finally, a more balanced segment for thursday’s democracy now
Zimbabwe and the Question of Imperialism: A Discussion

Today we host a discussion on Zimbabwe: We’re joined in Washington DC by Professor Gerald Horne. He is the Chair of History and African American Studies at the University of Houston and the author of numerous books including “From the Barrel of a Gun: The United States and the War Against Zimbabwe, 1965-1980.” Joining us on the phone from Syracuse, New York is Professor Horace Campbell. He is Professor of African American Studies and Politics at Syracuse University. He has written extensively about Pan-Africanism and Zimbabwe.

(transcript is not up yet at time of this posting)
one review of horne’s “From the Barrel of a Gun: The United States and the War Against Zimbabwe, 1965-1980”
Book Sheds Light Upon Sources of Domestic Terrorism

Horne’s well-crafted book is an account of the reactionary forces that coalesced around the white supremacist government in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. He documents the multinational corporate interests, the right-wing mercenary elements, the secret intelligence networks, and the political alignments that sustained Rhodesia. Union Carbide, Chrysler, Hertz Rental Cars, TWA, McDonnell Douglas, the CIA, Strom Thurmond, Harry Byrd, Richard Nixon, and ex-president George Bush were just some of the major actors that put off majority rule and prolonged the violence and killing in Zimbabwe. Many of the same conservatives and white supremacists that supported Reagan in the 1980s against enforcing sanctions on South Africa’s apartheid government also pressed the Nixon administration in the 1960s and 1970s to thwart UN-imposed sanctions on Rhodesia.
Although this fascinating book is of great interest to progressive students of US foreign policy, African de-colonization, and US politics in the 1970s and ’80s, it also briefly addresses the issue of covert biological warfare undertaken by the white supremacist Southern African governments (with the support of US-based intelligence and political entities) to maintain their power. At the time of writing, of course, Horne could not have foretold the significance of this portion of the story, but readers, in today’s climate, might pay special attention.
During the 1980s, South Africa’s apartheid government established a special secret governmental agency — that not-surprisingly had ties to the CIA but also had ties to the Centers for Disease Control — to try to control the African National Congress (ANC) and the anti-apartheid movement in general. This included covert efforts to develop biological and chemical weapons, including ecstasy (to diffuse demonstrations), cholera, HIV virus, botulinum, and anthrax. The latter, according to Horne’s account, was specifically used in letters to be sent to assassinate leaders of the ANC and other enemies of white supremacy in Southern Africa. After the fall of apartheid, South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, in the late 1990s, unearthed witness testimony and documents that Johannesburg prostitutes were purposely infected with HIV, that cholera was deliberately put into water used by Southern African farmers and livestock herders, that poisoned
cigarettes, letters, candies, and other items were developed and sold on the international market (for terrorist and covert governmental intelligence communities that seem to have unique bonds) through phony corporations to raise funds for these “anti-terrorist” efforts. The commission also heard testimony by Americans involved in these activities. From the Barrel of a Gun, draws direct links between the South African efforts to preserve apartheid and those who fought to save the white Rhodesian government.
Most importantly, Horne’s research demonstrates how closely intertwined were corporate interests, white racism, and US foreign policy.

campbell’s article – Pan-Africanists: Our collective duty to Zimbabwe

We want to go on record in saying that neither the government of Britain nor the government of the United States has the moral authority to oppose the present government of Zimbabwe. Imperialists and neo- conservatives have their own agenda when imposing sanctions and we are against sanctions in Zimbabwe. Progressive Pan Africanists must remain vigilant so that brutal oppression of the Zimbabwean peoples is not countenanced in the name of anti-imperialism.
These sanctions have not prevented the rulers of Zimbabwe from looting the Treasury and participating in the very same forms of speculative capitalism that is lauded by neo-liberals. Under the ZANU-PF leadership the Zimbabwe Stocks Exchange {ZSE} has ballooned to phenomenal levels as a result of the speculative activities of the rulers in Zimbabwe. In a country where the economic crisis has meant increased poverty for two years the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange offered investors the highest returns in Africa. For two years in a row, 2005 and 2006, the Africa Stock Exchanges Association (ASEA) reported that the ZSE was the best performing Stock Market in Africa.
Robert Mugabe and the ZANU-PF may be against imperialism but this group is not against capitalism or the looting of the assets of the society. The government of Cuba has been blockaded by the United States for more than forty years. Yet this government did not support a small class that looted and got rich while the majority of the population remained poor and terrorized.
Those who support the working peoples of Zimbabwe must insist on transparency in dealing with transnational corporations and the integrity of the ruling personnel in their day-to-day activities. This call for accountability is especially important in so far as though we are opposed to the threat of war coming from ZANU PF we are not encouraged by the policies and posture of the leadership of the MDC. These elements have displayed an amazing level of intellectual subservience to the West and to the ideas of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

one more pambazuka article
When uncle Bob and uncle Sam were friends

This is not the first time that America and the West, bankrolled and oversaw a one party dictatorship or military rule for decades only to ditch the regime when it is no longer serving their interests. But only after dusting off blood from their hands and clothes, and presenting themselves as the moral voice, urging for war crimes against the very regime that they baby-seated, reared and mentored. From Mobuto Seso Seko, Saddam Hussain, Charles Taylor and the Taliban to Uncle Bob—the list of rulers utilized and dumped like used condoms by Uncle Sam and his brethren is endless.
There is no prize if you guess what trajectory Morgan Tsvangirai and his Movement for Democratic Change are most likely to tread if they ascend power. My two year old son, Goitsemodimo, has whispered to me that Zimbabwe will be under the tyranny of the market and remote control by “the empire.”

Posted by: b real | Jun 26 2008 19:52 utc | 4

I think your pan-Africanist friends should be told that we do not eat ideology, that despotism in the name of protecting ideology is a non-runner.
All that Zimbabweans want right now is food, schools for their children in a working economy and cars and TV’s and the ability to excel in the international economic playground.
If Mugabe cannot deliver these because of sanctions by the west, or whatever reason he gives, then he better realise that the west has the power to make his people suffer and start playing ball.
But what I really believe is that Mugabe does not believe in all those ideological issues; he just wants to stay in power.

Posted by: Makusha Mugabe | Jun 27 2008 8:58 utc | 6

I wonder if we are mindful enough of the extent of suffering being endured by ordinary Zims. Inflation is running at 9 million percent. The Western press may blame Mugabe all they like but this is a direct result of extra-ordinary sanctions by the West. And the actual human cost in lives, health & well-being to innocents must be massive.
the sanctions have gone way too far. And we are witnessing an immoral outrage that is creeping towards genocide. Is it really worth it, regardless of what type of monster Mugabe is or is not ?

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jun 27 2008 17:42 utc | 8

the USUk & Tsvangirai insistence that Mugabe is the “problem” in Zimbabwe is very flawed. In fact, the farmers, war-veterans, rural-folks & their collective communities are much more radicalized & defiant than Mugabe himself. Mugabe is vilified & demonized, not for being hostile to the White farmers, but for not cracking down on the very large & substantial population of dispossessed Black Zims who want their land back. And Mugabe’s land reform approach is actually extremely generous to White Zim farmers.
The question is whether Tsvangirai is up to the task assigned by his White masters. Its seriously doubtful since as its turned out, he needs refuge in the Dutch embassy in his own country.
Lets be serious about this. Heres a country where roughly half of the people consider the other half to be traitors and stooges of White interests. Kind of like an extreme episode of the field Negroes vs the House Negroes.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jun 28 2008 15:18 utc | 10

tangerine
i simply cannot bear their fucking anti mugabe hysteria – he may be an incompetent & a tyrant but so was margaret thatcher & the same press was pleased to lick her shit soiled shoes

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 29 2008 15:01 utc | 12

here’s the NYT article, w/ the appended editor’s correction
Zimbabweans Make Plea for Help as Runoff Nears

A front-page picture caption on June 26 describing an 11-month-old boy whose legs were in casts stated that his legs were broken and that his mother said the injuries were caused by an episode of state-sponsored violence in Zimbabwe. After the picture and an accompanying article that also described the injuries were published, The New York Times took the boy to a medical clinic in Harare for help. When the casts were removed, medical workers there discovered the boy had club feet. Doctors said on Monday that X-rays of the baby’s legs showed no evidence of bone fractures.
The mother subsequently admitted that she had exaggerated injuries she said had been sustained by the boy during an attack by governing party militia. In multiple interviews, she said that youths backing President Robert Mugabe had thrown her son to the concrete floor — and she still says that event did occur.
…
The mother, however, later told The Times that the boy had been wearing casts even at the time of the attack, as part of a treatment he had received for his club feet at a different medical facility. She said she misrepresented the boy’s injuries to generate help because she could not afford corrective surgery for the boy.

Posted by: b real | Jul 11 2008 15:54 utc | 14