Respect and human honour of Africa and Africans - in Zimbabwe and globally1
edited by Hubert Taylor
The greats, show greatest courage
I write as an ageing African, descended of West Africans who were exported in dehumanised fashion, to become enslaved, as if mere chatel, in the Americas; and I thereby declare a personal interest in matters Africa and thus matters Zimbabwe.
I urge Africa's leaders not to yield to current, tribal ethnic-European calls for alienation of Zimbabwe and President Robert Mugabe. The leaders of Africa would be wise to review history, and take care to ensure that would-be peace brokers attend Africa's affairs with clean, open hands - recognising that skin colour guarantees neither.
The conduct of Africa's affairs affects me greatly; in terms of my ethnic connection and in terms of how the world-at-large views me and my kith and kin.
I am by force of history a British subject who served for a number of years as a British soldier. Additionally I am a UK citizen and resident who felt a need to write to UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, to express dismay at the hypocrisy and continuing tribal double standards in the foreign policies of some ethnic-European nations.
The hypocrisy is typified in the current campaign of continuing damaging proclamations and actions against Zimbabwe and its leaders as well as action against a number of other non-ethnic-European peoples. Sadly I am forced to include Mr Brown's UK Government as a fair target for strong criticism.
In my opinion, the hypocrisy and continuing tribal double standards range from brutal, wanton killing and destruction by way of pre emptive military action, through economic sanctions, diplomatic and political assassination, public incitement to political turmoil and government overthrow, to sporting sanctions. Can it be right to use sporting sanctions as a weapon in an international tribal-affair?
Some might say sporting sanctions were used against South Africa so why not against Zimbabwe. I suggest however, that South Africa applied heinous apartheid principles to all aspect of its sporting life. Apartheid applied to team selection, the provision of playing facilities, and to after-game facilities and socialising. Sports sanctions against apartheid South Africa were thus justifiable on sporting grounds. Furthermore, ethnic-European England & Wales and Australia cricket teams, continued playing cricket with apartheid South Africa even during an international ban.
The same hypocrisy and double standards has wreaked death and collective suffering upon countless thousands of innocent people in the Middle East. Now there is a stirring and encouragement of political mayhem in southern Africa.
Added to this there are calls for ever more biting political and economic sanctions against Zimbabwe. All this a mere twenty-eight years after Zimbabweans succeeded in an armed struggle to overthrow the apartheid regime in Rhodesia and renamed their country - Zimbabwe. During a century and more of abusive racial segregation and apartheid in southern Africa successive British and US governments remained silent. Hmm… shame, shame, shame.
Such blatant tribalism by belligerent, militaristic nations of the West - inclusive of the United States of America and Britain - is driving the world into localised inter-ethnic violence; a consequence then blamed on local people who are criticised for killing each other.
The West is of course, a guileful euphemism for an international cabal of ethnic-European governments.
If the West as currently led by Britain and USA, does not reverse violently divisive divide and rule foreign-policy campaigns against non-European nations, it seems inevitable that localised ethnic struggles will ultimately explode into global conflict.
Individual conduct of affairs
Stand firm; for well you know that hardship and danger are the price of glory, and that sweet is the savour of a life of courage and of deathless renown beyond the grave."
- Alexander III of Macedon
The history of ethnic-Africans and events in living memory affirm the view that Africans submitted to ethnic-European domination. As a result of generations of such domination and humble acquiescence, possibly - just possibly - some African leaders and peoples may now blindly accept and imitate European norms and styles - whether good or bad, honourable or dishonourable. Some ethnic-Africans may well instinctively support the tribal attacks against Zimbabwe and thus against themselves.
These traits are demonstrated by the enormous spending of ethnic-African peoples on artificial hair (for example) and other cosmetic products in order to imitate ethnic-European appearance. Children (and society as a whole) can thus take a reasonable view that ethnic-African peoples may well be ashamed of themselves.
Hardly surprising then if some children of ethnic-African descent feel socially uncertain and perhaps fail to attain full or even optimum potential.
How an individual dresses is of course a personal matter. However the possibility of adverse psychological or emotional effects upon children is perhaps also a wider societal issue.
Is the begging bowl, conditionally proffered to Africa and Africans by the USA and the West, deeper than the well of African honour, self-esteem, and global respect?
To underline the fundamental significance of this question I refer to the statement2 to the 62nd General Assembly of the United Nations by President 'Shock and Awe' Bush. In the statement Mr Bush used the word 'must' eleven times seemingly in a wish to command other world leaders to his view.
At the General Assembly Mr Bush also spoke of,
"resolving disputes under international law rules"
but Mr Bush failed say how his internment camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba stands in terms of International Law. Mr Bush proudly boasted,
"Today more than half the world's food assistance comes from America. We send emergency food stocks to starving people - from camps in Sudan to slums around the world."
Regarding aid, Mr Bush later added,
"… we're reaching out to developing nations in partnership, not paternalism … and we're ensuring that our aid dollars reach those who need and achieve results."
Reasoned view is that USA aid is tied to USA interests and given as a partnership-instrument to assure acquiescent performance of beneficiaries whose desperate circumstances may well lessen resistance to political coercion. Additionally, those aided are contemptuously demeaned by being labelled as "slum" dwellers for example.
I ain't got no quarrel with them Viet Cong."
- Muhammad Ali
Please consider reasoned answers to the following questions:
I believe that Gordon Brown's UK Government should be opposed in its blatant, tribal-campaign, against President Mugabe and Zimbabwe.
I respectfully suggest too, that US citizens consider their positions vis-à-vis the demeaning and destructive roles of President 'Florida chad' Bush and President 'Shock and Awe' Bush.
Over a million people dead in Iraq and Afghanistan and the maiming of countless thousands of innocent men, women and children defines the brutal and inhumane consequence of British-US ethnic-European tribalism around the globe.
No such militaristic solution was deemed fit to counter ethnic-European policies of apartheid in Africa, or, to counter armed republicanism in the UK. There has been no condemnation of the violent militaristic taking of Africa by ethnic-Europeans. No condemnation of the brutalising of Palestinian people in the Middle East.
By contrast there is swift, unequivocal condemnation and demonising of President Robert Mugabe and the Zimbabwe Government. In my opinion this because he has dared to use Zimbabwean constitutional authority to take back and re-distribute the economic resources of Zimbabwe. Let the UK and US look back at their own historical development and then behave with greater humility and understanding.
It is worth noting that Mr Mugabe's fight-back against ethnic-European domination helped to end apartheid in Zimbabwe. Clearly the proper completion of that fight is economic reform in Zimbabwe.
In the circumstances it is not surprising that Mr Mugabe is demonised by ethnic-European Governments while Mr Nelson Mandela is lauded.
When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said, 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land."
- (former) Archbishop Bishop Desmond Tutu
What is the difference between the two men who both began armed campaigns against abusive ethnic-European regimes?
Eighteen years after Mr Mandela's release from imprisonment in apartheid South Africa, ethnic-Africans still live in shacks and townships while our ethnic-European cousins live in houses and on farms. Neither Mr Mandela's magnanimity nor Bishop Tutu's truth and reconciliation have been reciprocated by ethnic-European readiness to re-distribute their gains by way of gun, segregation and apartheid under colonial rule.
These issues do not relate merely to colour of skin. The issues relate to humanity and fairness and the inalienable right and duty of people to strive for dignity and human rights as equal citizens in a country. In Zimbabwe's case the struggle continues in spite of powerful tribal opposition from the West.
From Queen Boudicea of the Iceni tribe of Britain (about AD/CE 60) against the Roman army to King Cetshwayo of the Zulu Kingdom (1879) against the British army, proud people have risen against invaders and demeaning brutality.
It was so in the struggles of Tolpuddle, UK (1834) and in the struggles of Morant Bay, Jamaica (1865). Equally true for the Battle of Vertieres, Haiti (1803) and for the Battle of Isandhlwana, Zulu Kingdom (1879). This holds true for the Jarrow Marchers, UK (1936) and on the beaches of Normandy, France (1944).
Of Tolpuddle, the 'martyrs' were shipped to the Australia penal colony while in Morant Bay the martyrs were executed. All-in-all some aspect of human relations change very, very slowly indeed.
History has shown that readiness to fight-back against an oppressor follows a line of proud tradition and is often a necessary precursor to mutually respectful peace-making political negotiations.
A bold Africa stands proud
Behind a deceitful facade of lauding Mr Mandela, the West by way of US policy continued to define Mr Mandela as a terrorist even while Mr Mandela was President of post-apartheid South Africa. Hmm… rank hypocrisy - shame, shame, shame.
Only in 2008 as Mr Mandela approached his 90th birthday was the truth of the US/West's shameful hypocrisy exposed.
The significance of this deceit at the highest level of ethnic-European governments is that African leaders and countries should recognise the need to look to the international interests of their peoples alongside the interests of the world-community.
In my opinion the ethnic-European-led campaign to demonise President Mugabe and punish him by sanctions against his country and people, springs specifically from the Zimbabwean Government's economic reforms policies; policies that include land re-distribution.
Hypocrisy and tribal double standards
Where there is no shame, there is no honour."
- an African saying
The hypocrisy, diplomatic double standards and self-serving nature of the West's foreign policy is typified by, on the one hand, Britain joining forces with the USA to bomb Afghans and Iraqis into submission while on the other hand lauding Mr Nelson Mandela for disarming his people's armed struggle against the economic and social abuse of apartheid.
The UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown (nee Tony Blair) and his Government, are now calling for cricketing-bans against Zimbabwe. This a hypocritical stance, as teams from England and Australia continued playing cricket with South Africa, throughout the European-supremacist apartheid years into the 1980s; in spite of a cricketing ban against South Africa.
The charge of hypocrisy and diplomatic double standards is further supported by the fact that it took Britain and the United States many centuries of existence before arriving at legally enforced universal adult suffrage.
In Britain this was not until 1928 and in the US not until as recent as 1964 (with the notable exceptions of some individual States). Up until 1964 peoples voting rights were still determined by skin colour. Yet newly sovereign countries are being pressed to imitate in a generation, systems that were eased into British and US society over many generations. Again I say shame, shame, shame.
Predominantly ethnic-Europeans gather at UN against President Mugabe and Zimbabwe
United Nations Security Council to order greater UN sanctions against Zimbabwe, President Mugabe and 12 other leading Zimbabwe politicians.
The move was defeated by way of veto by China and Russia. Both countries concluded that Zimbabwe's internal affairs did not pose a threat to world peace and so was outside the scope of UN sanctions.
The alliance against Zimbabwe and its political leaders suggests an amount of ethnic-European tribalism.
The continuing campaign to demonise President Mugabe and his senior colleagues in the Zimbabwe Government is akin to that waged against Iraq and later found to have been built on falsehood. Yet the campaign resulted in sanctions and a war that has led to an estimated million-plus Iraqi deaths according to some reports3.
The July proposal (UN document S/2008/447) calling for greater UN sanctions against Zimbabwe was sponsored by an alliance of ten4 mainly ethnic-European nations:
This 'gang-of-ten' was supported as co-sponsors by just two African nations; Liberia and Sierra Leone.
At the Security Council (meeting 5933 PM) on 12 July 2008, eight4 out of 9 movers against Zimbabwe were predominantly ethnic-European nations:
One African nation, Burkina Faso voted with the above eight. In doing so Burkina Faso broke from the collective resolve of the African Union and of the Southern African Development Community. Both organisations sought to look for a settlement amicably negotiated amongst representative political bodies of Zimbabwe.
Some days after supporting the UK-US draft resolution seeking greater UN sanctions against Zimbabwe, President Blaise Compaore of Burkina Faso met with President Bush at the Whitehouse, USA. Here follows selected snippets from an officially reported account of their meeting.
"Mr. President, thank you for coming. I first started my conversation with the President by complimenting him on his leadership in the United Nations and in the region. You've been a constructive force for peace and stability.
I congratulated the President on the fact that his good nation is a recipient of a Millennium Challenge Account program …
This grant would not have been awarded without your commitment to fighting corruption, your willingness to invest in the health and education of your people, and your adherence to marketplace principles …".
President Compaore - (as translated):
"First of all, the President and I seized this opportunity to meet, and the first thing I did was to show gratitude to President Bush for the engagement of the United States in favor of our country, Burkina Faso, and especially in terms of poverty reduction and economic development and all the help."
Interestingly, of the 'gang of 10' (above) ethnic European nations arraigning Zimbabwe at the UN, six also attended an 1884 Berlin Conference to agree a carve up of Africa for European exploitation. There were no African nations or leaders at that conference table and there are now none among the permanent members of the UN Security Council; the only continent not represented.
The 'original six' are:
Hmm… an unholy 'original six' proving that shameful habits will linger if not opposed.
Courage and fortitude
Fortitudinous, President Robert Mugabe
In Africa, Mr Robert Mugabe and many Zimbabweans continue to battle against the diktats of the West and to strive for re-distribution of ill-gotten gains taken by force of arms and heinous racial apartheid under colonial regimes.
Such battles for the pride of a people are inevitably won at a cost - and nations unwilling to pay such costs as honour may demand,inevitably submit to continuing humiliation and exploitation.
It seems laudable that the fight continues in spite of powerful tribal campaigning by the West. A campaign that appears to wish to demonise and oust Mr Mugabe and supplant him with a likely more compliant, Mr Morgan Tsvangirai.
At this point I am moved to recognise a world famous United States descendant of Africa, Mr Muhammad Ali5, who in recent times courageously refused to join a baseless US military assault on Vietnam.
In the spirit of Muhammad Ali, I commend the courage and fortitude of Mr Robert Mugabe in the continuing struggle against ethnic-European dominance in Zimbabwe. An economic dominance built upon ethnic-African blood, sweat, tears and labour.
Maxim gun aided by Crown and Government
…we of Macedon for generations past have been trained in the hard school of danger and war. Above all, we are free men, and they are slaves."
- Alexander III of Macedon
By authority of the Maxim machine gun, a British Royal Charter of 1889, and the British Land Apportionment Act of 1930, African land was carved-up. The best commercial land was handed in large chunks into the ownership of ethnic-Europeans whilst indigenous Africans were expelled to small plots in less fertile "reserves" for ethnic-African peoples. Hmm… African spears and courage had succumbed to ethnic-European guns and ruthless greed.
The British Crown and Government of the day took no similar legislative action to protect the interests of ethnic-Africans. Instead the force of law was used to affirm their demise.
In 2008 the Crown and Government of the said same Britain continues to describe as thugs and terrorists, those ethnic-Africans who deign to look to their own interests whether peacefully or by way of armed fight-back.
In my opinion, the re-distribution of land is a right which should be accomplished either amicably or by constitutional force - enforced by arms if necessary.
The greats, show greatest courage
I hope therefore that the leaders and peoples of Africa and fair-minded people globally, will find the courage and strength of a Muhammad Ali and the fortitude of a Robert Mugabe, to withstand the tribal propaganda and diktats of the ethnic-European Governments of the West, whose prime purpose, in my opinion, is a quest to support ethnic-European Zimbabweans to retain ad infinitum, their unreasonably advantageous economic stranglehold over those of their fellow Zimbabweans who are ethnic-Africans.
A further and final point - for clarification
By this article I seek not to justify any wrongs as maybe, nor to suggest that heinous and inhumane acts and crimes of the past, can in anyway justify any other such act. However, I respectfully urge the closest possible examination of the agendas of the parties involved in an obvious campaign to demonise President Robert Mugabe and the Government of Zimbabwe and in so doing, stimulate strife and suffering among the people of Zimbabwe.
Extracts from the statement by President Mugabe of Zimbabwe to the 62nd Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, in New York on 26 September 2007
We extend our hearty welcome to the new Secretary-General, Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, who has taken up this challenging job requiring dynamism in confronting the global challenges of the 21st Century. "
In Zimbabwe, the effects of climate change have become more evident in the past decade as we have witnessed increased and recurrent droughts as well as occasional floods, leading to enormous humanitarian challenges. "
We are for a United Nations that recognises the equality of sovereign nations and peoples whether big or small. We are averse to a body in which the economically and militarily powerful behave like bullies, trampling on the rights of weak and smaller states as sadly happened in Iraq. "
In its present configuration, the Council has shown that it is not in a position to protect the weaker states who find themselves at loggerheads with a marauding super-power. Most importantly, justice demands that any Security Council reform redresses the fact that Africa is the only continent without a permanent seat and veto power in the Security Council. "
We further call for the U.N. system to refrain from interfering in matters that are clearly the domain of member states and are not a threat to international peace and security. Development at country level should continue to be country-led, and not subject to the whims of powerful donor states"
Zimbabwe won its independence on 18th April, 1980, after a protracted war against British colonial imperialism which denied us human rights and democracy. That colonial system which suppressed and oppressed us enjoyed the support of many countries of the West who were signatories to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. "
Even after 1945, it would appear that the Berlin Conference of 1884, through which Africa was parcelled to colonial European powers, remained stronger than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is therefore clear that for the West, vested economic interests, racial and ethnocentric considerations proved stronger than their adherence to principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. "
The West still negates our sovereignties by way of control of our resources, … triggering the current stand-off between us and Britain, supported by her cousin states, most notably the United States and Australia."
Mr Bush, Mr. Blair and now Mr Brown's sense of human rights precludes our people's right to their God-given resources, which in their view must be controlled by their kith and kin. I am termed dictator because I have rejected this supremacist view and frustrated the neo-colonialists."
References and notes
Advance apology for any 'broken' links below. Please send us (Yourpage) an e-mail to report it.
updates & copyright