Zimbabwe: US and Europe's Disinformation Campaign
More of the same...
March 29, 2007
If you flip over the rock of American foreign policy of the past century, this is what crawls out ...
What is the moral authority of the West based on?
Invasions, bombings, overthrowing governments, suppressing movements for social change, assassinating political leaders, perverting elections, manipulating labor unions, manufacturing "news", death squads, torture, biological warfare, depleted uranium, drug trafficking, mercenaries ...
It's not a pretty picture. It is enough to give imperialism a bad name.
The hypocrisy of these Western leaders, all of whom have the blood of hundreds of thousands on their hands, makes hollow their outrage over Zimbabwe. Having already demonstrated the disregard they have for the lives of ordinary people, they cannot now be the moral authority for anyone.
Even if African nations wanted to make statements opposing President Mugabe's governing, the US, UK and Australia are making it difficult for them to do so with their constant demands and interferences. The leaders in these Western countries are demanding that leaders of African nations react harshly to President Robert Mugabe, as if the African leaders cannot see the tactics they are using in their attempts to remotely control them. Which African leader really wants to appear as US and Europe's lacquey?
All the anti-Mugabe reports in the mainstream are suspect as being part of a disinformation campaign to the point that any person who takes them seriously is either foolish, dishonest or both.
Here is how the the mainstream media is reporting on the detention of members of the opposition for questioning following a spate of petrol bombings at Zanu-PF district offices. The article 'Zimbabwe Opposition Leader Nabbed' states:
The country's main opposition party leader has been nabbed by police along with other political opponents of President Robert Mugabe. Party head Morgan Tsvangirai had been scheduled to talk to media about the government's recent political violence against the opposition.
Without ever mentioning the reasons these opposition members were held for questioning, they are making it appear as if peaceful opposition members were being detained because of their views or intention to speak to the media.
This is a typical US and European disinformation campaign. The US and Europe are encouraging the opposition to violently destabilize Zimbabwe and are supporting them with their disinformation campaign to make it appear that the government and police are being brutal when attempting to stop the violence. I know this because this is also typical US 'regime change' conduct.
Here is the government website's version of the arrests in Zimbabwe:
Police yesterday arrested 35 MDC activists and seized explosives and arms after the recent spate of terror bombings, hours after the ninth bombing, this time of two petrol tankers in Mutare yesterday morning.
Why must we summarily dismiss the police's reason for detaining persons and only believe the opposition together with US and Europe's version of events in Zimbabwe? Are they neutral parties who come to us with clean hands?
(Police nab 35 MDC activists, confiscate arms, explosives )
So that people won't forget the Zimbabwe government's version of the events that precipitated this latest opposition onslaught (which coincided with the opening of the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council) the Ambassador of Zimbabwe to Canada, Florence Zano Chideya, stated:
...these MDC supporters masquerading as church-goers were breaking a section of a law passed by the Zimbabwean parliament, the Public Order and Safety Act that had been invoked to temporarily ban political gatherings after the MDC thugs had caused violence the previous week resulting in the serious injury of four police officers.
This information can be easily verified. Zimbabweans including the opposition leaders knew the law that temporarily banned political gatherings and if they wanted they could have challenged the ban in the courts. Mugabe does not control the courts in Zimbabwe, contrary to what the West would like the world to believe. The court routinely rules against the Zimbabwe government.
(Zimbabwe's Ambassador Takes Issue with Arrogant Editorial')
It should again be noted that the opposition is attempting to gain political power through the use of violence with support from the US and European countries, and not from gaining popular support in Zimbabwe through articulating policies to improve the country.
In the article 'Opposition warning to Mugabe' on BBC's website in 2000, Morgan Tsvangirai is reported to have told a crowd of about 20,000: "What we would like to tell Mugabe is please go peacefully. If you don't want to go peacefully, we will remove you violently."
The opposition does not command the support of the majority and their cry of unfair elections rings hollow. Elections seem only to be considered "free and fair" as long as they serve the interest of the West. The South African Development Community and the African Union certified Zimbabwe's elections in 2005 as "free and fair" and this was rejected by the Western governments (US rejects Southern African verdict on Zim vote 2005). Although some in the Western mainstream press blamed the Zimbabwe opposition and their leader, Tsvangirai, for the MDC's poor showing at the polls, they are now resuming the unfair election diatribe. Blatant Racism is the reason these Western governments along with their white-controlled media feel the nations in Africa cannot monitor their internal affairs to determine, without US and European interference, what is "free and fair".
This article 'Call for Tsvangirai to resign after poll' from the Independent UK blamed the opposition for doing badly at the 2005 polls. The author Christopher Thompson wrote:
Eric Bloch, a regional political analyst, said there was growing resentment and "tremendous disillusionment" with the party among MDC supporters over his handling of the election. It will now need a period of "extensive restructuring" to survive, he told The Independent. The ruling Zanu-PF took 78 seats from a possible 120, with the MDC taking 41. That was 17 seats less than in 2000 and the result gives Mr Mugabe the power to change the constitution and install a successor without first having to call elections, as presently necessary. It is feared that Mr Mugabe will use his majority to bring in a senate system of government, which was rejected in a 2000 referendum.
The opposition failed at the polls and then cried foul. They are now trying to gain power via a coup and want us to believe that they are promoting democracy.
Mr Tsvangirai has come under fire for failing to sufficiently capitalise on spiralling inflation, widespread unemployment and food shortages. His policy of threatening to boycott the elections back in September 2004, only to do an about turn in February this year, led to far fewer MDC voters registering than anticipated. This was reflected in the low turn-out of MDC support, especially in rural areas, where Zanu-PF dominated. Analysts said the MDC had, in part, been a victim of its own early success.
Zimbabweans should continue to reject the constant meddling of foreign governments in their internal politics. They are right to see the MDC as a foreign-sponsored party whose mandate is to uphold the Western neoliberal structural adjustment programme and halt land reclamation.
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch