Recently, a reader from Australia wrote to our Senior Editor, Les Blough, suggesting that we needed to buck the trend of labeling the ruler of Zimbabwe, Robert Gabriel Mugabe, as a thorn in the side of Africa. Les suggested, on a couple of occasions, that Paul was better able to respond to articles and information relating to Africa; finally, Paul took up the challenge.

What follows is an edited extract of some of the correspondence between Paul and our Australian friend. It will be obvious from what follows that they have some disagreement over facts, and wide variance on how to interpret those facts. The exchange between them—we’ll simply call the other party Brian—is edited for grammar and spelling, and to eliminate repetition; otherwise, we try to present their debate benignly and fairly to allow readers to form their own judgments.

We begin with Paul’s first message to Brian. This exchange began when Brian sent us a link to an article which repeats the accusations of a Zimbabwean politician (David Coltart, Movement for Democratic Change) who appears to blame the leader of his party (MDC) for a split within the party. Frankly, we were unable to see the relevance of this article to Brian’s repeated protestations that Mugabe is being painted unfairly by other nations and the world’s mainstream press.

Paul:

Brian, PLEASE note Les's instructions about the Zimbabwe issue. It's pretty simple, really -- write to me; I am quite happy to engage. Les's very considerable expertise is in other areas, and he defers to me because of my special interest in African issues over the years -- as we previously advised you.

Now that that is out of the way: What was the purpose of forwarding this article? I don't think the world has ever supposed that MDC is pure and without fault -- and it may be true that Morgan Tsvangirai bears the blame for fractures within the party. No doubt a more brutal approach to leadership might prevent divisiveness; there is an excellent example to follow very near to hand. And I certainly don't think Tsvangirai's goal of seeking assistance from the IMF is good policy -- but what does any of this have to do with the current crisis facing Zimbabwe?

It requires a extraordinary level of naïveté to miss the fundamental problem of Zimbabwe: Robert Mugabe. Regardless of his clever and able statesmanship many years ago, his best days are far behind him. His current programs, policies, and paranoia are directly responsible for the current economic and civil crisis.

Mugabe has misgoverned Zimbabwe so badly that this once-prosperous country has 2 million percent inflation, about 25% of the population has high-tailed it to South Africa, preferring SA ghettos and camps to life at home. The quality of life is so poor that Zimbabweans die, on average, at a younger age than any other nationality in the world. And Mugabe wants everyone to believe this is the result of some mythical plot being hatched in London to recolonize Rhodesia?? He is a persuasive man, and I accept that he can sway illiterate and downtrodden countrymen (who are quite willing to accept some foreigner as the cause of their own woes) -- but I can't accept that reasonably intelligent people, with access to real news, could fall for this.

As I write this, BBC World has just sent a newsflash to my Inbox: Mugabe wins in a landslide. I'll bet he's gratified about that, given the high level of doubt that his opponent might be too strong -- oh wait, there was no opponent.

Just look at the news, Brian. Mugabe is being roundly condemned by the whole world -- and, in particular, by all his neighbours (with the notable exception of the utterly useless Thabo Mbeki). You seem to believe that Mugabe is a good leader -- I confess I can't imagine such a degree of delusion.

He keeps saying that "only God can remove" him -- there are many who are praying God will make that decision real soon. Unfortunately, that is almost certainly going to lead to a bloodbath. It will be tempered by the fact that ZANU-PF seems to have all the weapons, but it won't be long before extraterritorial help starts to arrive. And because of Mugabe's wretched tenure, Zimbabwe is going to be ripe for the picking by whatever tinpot dictator gets there first.

Now don't get me wrong: I don't advocate third parties showing up on Zimbabwe's doorstep to solve this problem. Zimbabweans have to solve this themselves. But trying to pretend that they don't really have a problem to address, and that Zimbabwe is on Britain's recolonization list, is simply nonsense. 

PS -- I am not relying solely on Western media for my information. I also have a contact in Harare.

In response to that, Brian returned the email with interspersed commentary; again, it is edited for spelling and grammar:

Brian:

Sorry if I seem very persistent on this issue. It’s because this is one issue the left has been persuaded against. It’s a real litmus test.

Here in Australia the new Rudd government is preparing to launch more sanctions against Zimbabwe, because the Zimbabweans didn’t vote in a man the defunct British empire wanted. Australia has a nasty reputation of being a lap dog for empire, and Rudd proves no different.

[Paul wrote]: 'don't think the world has ever supposed that MDC is pure and without fault'

In fact, that’s exactly what they do. When have they ever criticised the MDC? Australia has been funding the MDC, as has UK, US and EU.

[Paul wrote]: 'but what does any of this have to do with the current crisis facing Zimbabwe?'

The current 'crisis' is a manufactured one, that has its origins with the land reform carried out, beginning in the late 1990s, and Zimbabwe’s aid to the Congo. That’s how Rob Gowlands portrays it, as does the Zimbabwe government.

'According to Ambassador Mubako, "the intervention of Zimbabwe troops in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)" is "one of the two main reasons for current Western hostility to Zimbabwe". [Source here, Communist Party of Australia]

[Paul wrote]: 'Mugabe has misgoverned Zimbabwe so badly that this once-prosperous country has 2 million percent inflation'

Sorry, that’s straight mainstream propaganda. It ignores the role of the IMF structural adjustments, which was Mugabe’s big mistake, as it was many governments, but more important, the role of the sanctions, which were geared to 'make the economy scream'.

[Paul wrote]: 'It requires a extraordinary level of naïveté to miss the fundamental problem of Zimbabwe: Robert Mugabe'

That is also MSM propaganda.

[Paul wrote]: 'His current programs, policies, and paranoia are directly responsible for the current economic and civil crisis'

Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they are not out get you! So goes the wry saying. Calling Mugabe 'paranoid' is part of the typical human response to someone you dislike or whose view you dislike. Its extreme form was seen in Soviet Russia. But back in 2002, Tsvangirai was caught trying to have him assassinated. To ignore this real threat would be foolish.

[Paul wrote]: 'about 25% of the population has high-tailed it to South Africa'

Why exactly did they 'high tail it'? In Mexico, its NAFTA and US farm subsidies that makes them high tail it to US. In Zimbabwe, its the sanctions and the land issue.

[Paul wrote]: 'As I write this, BBC World has just sent a newsflash to my Inbox: Mugabe wins in a landslide. I'll bet he's gratified about that, given the high level of doubt that his opponent might be too strong -- oh wait, there was no opponent. '

Well, if he isn’t, I am! That’s good news. But why do you accept BBC into your inbox and brain box?

[Paul wrote]: 'Just look at the news, Brian. Mugabe is being roundly condemned by the whole world -- and, in particular, by all his neighbours (with the notable exception of the utterly useless Thabo Mbeki). '

I congratulate Mbeki, for not being deluded by the news. It’s the news like the BBC that is the cause of the world’s condemnations. The news you read makes no mention of MDC violence. Nor does it make mention of sanctions and their role in the problems in Zimbabwe.

Here is Malcolm X on 'the news': "The press is so powerful in its image-making role, it can make a criminal look like he's the victim and make the victim look like he's the criminal." -- Malcolm X (1964)

[Paul wrote]: 'He keeps saying that "only God can remove" him. This is a reference to the efforts of the west to remove him.

'And because of Mugabe's wretched tenure, Zimbabwe is going to be ripe for the picking by whatever tinpot dictator gets there first.'

You keep blaming Mugabe, when the problems lie in the western interference and use of local proxies. Just ask Hugo Chavez! He knows all about this strategy of the Empire!

[Paul wrote]: 'Regardless of his clever and able statesmanship many years ago'

This is part of The Interpreter script line. He was, and is, most certainly an able statesman, that’s abundantly clear. Think Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro ... he’s in that class. Tsvangirai in contrast is a disaster. The Empire has made a poor choice for their puppet.

[Paul wrote]: 'Now don't get me wrong: I don't advocate third parties showing up on Zimbabwe's doorstep to solve this problem'

Indirectly, you do. By attacking Mugabe and ZANU and thereby supporting the alternative: MDC, privatisation and western neocolonialism.

[Paul wrote]: 'But trying to pretend that they don't really have a problem to address, and that Zimbabwe is on Britain's recolonization list, is simply nonsense.'

Sorry, but Zimbabwe is most definitely on Britain’s recolonisation list.

[Paul wrote]: 'PS -- I am not relying solely on Western media for my information. I also have a contact in Harare.'

I don’t rely on the western media at all. A contact in Harare, an MDC stronghold, is like reading the MSM. 

Paul’s response follows:

Paul:

Let me start with your last point first: If you presuppose that my contact in Harare is for some reason blind, oblivious, deluded, misguided because she is not out in the countryside – you are wrong. I am quite certain she is getting far better ‘on-the-street’ evidence than anything you or I are receiving elsewhere.

And let me continue with a diatribe, although I confess you leave no doubt any point I make that differs from your view is going to be dismissed as MSM propaganda. Because, somehow, your information is correct while EVERYone else has it wrong (well, except Thabo Mbeki).

Further below you mention that ‘just because you’re paranoid it doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you’. As a corollary, I have no doubt that MSM, some governments, some multinational groups are playing the Zimbabwe crisis to their own advantage. But whether it is, or is not, to their advantage, it doesn’t mean what they are saying is untrue. The tin hat brigade sees conspiracy everywhere – and sometimes the conspiracy is real. But not this time. This isn’t a crisis of the past few years, its been in the making ever since Independence.

Mugabe’s government has lurched steadily downhill since he first took office. For the first decade or so, he did nothing except line his pockets and those of his friends – an all-too-common tale in Africa. But protest arose in the 1980s which eventually led to the first land grab – 13 farms ‘designated’ in 1992 for redistribution, about 17,000 acres. [Of course, that was so well-planned that 7 of the farms were eventually ‘undesignated’.] The farmers in question learned about it through local newspapers.

And when the land was eventually seized, it found its way into the hands of government friends, not poor peasants.

Then came the mismanagement of the land resettlement funds paid by the British, funds which somehow never seemed to get into the hands of the poor peasants for whom it was intended.

Then there was the 1997 ‘war veterans’ crisis.

Later in 1997, in November, a list of 1503 farms to be expropriated was published – about 12 million acres -- more than half the country’s commercial farmland. This was despite the fact that about half of the ‘white’ farmers had actually purchased their land since Independence – with government (i.e. Mugabe) approval.

And let’s look at the constitutional referendum of 2000. Mugabe was stunningly defeated – and despite promises of land, rural voters largely abstained. Ten days later the campaign of violence by thugs (called ‘war veterans’ even though most of them were too young to have fought in the 1970s) began – and it has not abated since.

The history of post-Independence Zimbabwe has not been pretty – and if you want to blame the IMF and the Brits for that while completely ignoring the role of a man who rules with dictatorial power, then I’m afraid there is little hope of us having a rational conversation.

Now, on to the points you raise:

[Brian wrote]: Sorry if I seem very persistent on this issue. It’s because this is one issue the left has been persuaded against.

I’m afraid I don’t see what left or right has to do with these matters.

[Brian wrote]: Here in Australia the new Rudd government is preparing to launch more sanctions against Zimbabwe, because the Zimbabweans didn’t vote in a man the defunct British empire wanted.

So you’re suggesting if elections had been free and fair but still returned Mugabe, that Kevin Rudd would be preparing additional sanctions today? I don’t buy that for a minute.

[Brian wrote]: When have they ever criticised the MDC?

MDC began as a labour movement. It was indigenous, home-grown, and so far as anyone can tell, committed to improving the lives of workers. You claim Au, UK, US, EU fund MDC – maybe. UK used to fund Mugabe too, regarding land reform -- until he totally botched it. But if you aren’t reading criticism of MDC, then you aren’t looking hard enough. For instance, I entered the phrase “MDC corruption” into Google just a few moments ago and got 567,000 hits.

[Brian wrote]: 'According to Ambassador Mubako, "the intervention of Zimbabwe troops in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)" is "one of the two main reasons for current Western hostility to Zimbabwe".

Simbi Mubako is an honest correspondent? Please! He’s Mugabe’s appointee and is highly unlikely to be unbiased.

But let’s look at what he says. There has in fact been an economic crisis in Zimbabwe since the 1970s – and I will grant you that the IMF is a large part of that fiasco. But that would only really be an issue today if, in fact, Zimbabwe was actually repaying the debt – they are not. So with the money they’re saving by not repaying, what’s happened to improve things? Well, there was the disastrous ‘land reform’ activity, as noted above. In a breath, Mugabe designated more than half the country’s commercial farmland for takeover. Further, the government was caught out on several occasions expropriating land that would allegedly be redistributed to landless peasants, only to find the land actually being leased to government ministers with the lease money going directly to Mugabe.

As for the DRC imbroglio – you are simply wrong. Of course the incursion into DRC was stupid, particularly during a time of economic crisis in Zimbabwe. But you are implying the international community is down on Mugabe for this – so why aren’t they equally down on the leaders of the other 6 countries who intervened in DRC? Particularly Yoweri Museveni? That wasn’t another reason for the West to gang up on Mugabe – it was just another nail in the coffin of the Zimbabwean economy, and an incredibly foolish move.

[Brian wrote]: … ignores the role of the IMF structural adjustments, which was Mugabe’s big mistake.

As I said, the IMF was certainly part of the problem – but since no debts are being repaid, and Zimbabwe utterly ignores IMF dictates, that is largely irrelevant.

[Brian wrote]: Why exactly did they 'high tail it'? In Mexico, its NAFTA and US farm subsidies that makes them high tail it to US. In Zimbabwe, its the sanctions and the land issue.

Mexicans were entering the US for decades before NAFTA was even a glimmer on the horizon. It was purely economic. The flight to SA is partly economic, partly fear of Mugabe’s death squads. The land issue is not even a real issue at this point.

[Brian wrote]: But why do you accept BBC into your inbox and brain box?

That comment deserves no response.

[Brian wrote]: It’s the news like the BBC that is the cause of the world’s condemnations.

As I said, I do understand the power of the press – including CPA press – to mislead and misdirect.

[Brian wrote]: Just ask Hugo Chavez! He knows all about this strategy of the Empire!

I will always defer to Les on questions involving Venezuela. But I think this is an apples and oranges comparison you’re making.

[Brian wrote]: He was, and is, most certainly an able statesman, that’s abundantly clear. Think Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro ... he’s in that class.

There is no way Robert Mugabe should even be allowed in a room with Chavez or Castro, let alone be considered in the same class. Those men are heroes in almost every sense of the word – Mugabe is just a tinpot dictator with an overwhelming hatred of whites and a lot of friends with guns.

I am NOT supporting MDC – I’m supporting free and fair elections. If ZANU-PF wins fairly, then so be it. The will of the people should dictate, not the will of Robert Mugabe.

[Brian wrote]: Sorry, but Zimbabwe is most definitely on Britain’s recolonisation list.

Britain doesn’t have a recolonization list.

One final point: If your unwavering support for R.G. Mugabe arises from a belief that he is a Communist, give your head a firm shake. He is not; he may have started that way, but he long ago lost sight of the virtues of Communism when he was subsumed by his hatred of whites and his own cult of personality.

To close, and for the record:

• Paul does believe the land reform of the 1990s should not have taken place—they should have taken place in the early 1980s, along the lines that were negotiated at Independence. This would have allowed for an orderly transition, with financial assistance from Britain, resulting in fewer white farmers with large holdings and more equitable redistribution of land into the hands of poor peasants, not wealthy black elites.

• Brian accuses Paul of racism for writing “he did nothing except line his pockets and those of his friends – an all-too-common tale in Africa.” Pick almost any African nation and you’ll find the same history of ‘strongman’ rule after independence. Skin colour has nothing to do with that; pure and simple greed does.

• It is Brian’s assertion that all of Paul’s information sources are spurious, while his own are accurate and noble. Some of Brian’s sources, frankly, seem credible; others are riddled with factual and historical errors – each of these situations is also true with the mainstream media. We urge you to scour the news for information about Zimbabwe and Mugabe – not just the mainstream press [which Brian erroneously believes to be Paul’s only source of information], but the alternative press, the independent media, the socialist and union publications and, most particularly, press from within Africa itself. Some of that is mainstream media with self-serving agendas; but much of it is not, and it is certainly closer to the ground.

[A final email came from Brian in which he expanded on much of what he had previously written, mostly to provide additional information sources. As it appears to end the conversation, and is largely repetitive, we have omitted it here.]

Zimbabwe is a very complicated case. There is some truth to Mugabe’s protestations that he is defending Zimbabwe against the return of colonial rule. But in that regard, Zimbabwe is not different from other nations. The colonialism that arises from corporatocracy is a world-wide problem—governments and the will of the people everywhere are under attack from corporate rule. However, standing up for Zimbabwe should not require the brutal treatment of its citizens, or the campaigns of fear and violence that have driven some 3 million of them to seek refuge outside the country.

In the end, like most of the problems that have plagued Africa, an African solution is needed. Robert Mugabe is 84 years-old and cannot be expected to rule forever. Other African organizations need to be thinking about how they can offer help, both now and when Mugabe is gone.

© Copyright 2008 by AxisofLogic.com

This material is available for republication as long as reprints include verbatim copy of the article its entirety, respecting its integrity. Reprints must cite the author and Axis of Logic as the original source including a "live link" to the article. Thank you!