in his pithy sayings, “the sting of a rebuke is the truth of it.”

A quick recap
The essence of my presentation was that Britain and the United States were duplicitous and employed shameless double standards.
I maintained that they had no moral high ground from upon which to lecture us as to how to conduct our affairs.
It was a factual indictment of the racial under-current that has characterised Western policy towards Zimbabwe over the past 14 years.
The facts bit hard and hence the screams of protestation.

Inconvenient facts
I will not be apologising to these two rogue ambassadors.
As Nathaniel Manheru eloquently put it in his column last week, they do not deserve an ounce of our generosity.
The British and Americans make good use of glowing rhetoric in their games of diplomatic hanky-panky, hoping to take in simpletons with their deception, but the game is clearly up.

This week we carry on laying out the facts of who these imposters really are and setting out in clear terms that their wretched nature has not changed though they claim otherwise.

Their nature has not changed but their tactics have been cleverly modified to keep in step with the civilised times we find ourselves in.
As I will make clear in this instalment, their kind words count for nothing and must be taken to mean the inverse.
When they say, “very good, you are a clever boy” it must immediately hit you that you have been cheated in one-way or the other.

Genetically dishonest
The British made no small use of their diplomatic megaphones a few weeks ago.
Announcing that they had lifted sanctions on dozens of ‘unruly Zimbabwean thug-officials’ who were now behaving in a somewhat acceptable manner, they spoke in lofty tones of a new chapter in Anglo-Zimbabwean relations.
The weaker-minded natives grinned foolishly in appreciation.
Not I.

Indeed the Government moved quickly to dismiss this empty gesture as nothing more than cheap politics on the part of the British.
Many naïve optimists found this ‘hardline’ position cynical.

However, it took just a few days for the dishonest and manipulative nature of our British partners to be made manifest.
The British claimed they had lifted sanctions on our Justice Minister, Patrick Chinamasa.

However when he sought to travel to England he had to be issued a special temporary license to transact financially.
Not only so, that license lasted only a few days.  This native wonders how many justice ministers on this earth need a license to carry on petty financial transactions in London.
So we ask the British, we ask the loving and honest Deborah, is Patrick Chinamasa under sanctions or not?  This is the double-think I spoke of last week.
Their web of lies is so intricate and complex that one feels a measure of pity for Deborah.
She is merely a lowly employee who is obliged to consistently parrot a line however idiotic.

We all know she is lying.
She knows we know she is lying.
Even hopelessly inebriated drunkards can discern her dishonesty.
Yet she is forced to carry on parroting an outrageous narrative hoping that the simple-minded natives will swallow it.
We will not.

The question is why in the face of the obvious does Deborah continue to try and convince us that blue is yellow and red is green?
She is clearly not stupid so why carry on lying?
It is quite simply because the intended recipients of her lies are not the discerning intelligentsia but weak padlock-brain types like Morgan Tsvangirai who can be controlled and manipulated.

Tsvangirai is not Mandela
In public they speak in flowery language and with great generosity but once in private they reveal their true dishonest and manipulative spirit.
Consider our dearest Morgan and how the West continues to play his weak mind like an instrument.
In a private diplomatic cable to Washington the then American ambassador, Christopher Dell, called Tsvangirai a “flawed figure” and described him in the most ungenerous terms.

He spoke of him lacking executive ability, described in ominous tones how the man would be an “albatross” around the necks of Zimbabweans if ever elected and explained that so great was his incompetence that he would need “massive hand-holding” if he was to come to power.
In private and to their kith and kin they are forthright and unsparing of weak natives.
However, in public they join the chorus of patronising flattering in the tune of Julia Gillard who played to Tsvangirai’s naiveté and vanity by equating him to the legendary Mandela.
That Tsvangirai did not take offence betrays the weakness of his mind.

Mugabe’s multiple farms
It is amusing to watch this inbred British duplicity in action, the shameless and ironic form it takes.
We were in for a treat when Patrick Chinamasa appeared on the BBC programme HardTalk on his recent trip to London.
Steven Sackur, the no-nonsense British presenter, was well researched and ready to put Chinamasa in his place.
There were few pleasantries from the onset but for the large part the conversation remained a civilised affair. In the fourth quarter it went a gear up as he began to demand answers.
How much land did Robert Mugabe own?
Did he not have multiple farms as was widely reported?
Was this fair to the poor people of Zimbabwe?
How dare Robert Mugabe control an astonishing 16 000 hectares of land? Much of the Queen’s private income comes from the Duchy of Lancaster — an estate comprising more than 19 000 hectares of land, which made the Queen £7,3m before tax in 2000-01.
“The Duchy of Cornwall, which comprises more than 50 000 hectares, funds the Prince of Wales.”
The preceding quote is from a report in the Guardian newspaper.
Need I say more?

I do not wish to muddy this conversation by attempting to explain what Robert Mugabe owns or does not own. The simple point is what the President of Zimbabwe owns is our concern not that of the British.
They should not lose sleep over Robert Mugabe.
They must mind their own business.
If it ever so happens that we are so incensed by what the President owns we will deal with him as Zimbabweans.
It is for us to be outraged by his alleged excesses, not the British.
They should leave him alone.

Have we questioned how it is that the Queen controls large tracts of land in Britain?
Furthermore, one wonders where all these conscientious British journalists were when white farmers controlled huge pieces of land in this country.
They are self-serving hypocrites.
They cannot help themselves; it is their nature.

They love us
A recurring theme in British and American propaganda is how they are gushing with love for Zimbabwe.
Every sanction imposed has been for our own good. We should be grateful.
They are protecting us from that demon Robert Mugabe and preparing the way for our very own Mandela, Morgan Tsvangirai.
They now call themselves Friends of Zimbabwe.  They really do take us for fools.
A good example is the letter sent from the Americans promising to lift sanctions if we accept their election monitors.
George Charamba rightly ridiculed the silly letter pointing out that the author assumed Zimbabweans were so stupid as to believe sanctions imposed by Congress could just be “lifted” at whim.

Agribank was sanctioned.
This was for the good of Zimbabwe.
ZMDC was sanctioned because they love us. Chinhoyi council had its funds confiscated to further democracy in Zimbabwe.
ZB Bank was placed on the sanctions list to help restore the rule of law in our country.
These were acts of grace, generosities for which we must thank the Americans and British.
They did it because they love us.

White farmers
In dealing with the British and Americans one must not be distracted by their flowery language that serves no role but to deceive.
Instead, insist on the facts.
Do not deviate from the facts.
The facts in the Zimbabwean case are quite straightforward. The British made a commitment at Lancaster to fund the compensation of white farmers.
In 1997 we received a very sour-toned and disrespectful letter from Claire Short reneging on this agreement.
We have the letter in our possession.

We tried to negotiate but the British put us in our place and refused to budge. It was made clear they would do as they pleased and the natives would follow their lead.
Naturally, we did not take kindly this kind condescension. We moved in and took the farms without compensation.
Seeing that we meant business the British now tried to backtrack. Robin Cook appears on juicy video insisting that his government is now ready to fund land reform and begging us to remove the war veterans from the farms. This promise to now fund land reform was in quite some contradiction to the letter written by Claire Short.
Having been cheated once by the British we knew their word, when spoken to a native, was not worth the paper it was written on so we refused.
They then imposed sanctions.

The only matter on which the British should devote their diplomatic energies is that of compensation. Instead of wasting precious time begging to be allowed to monitor our elections, they must state clearly their position on the matter. Do they stand with Claire Short or with the backtracking video of Robin Cook promising compensation?
It is these factual matters with which we must not concern ourselves, not the many claims of love that the Friends of Zimbabwe now shower us with.

Amai Jukwa is a loving mother of three. She respects Robert Mugabe, is amused by Tsvangirai and feels sorry for Mutambara.

You Might Also Like

Comments

Take our Survey

We value your opinion! Take a moment to complete our survey