Zimpapers Logo

THE term “exceptionalism” like “election roadmap” has become commonplace. In the marketplace of ideas, this is what it should be as minds cross-fertilise. Although it was United States president Barack Obama who made the initial point of entry by making reference to Americans’ exceptionalism, it was however, Russian president Vladmir Putin who gave life to this two centuries old perception.

It even sucked in the US presidential prayer team website when Jim Ray responded in a piece titled “Vladimir Putin’s attack on American exceptionalism”.

This is when I got to know about the history of America’s exceptionalism. Ray writes, “The concept of American exceptionalism was first articulated almost two hundred years ago by Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville, who wrote that ‘the position of the Americans is therefore quite exceptional, and it may be believed that no democratic people will ever be placed in a similar one.’

In its positive connotations, the term captures the character of the United States as a uniquely free nation which upholds democratic ideals and personal liberty. But cynics think the idea of American exceptionalism is rooted in racism, imperialism and arrogance.”

However, it was Ray’s open-ended question, “the messenger, obviously, is flawed . . . but does Putin have a point?”, which made me look at this exceptionalism vis-à-vis the United States’ bilateral relations with members of the international community, Zimbabwe included:
Ray asked this question before the United States’ exceptionalism threatened its very existence and that of the whole world.

With a government shutdown now in its second week, and the standoff between President Obama and the Republicans on the looming debt ceiling deadline on October 17, it is only prudent to ask why this arrogance in the name exceptionalism is allowed to continue, in the process threatening the global economy.

Why has the voice of reason been thrown to the dogs at the expense of self-aggrandisement? Economically, Africa is the world’s new growth point, but is Africa’s rise being sacrificed on the altar of exceptionalism?

It is also in this context that we ask why Africa should be used as a scapegoat when the US knows that it is burning. When Americans themselves ask whether their country, once the world’s only super power, is now a failed state, how else should we respond despite being on the receiving end of their exceptionalism?

The current problems are not a new creation. However, successive US administrations have been too busy creating problems outside of their borders, and in the process failed to realising they had serious problems in their backyard.

It’s no use blaming most of the social issues on psychological problems, when the truth of the matter is rooted in this belief of exceptionalism, which cannot now hold the system together. When the centre cannot hold, things naturally fall apart, exceptional or otherwise.

Exceptionalism has been used to reject the outcome of Zimbabwe’s July 31 election results. In a similar vein, exceptionalism is being used to maintain the illegal sanctions regime the US government imposed on Zimbabwe in 2001, on allegations of human rights abuses.

That same exceptionalism, which is 200 years old could not countenance the fact that Zimbabwe as a sovereign state also has a long history, a history that speaks into its exceptionalism regarding property rights.

Thus it will be interesting to hear what new things Deputy Assistant Secretary; Bureau of African Affairs Dr Shannon Smith will tell us when she comes to Zimbabwe as reported in the media.

Dr Smith has been on the Zimbabwean story for a while, and she was among the people who gave evidence to the US House Foreign Affairs Sub-Committee on Africa on September 12 titled, “The troubling path ahead for US-Zimbabwe relations”.

Below is an excerpt of what she told the sub-committee courtesy of (http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA16/20130912/101286/HHRG-113-FA16-Wstate-Smith): “The seriously flawed presidential and parliamentary elections of July 31 were a missed opportunity for Zimbabwe.

The United States and other members of the international community had clearly communicated, both publicly and privately, a willingness to consider rolling back sanctions and other restrictions on Zimbabwe and charting a path to full normalization of relations if Zimbabwe demonstrated that it was ready to allow its deserving people to freely choose their next government through a fair, peaceful, and credible election.

“The fundamental challenge the United States faces, now that President Mugabe has been sworn in for another five-year term, the new parliament has been seated, and a new cabinet is taking shape, is how best to put into action our long-standing commitment to the Zimbabwean people while maintaining a firm stance against those who continue to undermine democracy and hinder Zimbabwe’s progress.

“The recent elections were a particularly acute disappointment because they followed some encouraging developments earlier in the year, when the parties of the former Government of National Unity agreed on a draft constitution and the Zimbabwean people overwhelmingly approved it in a peaceful referendum.

“However, in the days and weeks leading up to the election, that promise faded as the electoral process was systematically manipulated. There were serious irregularities in the provision and composition of the voters roll; political parties had unequal access to state media; and the security sector did not safeguard the electoral process equitably.

“These problems were highlighted by credible domestic and regional observers. We were disappointed that the Southern African Development Community (Sadc) and the African Union (AU) chose not to adhere to their own standards – or address the irregularities highlighted by their observers – in determining that the elections were free and fair… With the end of the unity government and the relative stability it brought to Zimbabwe’s economy, there looms the real possibility of substantial economic decline, which President Mugabe and his Zanu-PF party may seek to blame on sanctions.

“We — and Zimbabwe’s neighbors — need to be prepared for the possible humanitarian cost of Zanu-PF’s proposed policies. We also need to examine, while maintaining our targeted sanctions, opportunities for engagement with the private sector that are consistent with our values, policies, and interests. In addition to helping stave off economic hardship for the people of Zimbabwe, such engagement will also provide a powerful counterargument to the false sanctions narrative that Zanu-PF seeks to weave . . .”

Such are the excesses of exceptionalism!

Meanwhile, when President Mugabe attended the United Nations Generally Assembly, we also saw exceptionalism at work since his delegation was denied diplomatic privileges. Upholding international law and conventions of which the United States is a signatory was immaterial.

However, to demonstrate that exceptionalism does not pay, Zimbabwe last week announced that re-engagement talks with the West, the United States included were off until they unconditionally lifted their illegal sanctions. This was subsequently followed by the summoning of US Ambassador Bruce Wharton to explain “the circumstances that led to the ill-treatment and harassment of Foreign Minister Simbarashe Mumbegegwi” at New York’s JFK airport.

Ambassador Wharton becomes one of two US diplomats to be summoned by their host African governments to explain their government’s actions.

This Tuesday, the Libyan government did the same after an alleged al-Qaeda terror suspect and Libyan citizen Abu Anas al-Libi was apparently abducted by US operatives.

Despite Libya’s protestations, it seems the US does not realise that now is not the time to boast as Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters: “I hope the perception is in the world that people who commit acts of terror and who have been appropriately indicted by courts of law, by the legal process, will know that the United States of America is going to do anything in its power that is legal and appropriate in order to enforce the law and to protect our security.”

Indeed, terrorists must be brought to book, but how does the US respond to questions being raised that al-Libi is being interrogated on the amphibious transport dock ship USS San Antonio, which is in international waters?

In these cases of exceptionalism, it is hoped that the advice or reprimand from Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov will be heeded.
In an interview with RT he cautioned, “We believe that this is not the way you handle international relations, it’s not the way you fight criminals, even before you prove that they are criminals, before they can testify to any court of law.”

And, when all is said and done, are cynics correct to conclude that “American exceptionalism is rooted in racism, imperialism and arrogance?” Can they even afford to call themselves exceptional considering the mess they are in, a mess that has long-term effects on their global standing and the values they so dearly treasure?

The US$17 trillion debt alone is a nightmare for the international community as shown in the graphic (below) from RT.