[DEBATE] : Fwd: In Defense of Zimbabwe

[Doug Henwood]

This is the sort of stuff about Zimbabwe that's floating around the  
radio station where I do my show, WBAI.

> From: Omowale Clay <omowaleclay56 at hotmail.com>
> Date: May 23, 2008 5:47:30 PM EDT
> To: <dhenwood at panix.com>
> Cc: <hamanaka at optonline.net>
> Subject: In Defense of Zimbabwe
>
>  I saw sheila hamanaka's response to your critique on the  
> difference between what's happening in Venezulea vs. Zimbabwe and I  
> thought I would make another point to you. From what and from where  
> do you acertain the fact that President Mugabe did not or has not  
> abidded by the democratic process that he and the other leadership  
> in ZANU-PF in fact led the Zimbabwean people to bring about. The  
> compromise that was reached at Lancaster House agreement for the  
> liberation of Zimbabwe was not his wish but a compromise. The  
> number of elections since independence have been free, fair and  
> followed by the gov't. In the referendum on the changes to the  
> constitution in 2000 failed the gov't abbided by that decision.  
> When the gov't won enough votes to amend the constitution it did.  
> Unforutnately Zimbabwe does not have oil - one of the greatest  
> currencies in international trade these days. Therefore, is more  
> affected by the economic terrorism of the West. However your view  
> that the Mugabe  - "arrests, tortures, and kills his critics, and  
> (the) opposition is criminalized" - is based on what reality and  
> from where. You yourself cannot deny that the propaganda on  
> Zimbabwe is "off the hook". After all, who are you going to believe  
> Zimbabwe or the West lying eyes :).
> FAN
> --- Doug Henwood <DHENWOOD at PANIX.COM> wrote:
>
> On May 23, 2008, at 9:45 AM, FAN wrote:
>
> Yet as a result of the growing tide of popular resistance to
> Mugabe's devastating – Western
> formulated – land reform policies, in 2002, no doubt as a last
> ditch attempt to maintain his
> fading grasp on power, Mugabe shirked his post-colonial neoliberal
> 'advisors.' Consequently, most
> likely owing to his straying from the Washington Consensus, Mugabe
> (and Zimbabwe) is being
> punished by the international community, and imperial democracy
> manipulators are now seizing this
> opportunity to destroy the last vestiges of the popular people
> power movement that liberated
> Rhodesia from colonialism. This 'transitional' process of course
> involves facilitating the ouster
> of Mugabe and ensuring his replacement with a Western-backed
> neoliberal alternative, that is, the
> Movement for Democratic Change.
>
> However in Venezuela's case, when Chavez was elected president in
> 1998, capitalist elites (both
> within and outside of Venezuela) vigorously opposed his presidency,
> and shortly thereafter with
> the aid of the National Endowment for Democracy in 2002 they
> organized a coup to remove him from
> power. As fate would have it this temporary coup was quickly
> reversed by a massive show of people
> power, and in January 2005, after ongoing public displays of
> popular support against ongoing
> capitalist attacks on Chavez's presidency, "Chavez declared his
> political program to be
> socialist". Consequently, it is important to remember that while
> the government's of both Mugabe
> and Chavez are being targeted for regime change, they clearly
> present themselves as very different
> thorns in the US government's side.

[my comment that provoked this - DH]

> Chavez has repeatedly won elections, and when he lost the
> constitutional referendum, he accepted the results. He doesn't
> arrest, torture, or kill critics, and the opposition can express
> itself freely. Mugabe lost an election, refuses to recognize the
> verdict, and arrests, tortures, and kills his critics, and opposition
> is criminalized. Aside from that, I can see the similarities.
>
> Doug