Stephen Glover is in no doubt that one part of the UK political spectrum consistently accommodated itself to the Zanu-PF regime that has misruled Zimbabwe for the last 28 years; his column in the Daily Mail this morning is headlined ‘Never let it be forgotten that it was the British Left who gave succour to the monstrous Mr Mugabe’. There are, however, just a few snags with this thesis. Not the least of them is that it simply isn’t true.
A quick trawl of the main British leftwing websites – well, the free access ones, at least - reveals not a single readily available pro-Mugabe article from the pen of any socialist. Nor am I aware of any Labour MP, of any persuasion, or even one single prominent trade unionist, backing for the Zimbabwean ruler.
Maybe one or two unimportant individuals or small groups have uttered praise for the Harare regime, under the illusion that his actions are somehow ‘anti-imperialist’.
Here’s some Canadian guy I’ve never heard of, arguing that the opposition Movement for Democratic Change is ‘a US and EU vehicle for strengthening a neo-colonial domination of Zimbabwe and of white farmers for stopping land reform’ and that some Zim NGOs are dupes of ‘the Trotskyites’. But read the piece and your nutter alarm should kick in automatically.
Meanwhile, further perusal of Glover’s article reveals that:
In 1994 he [Mugabe, pictured above] received an honorary knighthood from the Queen on the recommendation of the then Tory government.
And that:
In 1984, the Tory government sold him lots of Hawk fighter aeroplanes, which were later used in an illegal war in the Congo.
Hardly a convincing case for leftist complicity so far, is it, Stephen? To be fair, Glover goes on to point out that in 2000, Blair agreed to sell Zimbabwe spares for the Hawks that Thatcher sold it. That takes us straight into a debate about whether Blair can in any meaningful sense be described as part of ‘the left’; on that, I suspect we are going to have to differ.
The best that Glover can do to substantiate his stance is to quote a part sentence from Tony Benn’s diaries, in which Benn expresses delight at Mugabe’s 1980 election victory. That gives the Daily Mail website – not the print edition, interestingly – the excuse to publish a mugshot over the caption:
‘Shameful: Tony Benn, an icon of the Left, gleefully endorsed Mugabe despite his soldiers’ record of rape and torture.’
What Glover conveniently forgets is that Mugabe’s ascent to power came after the 1979 Lancaster House agreement, brokered by then-foreign secretary Lord Carrington on behalf of the Thatcher administration.
The quote from Benn is shamefully wrenched out of all historical context. As I remember the political climate of the day, there was cross-party consensus that a deal to end white minority rule in Rhodesia was both inevitable and a good thing.
Nor do I recollect any claims that the 1980 poll was anything other than approximately fair and square. What, any case, would Glover’s alternative have been? Continuation of the white supremacist government of Ian Smith was no option, even though some Tory rightwingers openly counselled keeping it alive.
Glover’s polemic - written to a pre-ordained conclusion the weight of which the analysis is patently unable to bear - frankly doesn't stack up. Yet it seems to be the best the right can do on perhaps the most pressing issue in world politics right now.
Posted at 21:57, 3 April 2008
Comments (10)
'Here’s some Canadian guy I’ve never heard of, arguing that the opposition Movement for Democratic Change is ‘a US and EU vehicle for strengthening a neo-colonial domination of Zimbabwe and of white farmers for stopping land reform’ and that some Zim NGOs are dupes of ‘the Trotskyites’. But read the piece and your nutter alarm should kick in automatically.'
I'd guess that Stephen Gowans hasn't heard of you either Dave. I think it's a bit pathetic to call Gowans a 'nutter' when he merely documents US/UK interference in Zimbabwe. If you cared to do a little research you'd find that Gowan's object of attack confirms the nub of his argument.
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2008-03/11bond-kwinjeh.cfm
Bond writes
But by early 2000, it appeared the white business elite had captured the MDC, as economic spokesperson Eddie Cross promised the privatisation of "everything", including the schools. In subsequent years a more explicitly social-democratic ideology was adopted.
However, last July, the first drafts of the MDC's 2008 electoral programme were shown to officials of the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington; in contrast, it was only at last month's launch that Zimbabwean civil society got its first glance at the quite uninspired manifesto. Makoni's is just as vapid. And Mugabe's will change nothing.
Possibly the most nauseating example from Harpal Brar.
From April 2005.
The Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) sends its heartfelt congratulations to Comrade Robert Mugabe, ZANU-PF, and the heroic Zimbabwean people on the occasion of their landslide election victory over the imperialist stooge outfit, the 'Movement for Democratic Change'.
http://www.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?secName=statements&subName=display&statementId=2
I bet Seumas Milne has written some crap about Mugabe somewhere dow the line.
Has Cde Newman published an article on the 'free and fair elections', the people's leader Mugabe and the imperalist stooge MDC in Zimbabwe yet?
It's not as stupid a question as it might seem (cf. China/Tibet) - the German junge Welt had a similar article on Wednesday - http://www.jungewelt.de/2008/04-02/047.php?sstr=ZANU - though the headline "Observers say elections in Zimbabwe 'free and fair'" seems to have 'vanished' from the online version...
Daggi
Can you drop me an email, please? Need to ask a favour ...
Dave
Among the inconvenient facts that Glover suppresses is that Mugabe has gone on record stating that he much preferred dealing with Margaret Thatcher than with Tony Blair.
Paul Fauvet:
"Among the inconvenient facts that Glover suppresses is that Mugabe has gone on record stating that he much preferred dealing with Margaret Thatcher than with Tony Blair."
And your point is?
(Incidentally, I suspect that by 'inconvenient fact' and 'supresses', what you really meant to say, was 'trivial points' and 'doesn't mention'.)
Check your email box (the address given on this site), Dave.
``on perhaps the most pressing issue in world politics right now.''
More pressing than the US occupation of Iraq? More urgent perhaps, but not more important. But maybe that's what Dave meant.
Continuation of the white supremacist government of Ian Smith was no option, even though some Tory rightwingers openly counselled keeping it alive.
Sadly, it wasn't an option. If it had been and had been taken, the oppressed blacks rescued from white supremacism would be far better off today. Instead, they're suffering under a black supremacist government.