Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

Zimbabwe’s crisis is internal – but Zimbabweans must now make sure to keep it that way

, the events in Harare could be exploited by the neo-colonial west to the detriment of Zimbabwe’s sovereignty and partnerships with China.

Published

on

4,840 Views

When the current political crisis, one that many have called a “coup” broke out in Zimbabwe, it was initially unclear who was behind the events and what their demands were. Since then, it has been made clear that most of those in the Army and their political supporters who “took power” were ZANU-PF loyalists and more importantly, they are almost all traditional loyalists to President Robert Mugabe.

It further became clear that far from being a western plot to undermine Zimbabwe’s sovereignty and its historic friendship with China, that instead General Constantino Chiwenga, the military leader of the events in Harare had met with Chinese military officials in Beijing days before launching the partial military takeover in Zimbabwe.

As I previously wrote in The Duran,

“…Chiwenga told his Chinese allies that it was his desire to “deepen exchanges and cooperation in all fields with China to promote the rapid development of bilateral state and military relations between the two countries”. According to Chinese officials, Chiwenga also expressed his gratitude to China for “long-time, selfless help” towards Zimbabwe.

China is the biggest sovereign investor in Zimbabwe by a long way. Chinese projects in Zimbabwe are essentially the only practical hope at this time, for Zimbabwe to transform its resources into national wealth during a period when due to hyper-inflation, Zimbabwe’s de-facto national currency is the US Dollar.

Most Zimbabweans remain positive about China’s economic role in the country and this attitude was expressed clearly by “coup leader” Chiwenga.

While some will now rush to say that China helped to “plot the coup”, this statement is as false as blaming the events in Zimbabwe on the western funded “opposition”. China has no need to interfere in a country which is having an internal dispute within the ruling, pro-China ZANU-PF party. The fact that the military which is staunchly loyal to the ruling party has been the vehicle which has moved events, only confirms this reality.

The official international newspaper of the Communist Party of China, the Global Times, said of the events in Zimbabwe,

‘The long-term friendship between China and Zimbabwe will transcend the internal disturbances in Zimbabwe’.

This statement is an accurate reflection of China’s position. By calling the events ‘disturbances’, Beijing is communicating that it would have ultimately been happier with a status quo that was stable in terms of bilateral relations. Incidentally, the position of neighbouring South Afirca is much the same. If anything senior ANC leaders in Pretoria are more loyal to Mugabe than the leadership in Beijing due to Zimbabwe’s support of the anti-Apartheid movement.  However, because China is confident in Zimbabwe’s friendly attitude towards China transcending internal disputes, China will accept the unfolding events in Harare without condemning them. Military interference in such an instance is totally out of character for contemporary China. The biggest danger for those who oppose the western backed opposition on Zimbabwe is that they will size this opportunity to create further instability. This remains a real possibility, but thus far, the military and members of the ZANU-PF elite appear to be in firm control of the situation.

While China was happy with the Mugabe status quo, in many ways China may take heart in the fact that a younger, seemingly pro-China leader plucked from ZANU-PF may replace the 93 year old Robert Mugabe–and as of now it is still a matter of if.

Zimbabwe depends on China to provide the necessary development mechanisms to lift the country out of stagnation. It must be said that due to the country’s Dollar dependence, there will also be a temptation among any Zimbabwean leaders to look west on occasion for matters of debt relief.

China is also prepared for this and has been long before the events of the last 48 hours. If anything, a renewed ZANU-PF government, may give China the impetus to attempt and structure debt relief programmes for Zimbabwe based on the Yuan.

Under Persident Xi Jinping, China’s motto in intentional relations is “win-win”. While no coup can be described as a winning situation, China and Zimbabwe’s likely future leaders are clearly committed to a situation which minimises any potential loses”.

The events in Zimbabwe are NOT an anti-Chinese plot backed by the west

All of this remains true. The danger now is that unless Robert Mugabe who yesterday appeared in public for the first time since the so-called coup, the Army and other ZANU-PF supporters of ousted Vice President Emmerson Mnangagwa reach an agreement in rapid fashion, those who do not have Zimbabwe’s interests at heart, those in the west and particularly in ex-colonial power Britain, could either supinely or directly intervene and in doing so, threaten the sovereignty and political dignity of Zimbabwe.

Scattered reports, including from the rabidly anti-Mugabe BBC (banned in Zimbabwe) have obtained photographs reportedly showing anti-Mugabe demonstrators on the streets of Harare. Photos from other outlets show protests in support of Mugabe.

It would appear that for now, the Army is living up to its statement that the events which have transpired are about removing “criminal” individuals surrounding Mugabe rather than Mugabe himself. This likely means that the Army is keen to reach an accord with Mugabe insuring that his wife Grace will not automatically assume power upon the President’s death or retirement. The Army also likely seeks the reinstatement of Mnangagwa as Vice President in order to insure his own orderly assumption of power when Mugabe eventually leaves office.

These agreements may prove embarrassing for Mugabe in the very short term, but if they are executed with precision and with a public showing of dignity, it could prevent a the crisis from growing.

The biggest worry is that a protracted negotiation period could ensue, one which could then be exploited by Zimbabwe’s historic enemies. Former Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai who many in Africa see as a tool of the west has reportedly returned to Zimbabwe among the recent chaotic events. While these reports are unconfirmed, it may mean that the western powers are quietly trying to arrange for anti-Mugabe figures to effectively swarm Harare and turn the internal power struggle among ZANU-PF supporters and the military elite, into a wider crisis that could be ripe for exploitation by those who for years have sought to stage a ‘colour revolution’ in Zimbabwe. Tsvangirai would appear to be the ready-made figurehead of such an operation although there are certainly others who fit this bill.

If an agreement can be reached between the Army leaders and Mugabe, this could calm things down and police and other security officials could then go about maintaining public order until the would-be coup fades into memory and life returns to a sense of normalcy.

If not, it would largely fall on South Africa to provide stability in Zimbabwe should a broader crisis emerge.

South Africa’s ruling ANC, many of whose supporters are staunchly pro-Mugabe as a matter of historic principle, would not be keen on any western backed colour revolutions transpiring in Zimbabwe. As South Africa’s Apartheid regime ended in the lifetime of most prominent ANC members, having a western backed government in Harare would be unacceptable, even though modern South Africa, a BRICS member has healthy relations with all major players across the multi-polar world.

While South Africa has not been keen to dirty its hands in the current crisis in Zimbabwe, if things de-stabilise, there may be a race to see who can get to Harare quicker: South African peace keepers and diplomats who would  conduct negotiations to preserve the constitutional order in Zimbabwe or western NGOs along with American and British politicians whose only interests in Zimbabwe are to ruin China’s good relations with a potentially rich nation, with the added insult of reminding Zimbabwe of the much hated period of UDI Rhodesia where Ian Smith ran a government that virtually all Africans consider racist.

None of this is to say that patriotic Zimbabweans should not have a debate on the future of their country. They should have such debates and they indeed must. But using a political crisis to foment such debates under the long arm of western meddling, will not produce any results. If this is the case, the choice between Zimbabwe won’t be about Mugabe versus Mnangagwa, but about independence versus the re-imposition of neo-colonial rule at the hands of those who look far more like Ian Smith than Robert Mugabe.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

European Court of Justice rules Britain free to revoke Brexit unilaterally

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that Britain can reverse Article 50.

RT

Published

on

By

Via RT…


The UK is free to unilaterally revoke a notification to depart from the EU, the European Court has ruled. The judicial body said this could be done without changing the terms of London’s membership in the bloc.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) opined in a document issued on Monday that Britain can reverse Article 50, which stipulates the way a member state leaves the bloc. The potentially important ruling comes only one day before the House of Commons votes on Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit deal with the EU.

“When a Member State has notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, as the UK has done, that Member State is free to revoke unilaterally that notification,” the court’s decision reads.

By doing so, the respective state “reflects a sovereign decision to retain its status as a Member State of the European Union.”

That said, this possibility remains in place “as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between the EU and that Member State has not entered into force.” Another condition is: “If no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period from the date of the notification of the intention to withdraw from the EU.”

The case was opened when a cross-party group of British politicians asked the court whether an EU member such as the UK can decide on its own to revoke the withdrawal process. It included Labour MEPs Catherine Stihler and David Martin, Scottish MPs Joanna Cherry Alyn Smith, along with Green MSPs Andy Wightman and Ross Greer.

They argued that unilateral revocation is possible and believe it could provide an opening to an alternative to Brexit, namely holding another popular vote to allow the UK to remain in the EU.

“If the UK chooses to change their minds on Brexit, then revoking Article 50 is an option and the European side should make every effort to welcome the UK back with open arms,” Smith, the SNP member, was quoted by Reuters.

However, May’s environment minister, Michael Gove, a staunch Brexit supporter, denounced the ECJ ruling, insisting the cabinet will not reverse its decision to leave. “We will leave on March 29, [2019]” he said, referring to the date set out in the UK-EU Brexit deal.

In the wake of the landmark vote on the Brexit deal, a group of senior ministers threatened to step down en masse if May does not try to negotiate a better deal in Brussels, according to the Telegraph. The ministers demanded that an alternative deal does not leave the UK trapped within the EU customs union indefinitely.

On Sunday, Will Quince resigned as parliamentary private secretary in the Ministry of Defense, saying in a Telegraph editorial that “I do not want to be explaining to my constituents why Brexit is still not over and we are still obeying EU rules in the early 2020s or beyond.”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Seven Days of Failures for the American Empire

The American-led world system is experiencing setbacks at every turn.

Published

on

Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


On November 25, two artillery boats of the Gyurza-M class, the Berdiansk and Nikopol, one tugboat, the Yany Kapu, as well as 24 crew members of the Ukrainian Navy, including two SBU counterintelligence officers, were detained by Russian border forces. In the incident, the Russian Federation employed Sobol-class patrol boats Izumrud and Don, as  well as two Ka-52, two Su-25 and one Su-30 aircraft.

Ukraine’s provocation follows the advice of several American think-tanks like the Atlantic Council, which have been calling for NATO involvement in the Sea of Azov for months. The area is strategically important for Moscow, which views its southern borders, above all the Sea of Azov, as a potential flash point for conflict due to the Kiev’s NATO-backed provocations.

To deter such adventurism, Moscow has deployed to the Kerch Strait and the surrounding coastal area S-400 batteries, modernized S-300s, anti-ship Bal missile systems, as well as numerous electronic-warfare systems, not to mention the Russian assets and personnel arrayed in the military districts abutting Ukraine. Such provocations, egged on by NATO and American policy makers, are meant to provide a pretext for further sanctions against Moscow and further sabotage Russia’s relations with European countries like Germany, France and Italy, as well as, quite naturally, to frustrate any personal interaction between Trump and Putin.

This last objective seems to have been achieved, with the planned meeting between Trump and Putin at the G20 in Buenos Aires being cancelled. As to the the other objectives, they seem to have failed miserably, with Berlin, Paris and Rome showing no intention of imposing additional sanctions against Russia, recognizing the Ukrainian provocation fow what it is. The intention to further isolate Moscow by the neocons, neoliberals and most of the Anglo-Saxon establishment seems to have failed, demonstrated in Buenos Aires with the meeting between the BRICS countries on the sidelines and the bilateral meetings between Putin and Merkel.

On November 30, following almost two-and-a-half months of silence, the Israeli air force bombed Syria with three waves of cruise missiles. The first and second waves were repulsed over southern Syria, and the third, composed of surface-to-surface missiles, were also downed. At the same time, a loud explosion was heard in al-Kiswah, resulting in the blackout of Israeli positions in the area.

The Israeli attack was fully repulsed, with possibly two IDF drones being downed as well. This effectiveness of Syria’s air defenses corresponds with Russia’s integration of Syria’s air defenses with its own systems, manifestly improving the Syrians’ kill ratios even without employing the new S-300 systems delivered to Damascus, let alone Russia’s own S-400s. The Pantsirs and S-200s are enough for the moment, confirming my hypothesis more than two months ago that the modernized S-300 in the hands of the Syrian army is a potentially lethal weapon even for the F-35, forbidding the Israelis from employing their F-35s.

With the failed Israeli attack testifying to effectiveness of Russian air-defense measures recently deployed to the country, even the United States is finding it difficult to operate in the country. As the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War confirms:

“Russia has finished an advanced anti-access/area denial (A2AD) network in Syria that combines its own air defense and electronic warfare systems with modernized equipment. Russia can use these capabilities to mount the long-term strategic challenge of the US and NATO in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and the Middle East, significantly widen the geographic reach of Russia’s air defense network. Russia stands to gain a long-term strategic advantage over NATO through its new capabilities in Syria. The US and NATO must now account for the risk of a dangerous escalation in the Middle East amidst any confrontation with Russia in Eastern Europe.”

The final blow in a decidedly negative week for Washington’s ambitions came in Buenos Aires during the G20, where Xi Jinping was clearly the most awaited guest, bringing in his wake investments and opportunities for cooperation and mutual benefit, as opposed to Washington’s sanctions and tariffs for its own benefit to the detriment of others. The key event of the summit was the dinner between Xi Jinping and Donald Trump that signalled Washington’s defeat in the trade war with Beijing. Donald Trump fired the first shot of the economic war, only to succumb just 12 months later with GM closing five plants and leaving 14,000 unemployed at home as Trump tweeted about his economic achievements.

Trump was forced to suspend any new tariffs for a period of ninety days, with his Chinese counterpart intent on demonstrating how an economic war between the two greatest commercial powers had always been a pointless propagandistic exercise. Trump’s backtracking highlights Washington’s vulnerability to de-dollarization, the Achilles’ heel of US hegemony.

The American-led world system is experiencing setbacks at every turn. The struggle between the Western elites seems to be reaching a boil, with Frau Merkel ever more isolated and seeing her 14-year political dominance as chancellor petering out. Macron seems to be vying for the honor of being the most unpopular French leader in history, provoking violent protests that have lasted now for weeks, involving every sector of the population. Macron will probably be able to survive this political storm, but his political future looks dire.

The neocons/neoliberals have played one of the last cards available to them using the Ukrainian provocation, with Kiev only useful as the West’s cannon fodder against Russia. In Syria, with the conflict coming to a close and Turkey only able to look on even as it maintains a strong foothold in Idlib, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United States are similarly unable to affect the course of the conflict. The latest Israeli aggression proved to be a humiliation for Tel Aviv and may have signalled a clear, possibly definitive warning from Moscow, Tehran and Damascus to all the forces in the region. The message seems to be that there is no longer any possibility of changing the course of the conflict in Syria, and every provocation from here on will be decisively slapped down. Idlib is going to be liberated and America’s illegal presence in the north of Syria will have to be dealt with at the right time.

Ukraine’s provocation has only strengthened Russia’s military footprint in Crimea and reinforced Russia’s sovereign control over the region. Israel’s recent failure in Syria only highlights how the various interventions of the US, the UK, France and Turkey over the years have only obliged the imposition of an almost unparalleled A2AD space that severely limits the range of options available to Damascus’s opponents.

The G20 also served to confirm Washington’s economic diminution commensurate with its military one in the face of an encroaching multipolar environment. The constant attempts to delegitimize the Trump administration by America’s elites, also declared an enemy by the European establishment, creates a picture of confusion in the West that benefits capitals like New Delhi, Moscow, Beijing and Tehran who offer instead stability, cooperation and dialogue.

As stated in previous articles, the confusion reigning amongst the Western elites only accelerates the transition to a multipolar world, progressively eroding the military and economic power of the US.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Is Silicon Valley Morphing Into The Morality Police?

Who gets to define what words and phrases protected under the First Amendment constitute hate — a catchall word that is often ascribed to any offensive speech someone simply doesn’t like?

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Adrian Cohen via Creators.com:


Silicon Valley used to be technology companies. But it has become the “morality police,” controlling free speech on its platforms.

What could go wrong?

In a speech Monday, Apple CEO Tim Cook said:

“Hate tries to make its headquarters in the digital world. At Apple, we believe that technology needs to have a clear point of view on this challenge. There is no time to get tied up in knots. That’s why we only have one message for those who seek to push hate, division and violence: You have no place on our platforms.”

Here’s the goliath problem:

Who gets to define what words and phrases protected under the First Amendment constitute hate — a catchall word that is often ascribed to any offensive speech someone simply doesn’t like?

Will Christians who don’t support abortion rights or having their tax dollars go toward Planned Parenthood be considered purveyors of hate for denying women the right to choose? Will millions of Americans who support legal immigration, as opposed to illegal immigration, be labeled xenophobes or racists and be banned from the digital world?

Yes and yes. How do we know? It’s already happening, as scores of conservatives nationwide are being shadow banned and/or censored on social media, YouTube, Google and beyond.

Their crime?

Running afoul of leftist Silicon Valley executives who demand conformity of thought and simply won’t tolerate any viewpoint that strays from their rigid political orthodoxy.

For context, consider that in oppressive Islamist regimes throughout the Middle East, the “morality police” take it upon themselves to judge women’s appearance, and if a woman doesn’t conform with their mandatory and highly restrictive dress code — e.g., wearing an identity-cloaking burqa — she could be publicly shamed, arrested or even stoned in the town square.

In modern-day America, powerful technology companies are actively taking the role of the de facto morality police — not when it comes to dress but when it comes to speech — affecting millions. Yes, to date, those affected are not getting stoned, but they are being blocked in the digital town square, where billions around the globe do their business, cultivate their livelihoods, connect with others and get news.

That is a powerful cudgel to levy against individuals and groups of people. Wouldn’t you say?

Right now, unelected tech billionaires living in a bubble in Palo Alto — when they’re not flying private to cushy climate summits in Davos — are deciding who gets to enjoy the freedom of speech enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and who does not based on whether they agree with people’s political views and opinions or not.

You see how dangerous this can get — real fast — as partisan liberal elites running Twitter, Facebook, Google (including YouTube), Apple and the like are now dictating to Americans what they can and cannot say online.

In communist regimes, these types of folks are known as central planners.

The election of Donald Trump was supposed to safeguard our freedoms, especially regarding speech — a foundational pillar of a democracy. It’s disappointing that hasn’t happened, as the censorship of conservative thought online has gotten so extreme and out of control many are simply logging off for good.

A failure to address this mammoth issue could cost Trump in 2020. If his supporters are blocked online — where most voters get their news — he’ll be a one-term president.

It’s time for Congress to act before the morality police use political correctness as a Trojan horse to decide our next election.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending