Ken, here is a "really honestly" answer to "that last question":
This blind spot, and the persistence denial of the failure of 'willing seller-willing buyer' and 'use it or lose it' land reform models in South Africa, needs an eye salve from Zimbabwe's Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP). Unfortunately the debate on the merits and demerits of FTLRP has been coloured if not tainted by the preoccupation on the despotic regime of President Robert Mugabe. Yet when one scratches the surface on the ground it is easy to see how such selective engagement had been informed by a similar myopic discourse on land use for agriculture. AIAS' recently released FTLRP Baseline Survey thus aptly captures this discourse:
Many claim that most, if not all, of the land allocated to new beneficiaries lies unused and idle, suggesting that there is hardly any farming taking place. The new beneficiaries are accused of being unable to adopt the production system and output levels established by the former [Large Scale Commercial Farm] LSCF producers, largely because it is presumed that most of the beneficiaries are unskilled in farming and their work or life experiences are not adaptable to high value farming, particularly of export crops. Farming techniques and agronomic practices are generally considered to be poor and land productivity low, reflecting deficient farming competence. It is generally claimed that hardly any useable farm machinery and equipment, infrastructure and irrigation facilities remain on the farms, or if they do, they are hardly being used effectively, hence the poor land utilisation levels. Moreover, most of the new farmers are deemed to be 'weekend', 'cell phone' or part time farmers, who are not committed to farming and also lack qualified farm managers, hence their pathologically low levels of land utilisation. In addition, it is argued that extension services (by the state, actors and farmers' organisations) have collapsed, such that there is no promotion of productive agronomic land use and natural resource use practices.
AIAS went to the field to test these assertions empirically. However, such was the lacunae among Africanists – and some African scholars – such that even preliminary findings were bitterly dismissed when Mahmood Mamdani alluded to them in his 'Lessons from Zimbabwe'. In their defense of his use of these provisional results, Sam Moyo & Paris Yeros thus reiterated:
The land reform has been broad-based and largely egalitarian. It has benefited directly 140,000 families, mainly among the rural poor, but also among their urban counterparts, who on average have acquired 20 hectares of land, constituting 70% of the land acquired. The remaining land has benefited 18,000 new small- to medium-scale capitalists with an average of 100 hectares. A small segment of large-scale capitalists persists, including both black and white farmers, but their land sizes have been greatly downsized to an average of 700 hectares, much lower than the average of 2,000 hectares previously held by 4,500 landowners on the whole of this land.
Many claim that most, if not all, of the land allocated to new beneficiaries lies unused and idle, suggesting that there is hardly any farming taking place. The new beneficiaries are accused of being unable to adopt the production system and output levels established by the former [Large Scale Commercial Farm] LSCF producers, largely because it is presumed that most of the beneficiaries are unskilled in farming and their work or life experiences are not adaptable to high value farming, particularly of export crops. Farming techniques and agronomic practices are generally considered to be poor and land productivity low, reflecting deficient farming competence. It is generally claimed that hardly any useable farm machinery and equipment, infrastructure and irrigation facilities remain on the farms, or if they do, they are hardly being used effectively, hence the poor land utilisation levels. Moreover, most of the new farmers are deemed to be 'weekend', 'cell phone' or part time farmers, who are not committed to farming and also lack qualified farm managers, hence their pathologically low levels of land utilisation. In addition, it is argued that extension services (by the state, actors and farmers' organisations) have collapsed, such that there is no promotion of productive agronomic land use and natural resource use practices.
AIAS went to the field to test these assertions empirically. However, such was the lacunae among Africanists – and some African scholars – such that even preliminary findings were bitterly dismissed when Mahmood Mamdani alluded to them in his 'Lessons from Zimbabwe'. In their defense of his use of these provisional results, Sam Moyo & Paris Yeros thus reiterated:
The land reform has been broad-based and largely egalitarian. It has benefited directly 140,000 families, mainly among the rural poor, but also among their urban counterparts, who on average have acquired 20 hectares of land, constituting 70% of the land acquired. The remaining land has benefited 18,000 new small- to medium-scale capitalists with an average of 100 hectares. A small segment of large-scale capitalists persists, including both black and white farmers, but their land sizes have been greatly downsized to an average of 700 hectares, much lower than the average of 2,000 hectares previously held by 4,500 landowners on the whole of this land.
To them this was – and still is – nothing less than a deep structural change. As such it needs to be defended though doing so is not one and the same thing as condoning pro-regime human rights violations. "The new agrarian structure in Zimbabwe", they then insisted, "now holds out the promise of obtaining food sovereignty (which it had never obtained before), creating new domestic inter-sectoral linkages, and formulating a new model of agro-industrial development with organized peasants in the forefront". This promise was informed by various new dynamics that they observed as being "underway in the countryside in terms of labor mobilization, investment in infrastructure, new small industries, new commodity chains, and the formation of cooperatives" to the extent that "despite the adverse economic conditions, land utilization levels had already surpassed the 40% mark that prevailed on the so-called white farms after a whole century of state subsidies and racial privilege". They thus chided their colleagues for missing it:
Needless to say, a number of scholars have never recognized this potential. On the contrary, they continue to speculate about "crony capitalism" (Patrick Bond) and the "destruction of the agriculture sector" (Horace Campbell), without having conducted any concrete research of their own, or properly interrogated the new research that has emerged.
Theirs is a call to go to the Zimbabwean countryside and see for ourselves. It is a clarion call to reconsider the empirical evidence on the ground rather than rely on hearsay. When one does so, he or she will be in a better position to reaffirm or refute AIAS promising findings such as these:
The FTLRP transformed the agrarian structure from a bi-modal structure in which 4,500 farmers (approximately 5,000 farm units) held over 11 million hectares mostly on the basis of export focused commercial agriculture, alongside one million communal area households on 16.4 million hectares mostly in the drier regions of the country. The FTLRP implemented by the Government of Zimbabwe redistributed about 80 percent of the former large scale commercial farms (LSCF) to a broad base of beneficiaries including, mostly peasants from across the political divide, as well as politicians, senior Government officials, private sector officials, employed and unemployed urbanites, farm workers, corporate and the former white farmers. This has altered the previous highly unequal bimodal agrarian structure and created relatively more broad based tri-modal agrarian structure comprising small, medium and large farms with an estimated 170,000 family farms created by the FTLRP… It is clear that the FTLRP has broadened access to land and related natural resources to a diverse set of beneficiaries dominated by landless and/or land short peasants from the Communal Areas. The beneficiaries of the FTLRP go beyond those formally allocated land by the state to include others who are labelled as ""squatters"" who co-exist with formal land beneficiaries under different land sharing arrangements. The position of women has vastly improved in newly redistributed areas in comparison to the communal areas as a sizeable proportion were allocated land in their own right, while some benefitted as joint owners through the marital institution.
Ian Scoones from the UK's Institute of Development Studies (IDS) and his associates at the Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS) in Cape Town, South Africa had been in Zimbabwe researching the matter on the ground for about a decade. Incidentally, they arrived to more or less similar conclusions as Moyo & Paris and their AIAS research colleagues. The irony is that even the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), well known for being so quick to dismiss if not demonize any positive side of Zimbabwe's radical land reforms, had to reluctantly swallow its pride and prejudice as it extensively quoted Scoones' admission of being "genuinely surprised" by findings of their study on 'Zimbabwe's Land Reform: Myth and Reality' that debunks these five myths perpetuated by "political and media stereotypes of abject failure" in Zimbabwe: (1) That land reform has been a total failure; (2)That most of the land has gone to political "cronies"; (3) That there is no investment on the resettled land; (4) That agriculture is in complete ruins, creating chronic food insecurity; (5)That the rural economy has collapsed.
Source: http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/70601/print& http://udadisi.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-land-matters-to-africans-regardless.html
From: kenneth harrow <harrow@msu.edu>
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Zimbabwe: The Revolution Continuesthe language of the summary doesn't permit an outsider to this field to completely grasp it.--
these are the issues i see:
1.the expropriation of white owned lands in zimbabwe mostly doesn't bother me. i know a little about z's history, the fact that they were courting white settlers from britain to come late in the colonial period, at least as late as the 1950s, if not later under smith, and expropriating african lands. the sympathy for whites who acquired those lands, and who had earlier acquired the lands under dubious circumstances makes it seem wrong to sympathize with their heirs' claims.
2.i don't know if the ag production subsequently fell after the appropriations. if so, they were poorly handled, in contrast to other countries like kenya that tried to manage this better.
3.this is the main point. who got the lands? the language below obscures that simple question. were they redistributed equitably? did they go just to mugabe's supporters? did his politicos get a large chunk? did his soldiers get a large chunk. was this his way of buying supporters?
if you can't answer that last question really honestly, then there is nothing much to talk about. we all can agree on points one and two, but point three is the sticking point where autocracy trumps justice, where the current misrule perpetuates itself and the resentments that ultimately lead to violence.
lastly, i admire gloria's insistence on keeping an open mind: that is easy for non-specialists like myself. but we are all observers of this scene, albeit amateur observers. we are all interested observers. those who can inform us, without all that pro-mugabe regime rhetoric, and simply tell us what has happened, should speak up.
kenOn 6/19/13 2:34 PM, Chambi Chachage wrote:--Ajamu, I concur, re:Beyond White Settler Capitalism: Zimbabwe's Agrarian Reform
An important new book – Land and Agrarian Reform in Zimbabwe: Beyond White Settler Capitalism - has just been published by CODESRIA. It is the product of the CODESRIA National Working Group on Zimbabwe, and is edited by Sam Moyo and Walter Chambati of the African Institute of Agrarian Studies. All 372 pages are free to download on the CODESRIA site.The book is important in a number of respects. First, it sets the story of Zimbabwe's recent land reform in a wider context, examining capitalist relations in historical and regional perspective. Second, it offers an alternative political narrative to the standard analysis focused on neopatrimonial capture by political elites. Third, it offers empirical material and analysis from researchers who have undertaken detailed fieldwork on a range of themes including labour (Chambati), community organisation (Murisa), the media (Chari) and mobilisation (Sadomba, Masuko). Finally, as perhaps the leading scholar on Zimbabwean land issues, having worked on the issue over several decades, Sam Moyo is certainly well-placed to provide an informed, and typically provocative, overarching commentary.The book argues that most critics of Zimbabwe's land reform programme "continue to underplay the significance of the settler-colonial roots of Zimbabwe's land question and its exacerbation under neoliberal rule after independence, in fomenting the social and political crisis which provoked the popular reclamation of land".The final chapter by Sam Moyo and Paris Yeros identifies six aspects that they argue make the Zimbabwean experience distinct:(i) the character of the land movement, which has been multi-class, decentralised and anti-bureaucratic, but also united by radical nationalism;(ii) its capacity to articulate grievances across the rural-urban divide;(iii) the radicalisation of its petty bourgeois components;(iv) the resulting creation of a tri-modal agrarian structure as a matter of state policy;(v) experimentation with state dirigisme, developmentalism and an emerging popular cooperativism; and(vi) a new nonalignment policy termed 'Look East'.Not everyone will agree with this summary. Indeed in our own work we have critiqued the singular notion of a 'land movement', as well as the role and form of state 'dirigisme' in the 2000s and the forms of violent nationalism that became associated with state intervention. However, by offering a frame for debate, some of the lazy assumptions and analyses in other commentaries can be engaged with, with new empirical and theoretical vigour.The book's conclusion argues that much of such current commentary is "essentially the reincarnation of a liberal form of settler-colonial political compromise". In the opening chapter, Moyo criticises the "dubious intellectual positions" reinforced by a "revisionist historiography" peddled by "structurally-adjusted" intellectuals that have misinformed the debate. His wrath is focused on :"….a peculiar mix of liberalism and Weberianism peddled by American political science, especially via the notion of 'neopatrimonialism'; a rudderless culturalist theory of 'identity politics', whose post-structuralism has managed to replicate with great success the settler-colonial obsession with fragmented cultures; and, not least, an escapist 'left' critique, which has often sought refuge in pseudo-Gramscian theories of 'hegemony', whereby patrimonialism and culturalism substitute for class analysis. Indeed, some 'Marxists' succumbed to similar imperialistic and antinationalist impulses, to the effect of silencing class analyses which demonstrate the progressive nature of the land reform".Nor is he happy about what he dubs our liberal perspective on 'livelihoods'. This approach, he argues:" …eschews the interrogation of class formation processes and exploitative relations of production (especially in the emerging labour relations) and the continued extraction of surplus value (particularly from peasants) through exchange relations driven by monopoly-finance capital. The critical role of state intervention in the overall outcome is also visibly downplayed by its liberal-populist orientation".While elements of this critique may be appropriate, I would argue that we have offered, on the basis of our Masvingo work, a detailed analysis of social differentiation and class positions, informed by a livelihoods analysis. We argue that the current rural struggle is between 'middle farmers' in alliance with the rural poor and a new rural elite, supported by the party and state. Indeed in Moyo's chapter on the changing structures of rural production he concurs with our analysis from Masvingo, showing how the growth of small-scale capitalist producers through a process of 'repeasantisation' has widened the prospects for accumulation from below, despite the new class struggles observed.Thus I wholeheartedly agree with the book's central argument that a perspective informed by historically-informed class analysis can be especially revealing. This class analysis, although unevenly applied, is certainly the strong feature of the book, making it an important contribution to the debate.In particular, Moyo argues that the petty bourgeoisie broke ranks with monopoly capital and became radicalised, and so part of a decentralised, organised land movement, led by the peasantry and mobilised by war veterans. The 'tri-modal' land pattern that emerged from land reform, including large capitalist enterprises, small-medium scale farms and smallholder farms, reflects the accommodations of different class interests, the book argues.Moyo however is not without his critique of the current regime, noting that: "the nationalist leadership in recent years has come to represent mainly un-accommodated bourgeois interests… which are under the illusion that they can reform monopoly capitalism so as to sustain a 'patriotic bourgeoisie' into the future".The alignment of the state with capital is examined at various points in the book, including reflections on the 'indigenisation' programme (bolstering the 'patriotic bourgeoisie'), the Look East policy (non-alignment to realign, strategically seeking capital and investment) and focused 'developmental' state intervention post 2000, discussed by Moyo and Nyoni, in the context of a highly polarised political landscape, and the flight of international capital. Thus, Moyo argues "the reconfiguration of domestic agrarian markets and struggles over these, in relation to changing forms of state intervention, in the context of a gradual reorientation of critical commodity and financial markets to the East, have been overlooked".Overall, Moyo argues that in recent scholarship on Zimbabwe, there has been "a systematic neglect of the continent's subordinate relations to monopoly-finance capital, as well as empirical analyses of class formation, political alliances, emergent social movements under the current crisis and the implications for state intervention and development".This book attempts to redress this neglect, and fills an important gap in the literature. Not everyone will agree with some of the detail, and some of the political arguments will no doubt be countered. However, the analysis of the class-based nature of Zimbabwe's transformation is most definitely welcome, and the book further enriches our understanding of Zimbabwe's complex agrarian transformation.This post was written by Ian Scoones and originally appeared on Zimbabweland
From: Ajamu Nangwaya <anangwaya@gmail.com>
To:usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 12:50 PM
Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Zimbabwe: The Revolution ContinuesComrades,It is my position that Mugabe opportunistically used the popularity of land reform to win support from the people when he realized that the Western- and settler-backed MDC could win the next election. He could have done the same thing 10 years after the demise of the Lancaster House agreement.It ought to be noted that imperialism didn't provide the money to execute the farcical scheme or notion of "willing seller, willing buyer" approach to land reform. I do not believe that Afrikans should pay a penny to the settlers for our land. It is imperialism that should pay these settlers who were doing the job of the empire.
I must admit that I instinctively thought that the post-2000 land reform programme was one that would benefit the regime's supporters and leaders like the earlier attempt. But once I looked at the research results from studies on land reform in Zimbabwe, it was clear that it should be commended. The success of land reform is admirable in the context of the broad sanctions imposed by imperialism against the people of Zimbabwe.
Our support should be for the working-class and peasantry in Zimbabwe and not the regime of Mugabe or the collaborators in the MDC-T or other variant of that political entity. I am an advocate of the self-management of the people and that is not the experience of the labouring classes in Zimbabwe or elsewhere.In solidarity
Ajamu Nangwaya
Membership Development Coordinator, Network for Pan-Afrikan Solidarity
"We must practice revolutionary democracy in every aspect of our...[organization's] life. Every responsible member must have the courage of his responsibilities, exacting from others a proper respect for his work and properly respecting the work of others. Hide nothing from the masses of our people. Tell no lies. Expose lies whenever they are told. Mask no difficulties, mistakes, failures. Claim no easy victories ...." - Amilcar Cabral - Revolution in GuineaOn Tuesday, 18 June 2013 19:45:40 UTC-4, Ajamu Nangwaya wrote:--JUNE 05, 2013From Servants to MastersZimbabwe: The Revolution Continues
by ERIC DRAITSERThe coming elections in Zimbabwe are no mere referendum on the leadership of the coalition government. Instead, the decision before Zimbabweans is a clear one: continue on the revolutionary path of Mugabe and ZANU-PF or follow Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai's MDC-T and their pro-US, neoliberal economic agenda.While much of Africa has been turned into a chaotic, war-ravaged continent stuck in the destructive cycles of violence, terrorism, and dependence on imperial powers, Zimbabwe has managed to maintain the fierce independence and commitment to revolution espoused by President Mugabe stretching all the way back to the post-colonial liberation struggle. However, in order to fully understand the sustained campaign of destabilization and subversion by the Western imperialist ruling class, one must first examine the policies of Mugabe and ZANU-PF that have earned them the ire of Washington and London.Mugabe's "Crimes"Robert Mugabe and his ZANU-PF party emerged from the post-independence conflict as the dominant political party in Zimbabwe, promising to finally address the most pressing issues facing black Zimbabweans who, despite making up the vast majority of the population, continued to be mostly landless, while the white, landowning class maintained their grip on the most arable land. This gross disparity in land ownership, a vestige of the colonial system, became one of the primary needs that the new leadership intended to address. However, the terms of the negotiated settlement of the war of liberation in 1979, known as the Lancaster House Agreement, essentially allowed the white farmers to retain their land if they chose to do so under the "willing buyer, willing seller" principle.This system continued until 2000 when President Mugabe shifted the policy to a "fast track" land program that sought to unseat white privilege and restore ethnic balance to land ownership. It was precisely this policy shift that earned Mugabe the ire of the imperial powers, particularly the British, which then sought to punish Mugabe and the people of Zimbabwe by instituting crippling sanctions that destroyed the Zimbabwean economy. However, this only strengthened the resolve of ZANU-PF, teaching them a number of important lessons. As Francis Chitsike of Midlands State University in Zimbabwe points out:What the Zimbabwean government learnt from its own experience is that in an agriculturally based economy, no development program will succeed if people are not given access to land. Equitable access to means of production is vital to the success of any development program. There is a direct link between poverty reduction and land reform, and issues of poverty reduction cannot be tackled without addressing issues of land reform.iAfter twenty years of playing by the rules set forth by the British, Mugabe and ZANU-PF realized that in order to achieve the true goals of the revolution (poverty reduction, land redistribution, expanded social services, etc.), they would have to reinvent the country, not simply reform it gradually. And so, ZANU-PF adopted as its slogan "Land is the economy and the economy is land" in order to underscore the government's commitment to true land redistribution. The results of the fast track land program are impossible to ignore. In a new book entitledZimbabwe Takes Back Its Land, the authors explain how:In the biggest land reform in Africa, 6,000 white farmers have been replaced by 245,000 Zimbabwean farmers. These are primarily ordinary poor people who have become more productive farmers. The change was inevitably disruptive at first, but production is increasing rapidly. Agricultural production is now returning to the 1990s level, and resettled farmers already grow 40% of the country's tobacco and 49% of its maize.iiThis incredible accomplishment of land redistribution has far-reaching implications for the people of Zimbabwe. Not only are they finally able to enjoy the fruits of their revolution, but they have charted a course of self-sufficiency that allows the country and its elected officials to be less dependent on foreign powers, giving them a greater degree of autonomy in political and economic matters. However, the significance of the land redistribution goes much further than simply its impact on the people of Zimbabwe. The successful redistribution of land provides a "dangerous" model for other African nations still struggling with the legacy of colonial rule.Although land remains at the center of the continued revolution, there are other key economic issues which Mugabe and ZANU-PF have addressed in ways that are antithetical to the exploitative goals of Western corporations and their government servants. Perhaps one of the most shocking to financiers and capitalists in the West was thedecision to nationalize the mining sector, as the government took majority stakes in most mining companies operating in the country. Naturally, this was yet another slap in the face to corporate interests that saw in Zimbabwe yet another African cash cow to be milked dry. The imperialist mentality in Africa views the resources as belonging to white Europeans and Americans rather than the people of Africa. This fundamental divide is what distinguishes Mugabe and ZANU-PF from many other leaders in Africa who, at every turn, grovel at the feet of their former oppressors.Perhaps the central principle in Mugabe and ZANU-PF's economic program is "indigenisation". This process of reclaiming the economic destiny of the country for the people of Zimbabwe has been difficult, even problematic at times, but has been successful. Not only has the government moved to nationalize the mining sector, it has expanded the program to include banks and other important businesses.Although this process has been mocked by so-called "experts" in the West, the reality is that the program has been a resounding success, not only economically, but also with the people. As Saviour Kasukewere, Minister of Youth Development, Indigenisation and Empowerment notedin 2011:This is an imperative we cannot avoid…they [foreign corporations] have been having it too good for too long…if they think by closing a mine they are affecting us, tough luck. Closing a mine doesn't change anything…Brazil is coming, India is coming…what we have a problem with, is companies with a colonial ownership structure."iiiKasukewere here articulates perhaps the most important point of all: that the revolution in Zimbabwe is not merely cosmetic, but rather is a decades-long process of unwinding the structures of colonial control – the very imperialist infrastructure which to this day forms the foundation of white capitalist domination of Africa.Unlike nearly every other African country, Zimbabwe does not play host to US military bases or any AFRICOM presence. No military "advisors" have entrenched themselves in the armed forces as they have throughout the continent. There is no US drone base as in Niger, Djibouti and elsewhere. Zimbabwe has maintained a steady, if somewhat fragile, peace since independence, choosing to maintain support for independent African nations such as Libya while it was free under the leadership of Muammar Qaddafi, and Eritrea which, like Zimbabwe, is vilified by Western imperialists for its unwillingness to be made part of the imperial system. Essentially then, Zimbabwe has in nearly every way asserted its independence from the US-UK sphere.Naturally though, the imperial powers do not sit idly by and allow this to happen. They have their counter-revolution in Zimbabwe, led and embodied by Morgan Tsvangirai and the MDC-T.Tsvangirai, the MDC-T, and the Subversion of ZimbabweThe Movement for Democratic Change (MDC-T) led by current Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai is no mere opposition party. Rather, they are the Zimbabwean face of neoliberal capitalism and continued subservience to corporate-imperial power. Although Tsvangirai's party shrouds itself in the flag of anti-corruption and "sustainable development", the truth is that these are merely the rhetorical cover for rolling back the gains made by the people of Zimbabwe under the leadership of Mugabe and ZANU-PF.Despite the obvious need, and overwhelming support, for the land redistribution programs of the last decade, Tsvangirai and his Western puppet party came out against the program and squarely on the side of the entrenched white landowners. In 2011, as the land redistribution and indigenization programs were beginning to take root, Tsvangirai stated publicly that, "We don't support grabbing property and seizing companies. We support a process of willing seller, willing buyer." This revealing statement illustrates clearly the degree to which Tsvangirai and MDC-T represent the interests of the British and the imperial-corporate powers who themselves created the "willing seller, willing buyer" concept in the Lancaster House Agreement. Essentially then, when Tsvangirai speaks it is the voice of London, Washington and Wall St.However, this ideological connection is merely the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Tsvangirai and his relations with the West. A 2010 leaked cable, published by WikiLeaksiv, revealed that Tsvangirai collaborated with President Obama and the US establishment against the interests of Zimbabwe and the people. The documentv "showed that he [Tsvangirai] had had been privately urging Washington to maintain sanctions against Harare, while taking the opposite position in public." This revelation, though certainly not a surprise to many in Zimbabwe and ZANU-PF, reveals the degree to which Tsvangirai and the MDC-T is, for all intents and purposes, a US front group masquerading as political opposition. Of course, were this the only example of the relationship, the case against Tsvangirai would be incomplete. Rather, one must examine the role of US intelligence in shaping the entire agenda of the MDC-T.Earlier this month, the Zimbabwe Herald reported that:MDC-T has reportedly invited three Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) agents to attend its policy conference set for [Friday May 17, 2013] as part of last ditch efforts to formulate an appealing election manifesto…the Herald is reliably informed that the three CIA agents were also behind MDC-T's security policy document titled 'Policy Discussion Papers – Security Sector Cluster: 1. Defence and National Security, 2. Home Affairs' [in which] MDC-T announces plans to fire all serving security chiefs…and hire what is termed senior police staff from Western countries to instill 'professionalism' in the force.viThe intimate relationship between the MDC-T and US intelligence illustrates the degree to which Tsvangirai is not merely compromised but, in many ways, an outright agent of the United States and the other imperial powers. The MDC-T would seek to transform Zimbabwe into little more than another compliant African client state where the needs of the poor majority would be trumped by the power of the wealthy minority serving the needs of multinational corporations.The WikiLeaks cables also reveal how the United States has been actively working and preparing for regime change in Zimbabwe. Former US Ambassador to Zimbabwe Christopher Dell wrote that: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…He [Mr. Tsvangirai] is the indispensable element for regime change, but possibly an albatross around their necks once in power.viiThe cables show the intimate working relationship that exists between the so-called opposition and their Western backers. Although this is no secret in Zimbabwe, it comes as news to many in the West who have been thoroughly propagandized to believe that the MDC-T and Tsvangirai represent substantive change and a move toward increased democracy. On the contrary, the MDC-T is the quintessential counter-revolutionary movement specifically designed to destroy the tremendous gains made by ZANU-PF and Mugabe since liberation.What's Next?Zimbabwe's immediate future is going to be shaped by the impending national elections. Naturally, ZANU-PF and MDC-T will be vying for the leadership mantle in what will be a hotly contested election. That being said, we are seeing the usual forces of "soft power" aligning themselves in preparation for a major destabilization effort around the elections. As we saw most recently in Venezuela, disputing elections is one of the favorite tactics of the imperialist ruling class, allowing them and their minions to engage in protracted subversion of democratic institutions in order to foment civil unrest and thereby delegitimize the elected government.One well known organ of imperialist propaganda is the George Soros-funded International Crisis Group which recently issued a report entitled "Zimbabwe: Election Scenarios", laying out in great detail the various ways in which the United States and its allies and clients must intervene in the elections. In particular, the report states that:The pervasive fear of violence and actual intimidation contradicts rhetorical commitments to peace. A reasonably free vote is still possible, but so too are deferred or disputed polls, or even a military intervention. The international community seems ready to back the Southern African Development Community (SADC), which must work with GPA partners to define and enforce "red lines" for a credible vote…That the elections are likely to be tense and see some violence and intimidation is clear; what is not yet clear is the nature of the violence, its extent, and the response it will generate.viiiTo the layman, such a description might seem innocuous – a paper outlining the possible outcome of the election. However, even a cursory examination of recent similar episodes in Venezuela, Iran, and elsewhere shows that "disputed elections" are the favorite tool of subversion by the imperial powers which use NGOs such as the International Crisis Group as their unofficial mouthpieces. When the ICG speaks, it is with the voice of US intelligence and the ruling class.If the experience of Venezuela is any indication, we are likely to see violence in the streets should MDC-T lose the election, particularly if the margin of victory is small. As with Capriles and the US-funded opposition in Venezuela, the creation of violence in the streets is merely a trick employed for the purposes of destabilizing the government in a time of transition, with the goal of creating enough chaos to delegitimize the rule of the victors. And so, ZANU-PF and the Zimbabwean people must remain vigilant as the country heads into these all-important electionsZimbabwe has come a long way since the official end of the liberation struggle. As years have passed, the nation and its people have been transformed from servants to masters, dependent children to independent and free human beings. In that same time, the former masters have attempted to employ countless strategies to continue their exploitation and domination of the resources and the people. Because of the leadership of Mugabe and ZANU-PF, as well as the determination of the Zimbabwean people, Zimbabwe has metamorphosed into the envy of Africa. Of course, there are very real problems in the country, with wealth not nearly approaching that of other African states that have remained loyal to the imperial system. However, when wealth is concentrated in the hands of a kleptocratic ruling elite, is that really wealth? Looking at Zimbabwe, we see a true model for Africa: an independent path to progress and equitable development. It is for this reason that the imperial powers look to destroy all that has been built in Zimbabwe…and for this same reason, we must stand to defend her.*Author's Note: This article is the first in a series of articles examining the political and economic landscape of Zimbabwe as elections approach. Look for the next installment of the series in the July issue of CounterPunch.Eric Draitser is the founder of StopImperialism.com. He is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City. You can reach him at ericdraitser@gmail.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
-- kenneth w. harrow faculty excellence advocate distinguished professor of english michigan state university department of english 619 red cedar road room C-614 wells hall east lansing, mi 48824 ph. 517 803 8839 harrow@msu.edu
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
