latin America and were attempted in Burkina Faso under Thomas Sankara. It would seem this is best safeguard against the aggressions of imperialism. We must concede that the land reform and "indigenization acts" were inadequate measures toward economic empowerment that kept capitalism and imperialism intact. We hope we’re wrong, but the neo-liberalism that now appears to be on the horizon has always in the long run ended in deeper and more sustained misery for the working class and rural poor populations of Africa and the world.

https://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php/clearing-smoke-and-mirrors-around-zimbabwe

Nov. 30, 2017 05:28:53 #3

[account deactivated]

Nov. 30, 2017 10:43:54 #4

JohnBeige

Black Belt

Post rating: +

PSL on Zimbabwe - Hands Off Zimbabwe, curling the lip at the coup

Spoiler!

https://www.liberationnews.org/preliminary-notes-apparent-coup-zimbabwe/

While the exact details are still unclear, and the situation still unfolding with several conflicting reports, it is clear that a coup is now underway in Zimbabwe. The army has taken over the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC), blocked access to parliament and placed President Robert Mugabe under house arrest. The coup appears to have been planned well ahead of time with one source telling the Guardian newspaper that for several months negotiations have been ongoing between the army and various opposition figures in preparation for it.

Currently the military leaders are claiming that President Mugabe is still officially the president, and that the apparent house arrest is “for his own safety.” Coup leaders have stated they are purely targeting “criminals” around Mugabe, which appears to be a reference to his wife Grace Mugabe and elements of the ruling party loyal to her. Mugabe has reportedly confirmed to South African President Jacob Zuma that he is under confinement. If such a situation continues, in other words, it would certainly be symbolic and not substantive leadership — a coup by another name.

Zimbabwe was slated for elections again next year with many predicting that the fragmented opposition would be unable to overcome the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front or ZANU-PF, which continues to be represented by Robert Mugabe, now 93, who led the principal thrust of Zimbabwe’s liberation movement. Tensions however, have been very high within ZANU-PF for quite some time with contending factions based on different segments of the ZANU base with different programs — and each with their own post-Mugabe ambitions. Some reports say that Mugabe’s wife, Grace Mugabe, was planning to install herself as President post-election, a very controversial move among party veterans who have questioned her motives and lack of credentials in Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle.

Background and context

The mainstream media often portrays politics in oppressed nations, and especially targeted ones, as mere “power struggles” in the abstract, with no examination of the country’s history or contesting political programs. Behind conflicting political interests there are almost always deeper social interests, which must be discerned.

The root of Zimbabwe’s many current political struggles are the vast changes that have followed from the fast-track land reform carried out by ZANU-PF in the early 2000s. Understanding that context is key. Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle ended with a negotiated settlement, the Lancaster House Accords, brokered by the United Kingdom in 1980 that brought an end to white settler rule and established Black majority rule under ZANU which would later unify, after intense struggle, with another former liberation force ZAPU, to form ZANU-PF.

The settler-colonial period was marked by the dispossession of land from Africans and the development of a mining sector, worked, in large part, by Africans. If not working in the mines they were primarily confined to “communal areas” where they were crowded into low quality land and essentially were maintained as a reserve population for the mining interests and large white-owned commercial farms. Outrage at these social conditions propelled the anti-colonial liberation struggle.

The Lancaster House Accords preserved this basic economic structure, in exchange for Black majority rule. In other words, the economic domination of the country by Western mining capital and white farmers remained. So while Zimbabwe made impressive gains in areas such as education, ultimately the economically subordinated position of the Black population was not resolved.

Fast track land reform

This ultimately led Mugabe to dramatically reverse course in the early 2000s. From below there was a mass movement of land invasions in the countryside among dispossessed Black Zimbabweans, and ZANU-PF in turn initiated “fast track land reform” seizing land from whites and redistributing it to the Black population. While the press in the Western imperial centers howled, in truth this was a historically legitimate act of social justice–reparations for colonialism–which solidified ZANU-PF’s popular credibility. The ruling party was confronted by an opposition, by contrast, that contained some popular elements, but was largely supported by white dominated rural areas and the overall settler colonial economy.

This brought on deep ire from Western imperialism which slapped severe sanctions on Zimbabwe and overall tried to sabotage the economy. The effort to force ZANU-PF from power or to reverse course ultimately failed. ZANU-PF was able to win elections in 2008 and 2013, not without some controversy, because the opposition had no real strategy for dealing with the settler-colonial legacy.

Also, land reform, despite the constant claims to the contrary in the Western press, produced some success. Academic researchers who have studied carefully the results at the province level have found a few basic things. First, that land reform was in no way dominated by crony giveaways from ZANU-PF — even though that was a factor — but that the bulk of the land was redistributed to the land-starved people from the communal areas, and that many of these farmers were starting to succeed.

One assessment, for instance, estimated that about 35 percent of the new farms were doing quite well with another 55 percent being viable if challenged in various ways. This has led to a whole new rural structure inside the country.

It also set the stage for the current political crisis. This is a very complicated subject but there are some broad outlines to consider.

Essentially there is a “tri-modal” system in the countryside. The bulk of farms, so-called A1 farms, are the smaller farms. Many of these are becoming the center of new value chains, the most successful of which are becoming key producers for urban food markets, some for export. Second are the A2 medium sized farms. Many of these farmers are the so-called “elites” of various types: former civil servants and the like. These aren’t doing as well and haven’t received much state support. The more successful ones have been those most connected to ZANU-PF leaders it seems, and thus able to use those networks to market their products better.

Finally, there is a large-scale farm and estate sector centered around export crops which deals directly with international capital. Some of these, particularly in sugar, have been economically successful for new farmers, a considerable number of whom are former teachers or estate workers as well as individuals from the security services and party establishment. Some owners are even making tens of millions of dollars in profits.

Could there be a retreat or reversal of land reform?

In other words, a new and different economic and social composition has developed in the country. However the country retains its essential capitalist character. ZANU-PF has never attempted to transcend capitalism, and even its recent turn on land reform was only radical in the relative sense that it decisively departed from the norm in Southern Africa. A key goal of imperialism in this region has been to prevent any land reform that could disrupt the settler-colonial ownership structures that underpin the extractive and exploitative relationship with Western corporations.

If anything, the hatred from imperialist nations towards Zimbabwe is a profound statement about neo-colonialism. They have worked to prevent a rearrangement that could allow Southern African nations to be more independent and significant players in the world economy, even on a capitalist basis.

All this has to be taken into account in the present situation. While the land reform has been much more successful than Western observers put forward, without a doubt the overall economy is stagnating and the lack of investment, inputs, marketing support and the like has highly limited the possibilities in the country.

ZANU-PF has been arguing that the increased crop returns last year provide the basis for food sovereignty and the base for a new industrialization policy when combined with the “indigenization” of the mineral sector — that is, its takeover by the state or Black businessmen.

However, given the other economic challenges, many of the successful farmers, not all of whom are hostile to the government, have proposed that the government make space for more joint ventures to help improve the economy and bring in more foreign investment. Controversially, some have argued for bringing back thousands of expelled white commercial farmers to use their expertise, access to capital and lessen aggression from the West.

Eruption of political crisis

Last week the political crisis erupted when vice president Emmerson Mnangagwa, widely seen as Mugabe’s successor, was sacked by Mugabe.

Mnangagwa’s opponents have linked him to the proposals to bring back many white farmers, tarring him with the brush of essentially wanting to reverse land reform and return to more of a settler-colonial-esque status quo. South Africa’s Business Day paper, citing Mnangagwa’s spokesman, asserts that this is indeed a core part of his political program. The irony is that Mnangagwa has been known as a stalwart supporter of Mugabe, the land reform and indigenization. The same can be said of other stalwart ZANU-PF members, including Joyce Mujuru, who were forced out by Grace Mugabe and her G40 faction, which has a significant base among young supporters of ZANU-PF. Unlike Grace Mugabe and her supporters, Mnangagwa has the prestige of being a leader of the anti-colonial liberation struggle and having endured the repression of the white minority dictatorship.

Mnangagwa, is, according to some reports, likely to become the new President post-coup. The same reports say that prominent opposition leaders would be placed in subordinate positions in a coalition government to give it international legitimacy. (Several years ago Mugabe himself brought the opposition Movement for Democratic change, MDC, into a similar coalition to try and get the Western sanctions lifted.)

Unresolved questions of decisive importance

The primary question is if this is fundamentally a faction fight inside of ZANU-PF, a preemptive move to settle a long-unresolved question about post-Mugabe succession, or something more? An older generation of liberation war veterans clearly expected to succeed President Mugabe and in their own terms are blocking Grace Mugabe and her group of younger ZANU-PF leaders from solidifying their hold on governance. The coup leader, Gen. Constantine Chiwenga, had warned of military action after the removal of Mnangagwa, who had been rumored for quite some time as a likely next leader for the party. In other words, might the coup retain the essential ZANU-PF strategy just with a different leadership core?

Or will the coup plotters attempt to pursue a new course that could include courting the West and former white settlers? Will they be confronted by large numbers of Zimbabweans who will take action to oppose the coup and defend Mugabe as the legitimate and elected leadership, which one would expect in some form as a measure of the government’s support?

As of now, none of this is clear — nor has the hand of the British and U.S. governments been shown or revealed, or for that matter the position of the South African government, which has a complex and, of late, antagonistic relationship with Zimbabwe’s leadership. But these are collectively the questions that must be asked and answered to assess the political trajectory of the coup.

ZANU-PF is clearly split as are some important social groups like the association of liberation war veterans which supports the military’s action. On the other hand, some opposition figures aligned with Western imperialism have expressed support for it as well, seeing it as an opportunity to realign the country politically and economically. As such, there is ample reason to remain vigilant and wary of the possibility that this coup is designed to return Zimbabwe by force “into the fold” as a country whose exports of food and minerals would be essentially subordinated to the Western economic order’s supply chains.

For Zimbabwe this is a clear inflection point, and given the similar issues facing countries all over Southern Africa, the fallout could have serious reverberations. Beyond the tactical debates on the pace of land reform, a strategic reversal of land reform would clearly be a step backwards in moving the country away from its settler-colonial past into a self-determining future. If that is in the cards it will likely be revealed soon.

That the coup is relying on military action, rather than democratic, popular or constitutional means, gives strategic leverage to Western governments to exact such economic concessions in exchange for recognition.

A key role for progressives and anti-imperialists in the West is to ensure that U.S., UN and British military forces do not use the crisis to insert themselves into the country as a so-called “stabilizing” force.

There is no question that such a violation of Zimbabwean self-determination would return the country to a neocolonial status.

WWP on Zimbabwe - Hands Off Zimbabwe, no position on coup

Spoiler!

https://www.workers.org/2017/11/24/leadership-change-underway-in-zimbabwe-after-resignation-of-president-robert-mugabe/

A factional struggle inside the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) party has created the conditions for the Nov. 21 resignation of longtime leader President Robert Gabriel Mugabe.

Through a project lasting just eight days and entitled “Operation Restore Legacy,” the president was removed from his leadership positions as first secretary of the party as well as head of state of the Republic of Zimbabwe.

The removal of the first secretary and president appeared on the surface to have been the outcome of divisions within ZANU-PF, in which rival elements surrounding former Vice President Emmerson Mnangagwa, on the one side, and First Lady Grace Mugabe, on the other, reached an impasse stemming from irreconcilable differences. President Mugabe was in the concluding months of his present term of office, scheduled to expire in mid-2018.

President Mugabe had joined the national liberation movement in his country at a young age while working as an educator and youth leader in that former settler colonial outpost that the British called Rhodesia. Then, during the late 1950s and early 1960s, he lived, worked and studied in the West African state of Ghana, which was then the fountainhead of Pan-Africanism under the prime minister and eventual president, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah.

After being imprisoned by the British for a decade in the 1960s and early 1970s, Mugabe relocated to Tanzania and Mozambique to work full time as a leader of ZANU. In 1979, he played a pioneering role, alongside the Zimbabwe African People’s Union Patriotic Front (ZAPU-PF), headed by former Vice President Joshua Nkomo, in negotiations for the Lancaster House agreement that paved the way towards nonracial, democratic elections in Southern Rhodesia in April 1980. The elections brought Mugabe to power as prime minister through a coalition government that lasted five years. The initial government included the remnants of the settler colonialists, headed by former Prime Minister Ian Smith. By 1985, Zimbabwe had become a republic with ZANU-PF as the leading political party. In 1987, ZANU and ZAPU merged to form a unitary ruling party.

Recent divisions within ZANU-PF came to a head after the termination of Vice President Emmerson Mnangagwa in early November. Mnangagwa was relieved of his duties after an incident in Bulawayo when First Lady Grace Mugabe was booed while speaking before a youth interface rally. These actions taken by the president’s office were said to have been in response to a plot to overthrow Mugabe by a faction in the party led by Mnangagwa.

In addition to the sacking of Mnangagwa, reports were circulated that at least 100 other party officials were being examined for possible expulsion from both the organization and government. On Nov. 13, Zimbabwe Defense Forces (ZDF) Cmdr. Gen. Constantino Chiwenga held a press conference along with 90 other military officers at which he threatened intervention if the purges did not cease.

Tanks move into streets of Harare

This military press conference was not covered by the state-run Herald newspaper or other ZANU-PF controlled media agencies. The following day, Nov. 14, social media and foreign news bureaus began to report on irregular tank movements in the capital of Harare. Several hours after sundown, stories began to emerge claiming that the Zimbabwe Defense Forces (ZDF) had seized the national Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC) television station in preparation for a statement to the country. Rumors were rife throughout Zimbabwe, across Africa and the world that a military coup was underway inside the country.

Later on in the early morning hours of 4 a.m. Zimbabwe time on Nov. 15, Maj. Gen. S.B. Moyo went on television saying that there had not been a military coup. He said that President Mugabe remained head of state and that security for the leader and his family was guaranteed. Moyo noted that the ZDF was only targeting “criminals” surrounding the president in order to prevent a further deterioration of the social situation, which could become violent.

Several hours later, President Jacob Zuma of the neighboring Republic of South Africa spoke with Mugabe on the telephone. Zuma relayed in an interview over the South African Broadcasting Corporation that President Mugabe had said he was confined to his residence in the capital. He also told Zuma that no harm had been done to him or his family.

Zuma is currently the chair of the regional 15-member Southern African Development Community. The following day, Nov. 16, Zuma deployed South African Minister of Defense Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula to sit in on mediation talks between Mugabe and the military. Photographs of the meeting at the State House in Harare were published on the website of the Zimbabwe Herald.

Reports on Nov. 17 showed Mugabe presiding over a graduation ceremony at Zimbabwe Open University. Nonetheless, by Nov. 19, the international media sent out dispatches saying the ZANU-PF Central Committee had voted to recall the president from leadership and consequently as head of state. These same reports also emphasized that First Lady Grace Mugabe was being expelled from the party.

Party and war veterans call for Mugabe’s removal

In these same articles, it was said that Mugabe had until Nov. 20 to step down from office. In an address to the nation and world on Nov. 19, the president acknowledged the factional conflict within the ZANU-PF party. However, he did not resign and, alluding to the upcoming special congress of the party, said he would preside over it as first secretary.

In an earlier press conference on Nov. 15, after Moyo’s television statement and the eventual broadcast of Chiwenga’s remarks, the Zimbabwe National Liberation War Veterans Association had said they supported the actions taken by the military leadership and would hold a demonstration on Nov. 18 in Harare. Spokespersons for the group also accused leading ZANU-PF and government officials associated with the party faction aligned with First Lady Grace Mugabe of being criminals and even U.S. Central Intelligence Agency operatives.

After the deadline set by the ZANU-PF Central Committee passed on Nov. 20, party members in Parliament threatened impeachment resolutions. On Nov. 21, Sen. Monica Mutsvangwa of Manicaland Province accused the president of several constitutional violations.

The impeachment resolution read by Mutsvangwa said in part: “President Mugabe is old and he needs to be hand held. As such, he is no longer fit for office. … The President has abrogated his constitutional mandate to his wife who makes public utterances on issues of government like the appointing and dismissal of government ministers and senior civil servants. This motion is moved in terms of Section 97 (1) which provides for the removal of the President or Vice President from office. The charges are (a) serious misconduct; (b) failure to obey, uphold or defend this Constitution; (c) willful violation of this Constitution; or (d) inability to perform the functions of the office because of physical or mental incapacity.”

Later on, debate on the impeachment resolution was terminated after House Speaker Jacob Mudenda read out a letter, said to have been from Mugabe, tendering his resignation. International media outlets showed scenes of jubilation for several hours in the streets of Harare. The Zimbabwe Herald later published the resignation letter, along with reports that Vice President Phelekezela Mphoko would be acting president until Mnangagwa could be sworn in on Nov. 24.

International implications of ‘Operation Restore Legacy’

Judging from the response of the British Broadcasting Corporation, the government in London was delighted with the removal of Mugabe from the leadership of ZANU-PF and the Zimbabwe state. However, the former colonial power was quick to advise the new government in Harare on how it should proceed.

British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson said in a Twitter post that he did not regret Mugabe’s downfall, calling the resignation “a moment of hope for the people of Zimbabwe.” This echoed the remarks of British Prime Minister Theresa May, who said that the sudden removal of Mugabe would “forge a new path free of the oppression that characterized his rule. In recent days we have seen the desire of the Zimbabwean people for free and fair elections and the opportunity to rebuild the country’s economy under a legitimate government.” (Al-Jazeera, Nov. 21)

A BBC article arrogantly inquired on Nov. 22: “So, will Emmerson Mnangagwa be able to take Zimbabwe’s economy off life support and at least start to put it on the road to recovery? Analysts are very skeptical that a quick solution is even feasible. The euphoria that has gripped the nation has certainly raised hopes that the future will be brighter, but if that improved sentiment is to deliver economic dividends, the government needs to make some drastic reforms. In 2009, Mr. Mugabe signed the Indigenization and Economic Empowerment Act (IEEA) into law, which aimed to place 51percent of companies into the hands of Black Zimbabweans.”

The IEEA was a response to the domination over Zimbabwe’s economy by British settlers and foreign corporations. A land redistribution program enacted in 2000 had set off even deeper international sanctions against Harare because the ZANU-PF government sought to give the land back to its rightful owners — the African people, who had been victimized by the onslaught of British imperialism in the late 19th century.

Relating to the role of the U.S. government in the recent developments in Zimbabwe, the Voice of America (VOA) acknowledged in a report published on Nov. 21 that the State Department has been conducting what it described as “behind the scenes talks” with officials of the ZANU-PF government and Western-backed opposition forces inside the country.

The article outlines some of the preconditions Washington set down for lifting sanctions on this southern African state, which has relied on the Republic of South Africa, the regional Southern African Development Community (SADC), the Republic of Mozambique, the People’s Republic of China and other fraternal states in order to stave off an already dire economic situation imposed by imperialism.

Nike Ching of the VOA writes: “The way for Washington to lift sanctions is for Harare to carry out the due process, to respect human rights, and to give the opposition a genuine opportunity to form a government, said Yamamoto . ‘What we don’t want is a manipulation by the government or by the ruling ZANU-PF party — holding rush elections, not taking into consideration a lot of the reform issues that the opposition wants to implement; also, not giving political space for the Zimbabwe people for them to express what they want to see in a new government,’ he said. U.S. Ambassador to Zimbabwe Harry Thomas has been meeting with officials from the ZANU-PF party and the opposition party behind the scenes to try and help push the political process forward.”

Both the SADC and the African Union (AU) have expressed concerns over events in Zimbabwe emanating from “Operation Restore Legacy.” Zimbabwe under Mugabe had been an ideological and political base for Pan-Africanism and anti-imperialism on the continent.

The above-mentioned report in Al-Jazeera also says: “Alpha Conde, president of Guinea and African Union chief, said it is ‘a shame’ Mugabe ‘has to leave through the back door.’ He added, however, that he was ‘very pleased’ with Mugabe’s decision to resign, noting that the AU had warned against a coup in Zimbabwe. Hailing Mugabe’s role in Zimbabwe’s fight for independence, Conde called Mugabe ‘an African hero.’ ‘Mugabe will never be forgotten, he was a great fighter,’ he was quoted as saying by Guinean media.”

One opposition media agency, Bulawayo 24, published an unsubstantiated report on Nov. 16 that neighboring Zambian President Edgar Lungu was willing to militarily intervene in Zimbabwe and place his troops under Mugabe’s command. Western-backed entities emerged on the streets of Harare during the demonstrations on Nov. 18, carrying signs attacking both the AU and SADC.

Critical issues for Zimbabwe’s future

At least four important aspects of ZANU-PF’s domestic and foreign policy will be significant in the days and weeks to come in order to assess the Mnangagwa government’s direction.

The land reform program, popularly referred to as “the Third Chimurenga,” has been a cornerstone of domestic policy since 2000. Will the land redistribution project be maintained, moderated or reversed?

Secondly, the Indigenization policy is important for all post-colonial states in Africa, due to the dominance of foreign capital over the national and regional economies. Neocolonialism has failed to provide genuine independence, sustainable growth and development across the continent.

Another major question is whether Zimbabwe can maintain its commitment to regional integration and industrialization, both within SADC and the AU. Mugabe served as chair of the AU in 2015, advancing the cause of economic integration and independence from Western capitalist states. Just this year, the Zimbabwean president presented a $1 million fundraising check to the AU, setting an example for individual state commitment to the continental body.

Finally, Pentagon military involvement in Africa has grown substantially over the last decade with the formation of the U.S. Africa Command (Africom). The Mugabe government kept Africom out of Zimbabwe.

The presence of Africom in Somalia, Niger, Mali, Nigeria and other AU member-states has not resulted in greater security and social stability. Quite the opposite has occurred, with burgeoning instability, economic crises and population displacement.

Ultimately, it is up to the Zimbabwean people themselves to chart a future course. Despite the apparent errors of the recent period, the legacy of Robert Mugabe and ZANU-PF remains a sterling example of national liberation, Pan-Africanism and struggle against imperialism throughout the world.

Edited by JohnBeige (Nov. 30, 2017 11:03:44)

Nov. 30, 2017 10:51:25 #5

JohnBeige

Black Belt

Post rating: +

NUMSA on Zimbabwe - AntiCoup

Spoiler!

http://www.thedawn-news.org/2017/11/21/numsa-condemns-the-military-coup-in-zimbabwe/

The National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) condemns in the strongest terms, the military coup which has taken place in Zimbabwe. The army in Zimbabwe has taken over power through a military coup and no amount of concealment of this most obvious of facts can change the ugly reality of the unconstitutional military takeover of power in Zimbabwe.
The people of Zimbabwe in general and the Zimbabwean working class and rural poor in particular, have suffered terribly and for a very long time, especially after 1990, when it became very clear that independent Zimbabwe had failed to uproot – root, stem and all – British and Western European economic domination of Zimbabwe.

Writers and historians of all kinds have speculated about how Robert Mugabe, the President of Zimbabwe, used the demand for land justice in Zimbabwe, as well as anti-colonial and anti-imperialist rhetoric to ensure a way of sustaining himself, his family and his friends in positions of power. This week the Zimbabwean army is attempting to depose him through a military coup. The army has occupied the capital, Harare and has taken over the state broadcast facility. Military vehicles can be seen patrolling the streets and soldiers are conducting random searches of civilians. No doubt, as the days stretch into weeks, and the weeks stretch into months, and of course the months into years as the army ‘sorts out the criminals around Mugabe” we will come to learn a lot more about the in-fighting which has sparked this military takeover both in the Zanu-PF, in the army and in the country itself.

We have noted the muted and often absent condemnation of the military coup from almost all capitals of Western Powers, where Mugabe was reviled and his death long wished for. From these there is the call for a smooth return to constitutional rule and stability, and the worthless pleas for observance of human rights and protection of human life. On its part, the head of the African Union is not sure about what is happening in Zimbabwe and says it seems a coup is underway. He has called for the military to halt their action and return the country to constitutional order. Here we are reminded about how the now obsolete Organization of African Unity used to respond to coups.

We have no doubt that millions of Zimbabwean workers and the rural poor, while not being sure where the unfolding military coup will take the country to, are maybe very relieved that Mugabe and his family are gone from the political scene in Zimbabwe. What we know though, from our own post independent African political experience and history is that military coups, even when they have briefly ushered in progressive individuals and groups such as Thomas Sankara in Burkina Faso, have always ended in the blood, sweat and tears of the majority of the population who are the working class and the rural poor. Meanwhile, history demonstrates that often the military turns out to be more corrupt than the civilians they depose.
NUMSA’s position on this is based on principle. This is not the first time we have taken a stance which was not necessarily popular. In 2013 we were the first within the ANC led Alliance to call for President Jacob Zuma to be removed, and for that we were expelled by trade union federation COSATU. Now they are singing the same tune. The working class in Zimbabwe must be vigilant. The question that they should ask themselves at this time of political turmoil is in whose class interest is this coup being imposed? Major General Sibusiso Moyo of the Zimbabwean army has already offered a clue into the motive for this overthrow. He says the army wants to rid Zanu-PF of ‘criminal’ elements. So clearly the army is acting in the interests of a Zanu-PF faction and not in the interest of the working class majority and the poor.
Furthermore one of the key leaders who is believed to be the driving force behind the coup is the former deputy president Emmerson Mnangagwa, also known as Crocodile (Ngwenya), who was recently fired by Mugabe. He is infamous for the role he allegedly played in the mass murder of approximately 20 thousand Zimbabweans after the military crushed perceived dissidents in the Matabeleland and Midlands regions in the 1980’s. At the time he was the head of the Secret Police and is said to have had a direct involvement in the killings. This is not good news for the working class. They are faced with being led by an authoritarian leader or a potentially ruthless military dictatorship.
There are powerful lessons from Zimbabwe and from the rest of the continent for the working class in our more than half a century of post colonialism, that fretting with socialism without actually overthrowing capitalism and imperialism, has always ended in deeper and more sustained misery for the working class and rural poor populations of Africa. Imperialism and its local agents upon returning have been more arrogant, vicious and totally insensitive to the suffering of the working class and the rural poor. We want to make it very clear, NUMSA does not support Mugabe. Like Zuma he should have left yesterday. Who replaces him is an issue for us. The working class in Zimbabwe cannot continue to support its worst butchers

We are calling upon all the progressive civil society formations in Zimbabwe in general and the working class and the rural population not to despair, but to organize, mobilize and educate themselves about the evils of capitalism and imperialism, and dedicate themselves, as we have done here, to fight for a united and socialist Africa. Nothing good will come from the adventures of the soldiers, after Mugabe for the working class and the rural poor. The only true and lasting solution to the crises in Zimbabwe is genuine socialism under the leadership of the Zimbabwean working class.

We are calling upon the entire world of progressive and socialist formations to come to the aid of Zimbabwe now, in its hour of great need. The South African working class in particular owes Zimbabwe a huge debt. Part of the economic crisis in Zimbabwe was inflicted upon it by imperialism because of its support for our liberation. It is time to show that we care about our fellow workers and rural poor populations in Zimbabwe. NUMSA will be carefully monitoring the goings on in Zimbabwe, with a view to determine how, together with other socialist and progressive formations in this country, we can do our part to fast track the process of building working class power in Zimbabwe, for the struggle for a socialist Zimbabwe.

We are inspired by the great revolutionary and former president of Cuba, comrade Fidel Castro who once said:
“Fellow workers and peasants, this is the socialist and democratic revolution of the working people, with the working people and for the working people. And for this revolution of the working people, by the working people and for the working people, we are prepared to give our lives.”

All Zimbabweans in general and the Zimbabwean working class in particular must know that NUMSA, a Marxist-Leninist inspired revolutionary trade union is suffering with them, in this their terrible hour of need. We are ready to jump into the same trenches with you, Comrades!

Aluta continua!
The struggle continues!

Irvin Jim,
NUMSA General Secretary,
South Africa

EFF on Zimbabwe - ProCoup

Spoiler!

SCAP on Zimbabwe - Hands Off Zimbabwe, wary on coup, pro Mugabe stepping down

Spoiler!

http://www.politicsweb.co.za/opinion/lessons-from-zimbabwe

Lessons from Zimbabwe
20 November 2017
The fundamental issues facing the Zimbabwean revolution and its people remain. Key amongst these are, overcoming the colonial legacy; addressing the national and gender questions; and transforming the economy. Cutting across these issues is the challenge and urgency to rebuild the liberation movement and re-root amongst the masses of the people.
As our neighbour, developments in Zimbabwe have social, economic and political implications for South Africa, and indeed the Southern African region as a whole. Our own movement needs to learn appropriate lessons in a situation where the liberation movement enjoyed the support of more than 80 per cent of the people, but now experienced a drastic decline in support.
We need a correct understanding of Zimbabwe
The developments in Zimbabwe are too important to be approached from clichés and conspiratorial theories, no matter how plausible and comforting these may be.
The other approach and analysis of Zimbabwe is that of seeing current developments as purely an expression of counter-revolution hatched everywhere – in the Western capitals, the non-governmental media and the offices of the opposition forces in Zimbabwe. Whilst we should not discount the presence of counter-revolutionary activity, but it would be completely wrong to approach the question purely from this standpoint.
It is as if we have not witnessed the painful collapse of Eastern Bloc countries as a result of, yes, imperialist-backed counter-revolution, but also internal weaknesses and serious errors by the parties in power. Unfortunately this crude position is also finding echo within the ranks of our own movement, thus completely ignoring ZANU-PF policies that hurt the working class and the poor over the years, the bureaucratisation of the party, and consequently the growing distance between it and the mass of the people.
The current developments in Zimbabwe are an expression of three interrelated realities, namely, the colonial legacy and its contemporary political expression, the effects of the structural adjustment programme of the 1990’s, and the bureaucratisation of ZANU-PF. The intractable nature of the colonial legacy, principally expressed through a combination of persisting economic inequalities and grossly unequal distribution of land. This legacy continues to express itself politically through sections of the white Zimbabwean population opposed to redistribution of land and seeking to roll back whatever modest gains made since independence.
The colonial legacy has also been expressed in the arrogant refusal of the UK over the years – the former colonial power – to honour one of the main agreements in the Lancaster House settlement, payment for the redistribution of land. Instead all indications showed that the British government has chosen to support any expression of opposition in Zimbabwe.
Economic Structural Adjustment Programmes in Zimbabwe
The second and major factor in the current Zimbabwean situation, which has been completely ignored in all major commentaries, is that of the effects of the structural adjustment programme imposed by the World Bank from 1991, but also implemented by ZANU-PF with very little resistance.
The uncritical implementation of the structural adjustment programme was as a result of the consolidation of the power of a small and aspirant indigenous capitalist and bureaucratic bourgeoisie, which had become dependent on the post-colonial state, and had hoped to benefit from the privatisation of state assets under this programme.
The effects of the structural adjustment programme under the hegemony of this class is perhaps the single most important explanation for the erosion of the power and influence of ZANU-PF amongst the people, and therefore requires some detailed attention.
The first ten years of Zimbabwean independence (1980-1990) witnessed some major advances and improvement in the social conditions of the majority of the working and poor people. For instance there was massive expansion of social services, in particular in the spheres of health and education. According to research done by the Southern African Regional Institute for Policy Studies (SARIPS) based in Harare, health recurrent expenditure rose from Z$8,19 in 1979/80 to Z$18,17 in 1990/91 in real per capita terms.
Real per capita recurrent expenditure on primary education grew from Z$10.61 to Z$28.70 during the same period. Primary education during this period was made free and compulsory, thus becoming accessible to millions of children from poor and rural families. During this period infant mortality rate declined from 88 to 61 per 1000 births, and immunisation coverage increased from 25 per cent to more than 85 per cent of the children. Levels of literacy also improved dramatically during this period.
From 1991, the Zimbabwean government adopted, at the instigation of the World Bank, a severe five-year structural adjustment programme. This programme principally entailed a severe cut back on social spending, privatisation of state enterprises, liberalisation of the economy, a radical reduction of government deficit from 10 to 5 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product or GDP, removal of food and other subsidies in particular for the poor, reduction of the civil service by 25 per cent through retrenchments and freezing of posts, devaluation of the Zimbabwean dollar, and orienting the economy towards exports at the expense of domestic demand.
Like virtually all neoliberal economic restructuring in the developing world, a promise was made that certain benefits will flow from such restructuring. These promises included the usual ones: an increase in foreign direct investment by at least 20 per cent of the GDP per year, generate more foreign exchange, job creation and an economic growth of 5 per cent per year. None of these materialised, instead the economic and social situation in Zimbabwe declined rapidly in the 1990’s, almost eroding all the gains made during the first 10 years of independence. Even worse was that this programme, like all such neo-liberal restructuring, was driven bureaucratically without the involvement of the mass of the people and their organisations, including trade unions, which are usually treated with suspicion as a nuisance that might block such “necessary” restructuring.
After 1990/91 secondary school enrolment started to decline, with a decline by 7.5 per cent in 1992. Real heath expenditure fell to below the 1983 levels, and education spending dramatically falling to 32 per cent below its 1990/91 peak, and malnutrition rates amongst children increased by 13 per cent in 1992 over 1991. Inflation rose from 23 per cent in 1991 to 46 per cent by December 1998, with the interest rate nearly 50 per cent. Manufacturing output fell from 129.9 in 1992 to 116.9 in 1996, and real wages fell by 10 per cent in 1992 over 1991, with more than 17 000 workers in the manufacturing sector being retrenched between 1991 and 1996. Real wages actually fell by 33 per cent between 1990 and 1997.
Between 1991 and 1995 the private and public sectors had retrenched 25 510 and 20 000 workers respectively. During the same period about 300 000 school-leavers joined the labour market each year. Even more serious was the rise of food prices between 1981 and 1999. The net effect was rising poverty, to the extent that according to the 1998 Zimbabwe Human Development Report it was estimated that 61 per cent of Zimbabwean households were poor, and of these 45 per cent were ‘very poor’.
Of course it can be argued that the Zimbabwean budget deficit was too high at 10 per cent and was not sustainable. But to ask of the government to cut it by half within 5 years - a religious and fundamentalist requirement by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank irrespective of the nature and scale of social inequalities – was bound to lead to serious socio-economic decline. Indeed this situation was also exacerbated by the drought in 1991/2, but the government was in no position to even modestly respond to this within the tight monetary and fiscal targets it had set itself.
The most cynical and scandalous dimension of this economic restructuring was that the IMF and the World Bank were in 1995 trumpeting the Zimbabwean adjustment programme as a success to be emulated by other countries. In addition, the Zimbabwean experience shows that neo-liberal economic restructuring has left the colonial economic legacy intact, in particular the grossly unequal distribution of land and other economic resources. After this structural adjustment programme, 5000 mostly white farmers in a population of about 12 million are still holding 60 per cent of prime arable land, half of which is not being utilised!
The most important lesson to learn out of this is that much as the imposition of this programme was principally from the World Bank, but when the destructive effects began to be felt, these institutions and the imperialist media blamed the crisis on Mugabe and the government. To them the problem was no longer the colonial legacy and the structural adjustment programme, but the lack of a viable opposition in Zimbabwe. Another important lesson out of this is that neoliberal economic restructuring does not alter the economic balance in favour of the working people and the poor, but benefits the same forces who benefitted under colonialism and a small stratum of indigenous entrants.
It was principally as a result of this growing impoverishment of the Zimbabwean people that began to alienate the mass of the people from ZANU-PF and government, and saw the emergence of food riots and strikes by the trade union movement in the mid-to-late 1990s. It is of course true that counter-revolution does exploit such grievances by the people, but the creation of these conditions needs to be looked at not only externally but also from within the political behaviour and economic programme of the liberation movement itself.
Shifting class allegiances in ZANU-PF
After its landslide election victory in 1980, Mugabe’s ZANU quite rapidly began to change character. The upper echelons formed the political elite in the post-independence government. The second-layer leadership became officers and NCOs in the new army. Thousands of rank and file combatants were demobilised and returned to their remote peasant farms. From there they could hardly influence the ongoing evolution of post-independence affairs. Urban students and trade unions had been supportive but largely marginal in the struggle. In the early years after independence they were organised as tame appendages of the ruling party.
These developments were unfortunately similar to those that have characterised many former liberation movements on our continent. After ascendancy to political power, the class alliances within the liberation movement shifted from the pre-independence alliance between the working class, the peasantry and progressive sections of the petty bourgeoisie to a new alliance between these (formerly) progressive elements of the petty bourgeoisie and sections of local and international capital. This is usually brought about by the marginalisation of the working class and the peasantry in the post-independence reconstruction programmes.
Without participation of the masses, the petty bourgeoisie, now in control of state institutions and within the context of the domination of imperialism, sought to advance its interests in accumulation into an alliance with sections of local and international capital. The end result of these developments has always been the continuation of the economic structure of the colonial era, albeit under new circumstances, thus sacrificing the interests of working class, the peasantry and the poor.
The growing bureaucratisation of ZANU-PF, as a result of similar processes, left it vulnerable to external pressure. In the late 1980s and through the 1990s Mugabe was unable to resist pressures from the World Bank and the IMF, and was forced to implement harsh structural adjustment programmes.
Where to?
The challenge of the Zimbabwean people is to rebuild the liberation movement, root it amongst the mass of the people, and return to a path of pursuing the original demands of the people with increased attention paid to economic transformation and the struggle for socialism. It is this programme that the SACP, and indeed our movement as a whole, should be supporting and seeking to strengthen.

Edited by JohnBeige (Nov. 30, 2017 11:15:41)

Nov. 30, 2017 22:18:48 #6

cars

UNUSUALY COOL

Post rating: +

congratulations to have a Zimbabwe thread

Nov. 30, 2017 23:13:41 #7

Gssh

Post rating: ~

was reading this article from LRB in 2008 the other day. i think i learned some things, also interesting is how the response letters take issue with certain aspects.

Dec. 2, 2017 01:34:48 #8

cars

UNUSUALY COOL

Post rating: +

JohnBeige posted:

i'm calling out your posts in this thread for being good,to me

Dec. 2, 2017 13:28:12 #9

JohnBeige

Black Belt

Post rating: +

you fucker ill never forgive you

Dec. 2, 2017 14:50:42 #10

xipe

Post rating: ~

A BBC video from around the time of Liberation that is not too snooty towards the revolutionaries

https://youtu.be/z7iCjZf8ZGw

George Shire participated in the Bush War, and is now a professor of Black studies in the UK... Here he is taking about Palestine and being a revolutionary

https://youtu.be/2gq9xxmAkaU

Dec. 2, 2017 15:52:00 #11

Chthonic_Goat_666

Post rating: +

thank you for this thread, i do not know much about zimbabwe, however i think people here will enjoy the first part of this news report from 1975

first 8ish minutes are interviews with white settlers. i think the rhizzone knows what to expect! hair raising...

the rest is interviews with black citizens, then Abel Muzorewa and finally Ian Smith. well worth watching too

Dec. 3, 2017 01:41:02 #12

misanthropic_rage

Post rating: ~

you'd think half of zimbabwe is white based on watching an anti-mugabe march.

Dec. 3, 2017 07:41:15 #13

rolaids

Post rating: ~

Between this, Niger escalations, the Somalia massacres, the "we have to DO something" re: Libya, and million other small scale agressions, the US seems to be gearing up for a kind of Cold War 1.5 in Africa in an attempt to keep China out. I feel like DPRK and Iran rhetoric was a red herring. Obviously not trying to discount the threats Iran and DPRK face on the daily and the long standing Us involvement in Africa but seems things are increasing rapidly

Dec. 6, 2017 19:03:16 #14

ilmdge

Online

Post rating: ~

why isnt there a honduras thread

Dec. 12, 2017 02:22:13 #15

swampman

Dont Mess With Sucess

Post rating: +

Coup Propaganda Cycle:
100-Meter Dash Edition pic.twitter.com/pokQhubeeZ
— Turing Police (@turing_police) December 12, 2017

Dec. 23, 2017 18:48:29 #16

misanthropic_rage

Post rating: ~

New President Emmerson Mnangagwa is doubling down on “command agriculture”, a major private sector-backed subsidy programme in which farmers are provided with seeds, fertiliser, fuel, and chemicals – on loan, with repayment made with a portion of the harvest the following season.

Dec. 23, 2017 19:52:28 #17

[account deactivated]

Dec. 24, 2017 02:45:28 #18

shriekingviolet

Post rating: +

we have a Welp thread

Dec. 24, 2017 07:04:36 #19

[account deactivated]

Dec. 24, 2017 10:30:12 #20

JohnBeige

Black Belt

Post rating: ~

WWP Secretariat member Monica Moorehead - "No matter what happens in Zimbabwe going forth, we know that U.S. and British imperialism will not stop their intervention into the internal affairs of Zimbabwe."

Spoiler!

How imperialism undermined Zimbabwe

Based on a talk given at a Dec. 2 Workers World Party forum in New York City. To hear the entire talk, go to tinyurl.com/ybfmw8a5.

The resignation of Robert Mugabe is changing the social landscape not only for the people of Zimbabwe but for all of Africa. This development is part and parcel of the ongoing struggle for independence and sovereignty against imperialism.

Walter Rodney, the martyred Guyanese leader who wrote “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa” in 1972, applied a Marxist, materialist worldview towards Africa. In the first chapter that addressed “What is development and underdevelopment?” Rodney states: “An even more indispensable component of modern underdevelopment is that it expresses a particular relationship of exploitation: namely, the exploitation of one country by another. All of the countries named as ‘underdeveloped’ in the world are exploited by others; and the underdevelopment with which the world is now preoccupied is a product of capitalist, imperialist and colonialist exploitation.

“African and Asian societies were developing independently until they were taken over directly or indirectly by the capitalist powers. When that happened, exploitation increased and the export of surplus ensued, depriving the societies of the benefit of their natural resources and labor. That is an integral part of underdevelopment in the contemporary sense.”

Historic roots of colonialism & resistance

The Berlin Conference in 1884-85 — the “Scramble for Africa” conference — is where the European capitalist countries met to carve up virtually the entire African continent in order to expand their markets for profits by super-exploiting African labor and plundering its superrich mineral resources. The trans-Atlantic slave trade, resulting in tens of millions of African peoples being stolen from their homeland, laid the foundation for colonialism and neocolonialism.

In the case of Zimbabwe, it was Cecil Rhodes who became the British colonizer of what was called Rhodesia in the late 1800s. Rhodes established the DeBeers Mining Company, known for its stolen diamonds from Zimbabwe. He treated the entire country as his private slave plantation with the backing of state brutality.

Rodney comments about Zimbabwe’s earliest stages of development: “When Cecil Rhodes sent in his agents to rob and steal in Zimbabwe, they and other Europeans marveled at the surviving ruins of the Zimbabwe culture, and automatically assumed that it had been built by white people. Even today there is still a tendency to consider the achievements with a sense of wonder rather than with the calm acceptance that it was a perfectly logical outgrowth of human social development within Africa, as part of the universal process by which man’s labour opened up new horizons. The sense of reality can only be restored by making it clear that the architecture rested on a foundation of advanced agriculture and mining, which had come into existence over centuries of evolution.”

By 1914, white settlers, numbering just 23,730, owned slightly more than 19 million acres of land in Rhodesia while an estimated 752,000 Africans occupied a total of 21,390,080 acres of land. (“A brief history of land in Zimbabwe: 1890-today,” focusonland.com)

Eventually thousands of white farmers (colonizers) carried out a systematic campaign of wars and massacres to uproot the Indigenous African population from their lands. They did so despite many heroic resistance campaigns carried out by the African population who could not match the fire power of the colonizers.

Ian Smith was proclaimed prime minister of Rhodesia in 1964 and confiscated 6,000 acres for himself. His apartheid policies codified white farmers’ use of the land for commercial farming of crops like tobacco to be sold as commodities on the world capitalist market. So while these farmers were enriching themselves, the people of Zimbabwe faced starvation and were reduced to being “tenants” on their own lands.

Imperialists punish Zimbabwe for political defeat

Carrying forth the legacy of the first two phases of the liberation struggle, the Third Chimurenga (liberation struggle) created two fronts which arose in the late 1960s — one was ZANU (Zimbabwe African National Union) led by Mugabe and the other was ZAPU (Zimbabwe African People Union) led by Joshua Nkomo. These two guerrilla factions joined forces as the Patriotic Front to force the Smith government to the negotiating table in Britain and to sign the 1980 Lancaster House Accords, which was a compromise that supposedly held the British government accountable for financially compensating white farmers so that Black farmers could reclaim their lands.

A large sector of those who fought for the liberation of Zimbabwe were landless Black farmers, now commonly referred to as war veterans from the liberation struggle. Twenty years later, these same war veterans pressured the Mugabe government to remove the commercial farmers, by force if necessary, once the British government reneged on the Lancaster accord.

Mugabe established a radical land redistribution program, allowing war veterans to take back their stolen lands, including by force. This included Ian Smith’s acres.

Tony Blair and George W. Bush imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe starting in 2002 as an act of war against the population. These sanctions slashed fuel and food subsidies with the aim of turning the masses against Mugabe by making him the scapegoat for any economic hardships imposed by imperialism.

When Mugabe was re-elected as president during his 37-year tenure, both Blair and Bush declared the elections undemocratic, while attempting to prop up their puppet candidate. When a devastating drought hit Zimbabwe and other parts of southern Africa very hard in 2003, the imperialists blamed Mugabe for it.

The Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions, the largest workers union, says the country’s unemployment rate is now at 90 percent. The country has also been severely impacted by the AIDS crisis, along with losing a major trading partner when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

Today, Zimbabwe’s foreign debt is more than $7 billion, more than half of its gross domestic product. According to a July 7 Reuters report, “The suggested reforms include slashing public sector wages, now at more than 90 percent of the national budget, reducing farm subsidies, improving transparency in the mining sector and reaching an agreement on the compensation of white farmers.”

An attack on Mugabe is an attack on Zimbabwe

Why have U.S. and British imperialism hated Mugabe since he became the first democratically elected president of Zimbabwe? Why are they glad he was forced to resign?

Mugabe is a bourgeois nationalist, not a socialist. There are two fundamental reasons why the imperialists hate him so much. Number one is that Mugabe is a former leader of a national liberation movement that helped to bring an end to a racist, apartheid-like regime.

Number two is that he backed the war veterans taking back their land from the white colonizers and was unapologetic about doing so. With all his political contradictions, Mugabe was willing to stand up against U.S. and British imperialists.

It is this defiance against imperialism, which seeks to break all bonds of international proletarian solidarity, especially with the most oppressed, that our party has done everything it can to defend. That means defending Zimbabwe’s leadership against imperialist intervention both economically and politically.

Like any country, Zimbabwe has a right to develop its economic infrastructure to meet the needs of the people, and not to have its economy chained to foreign debt to the banks that it can never pay in 10 lifetimes.

With all its millions of acres of arable lands, Zimbabwe has the capacity to feed its population if it weren’t forced to export food to pay off the interest on its foreign debt. Cancel the debt!

No matter what happens in Zimbabwe going forth, we know that U.S. and British imperialism will not stop their intervention into the internal affairs of Zimbabwe. They have made that abundantly clear by saying that “fair and democratic” elections have to take place when they say so.

The biggest threat to the African continent today is the U.S. Africa Command, more commonly known as AFRICOM, created by the Pentagon under the guise of fighting so-called terrorism. AFRICOM is based in at least 38 African countries. Three of its bases are in Zambia, South Africa and Botswana, countries that border Zimbabwe.

AFRICOM does not exist to protect the sovereignty of the African peoples, but to protect the interests of the monopolies by repressing any kind of mass resistance to its brutal occupation, no matter the ideology of the leadership to that resistance.