ZIMBABWE HOVERS ON THE BRINK

by Bill Bonnar

THE likelihood of a re-run Presidential election between Robert Mugabe of ZANU-PF and Morgan Tsvangirai of the Movement for Democratic Change is the latest episode in the ongoing economic and political crisis in Zimbabwe.
Most observers, including ZANU-PF, accept that Tsvangirai won the election but without the required majority of votes. The fears of many is that in the weeks leading up to the re-run elections ZANU-PF will mobilise the state forces at its command to guarantee victory.
An alternative scenario would be a deal which allows Mugabe to step down and for Tsvangirai to head up what would in effect be a coalition between ZANU -PF and the MDC.
The roots of this crisis go back to the early days of independence. Rhodesia was a British colony ruled by a brutal white settler regime.
Despite their self-deluding pretence of bringing European civilisation to this corner of Africa, this was a regime founded on repression and exploitation.
In particular, despite making up less that 4 per cent of the population they controlled something like 96 per cent of the best land which in turn was the basis for their millionaire lifestyles.
In contrast, most of the rest of the population lived in grinding poverty. In 1965, with British colonial rule about to end, the settlers seized power and continued to rule the country for the next 16 years.
In response the a powerful Zimbabwean liberation movement emerged comprising ZANU led by Robert Mugabe and supported by China and the smaller ZAPU (Zimbabwean African Peoples Union) led by Joshua Nkomo and supported by the Soviet Union.
They combined to form a highly successful liberation struggle which forced the Settler Regime from power and led the country to independence in 1981.
In the early days the new ZANU dominated government was lauded by the West.
This was in part because of its accommodation with the white settlers and its refusal to carry out any meaningful land reforms.
It also made clear from the outset that it would protect western commercial and strategic interests. At the same time it clamped down on any radical challenge to its rule.
This mostly came from the more left wing ZAPU party which was in the early to mid-eighties subjected to fierce repression.
While ZANU drew most of its support from the majority Shona population ZAPU was mainly based among the minority Ndebele people.
As many as 25,000 Ndebele were killed by the security forces in an attempt to smash ZAPU and in 1987 it was swallowed up by ZANU to become ZANU-PF.
The western media, so outraged by a few attacks on rich white farmers, was completely silent in the face of these mass killings.
Despite its role in bringing about independence ZANU-PF is in every way a government not fit for purpose.
Instead of trying to build a national-democratic revolution in Zimbabwe which would unite all the people in a project of progressive nation building it increasingly resorted to tribal politics to maintain a popular base.
Its relationship to the white settlers has always been contradictory.
For the first few years it protected them in a country crying out for meaningful land reform then reverted to a process of land grabs in an attempt to buy off its own supporters.
It has presided over an economic collapse without precedent in post­colonial Africa and has used every form of repression to keep itself in power.
The regime has also became extremely corrupt; one of the main reasons it wants to maintain power.
Unless a deal is struck Zanu-PF will almost certainly ‘win’ the run­off Presidential election but this will only provide a short-term respite for them.
The economic crisis will not go away and has created a mood of both desperation and militancy among the Zimbabwean people.
The political crisis will not be resolved until Mugabe and his closest cohorts are removed and a new government elected.
If that government can rediscover the sense of heroism and idealism which forged the earlier liberation movement and bring about meaningful reform to tackle poverty, corruption and the still unresolved land question the future can still be bright for the people of Zimbabwe.

Resistance builds against US wall of death

by Liam Young

THERE is a saying in Mexico “So far from God yet so near to the United States”.
The building of a 700-mile wall costing $7billion across the border between Mexico and the US will make it seem a little further away.
The Bush administration has ignored the voice of local people on both sides of the border and will build a wall that will cut through the land of Native Americans and damage sensitive eco­systems in a bid to keep the poor on the right side of the border.
The Mexican congress has even asked Spain, Portugal and other Latin American governments to support them in a coalition against El Muro de la Muerte (The Wall of Death).
The border service has already been burning wide areas of land to improve visibility.
They have fenced off wildlife trails, filled in valleys and canyons all in an attempt to make it more dif­ficult for people crossing the border to hide.
This has damaged the delicate eco-system of the area that is home to deer, javelina, coyotes and mountain lions.
This of course is of no concern to the US government that has obligated itself to appearing tough on immi­gration after whipping up the home security issue.
The wall is a physical manifestation of the fortress mentality of a section of the US ruling elite who wants to build a defence that will keep would be immigrants out. It is almost like the Berlin wall in reverse.
According to civil rights groups over 500 Latin Americans died last year while attempting border crossings many killed by the US border guards.
When the wall is placed in a global context we can see that it is anti-worker in essence.
It is designed to keep the poor in their place and prevent people escaping pover­ty.
The North American Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has no problem with borders when it comes to moving around money and merchandise but has no room for people that want to cross borders.
However the builders of the wall are not getting everything their own way.
A diverse movement of people has grown against it.
There was a Border Social forum set up in Caracas at the World Social forum in 2006 that has been cam­paigning along with many other political groups against the wall.
But the most encouraging development has been the way in which grass-root resistance has sprouted up all along the planned route of the wall from local coun­cils, trade unions, community groups, environmentalists and Native Americans fighting for their land rights.
Last month the council of Berkley in South Texas voted unanimously to oppose the border wall in what has become a model motion for many other councils the length and breadth of the US Mexico border.