The Sunday Mail
BY Nick Mangwana
Barack Obama has just repeated what George Bush said in an Executive Order signed on March 6, 2003.
In this order he wrote that the Government of Zimbabwe and its leadership posed “an extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States”. He went further to declare a national emergency to deal with Zimbabwe.
Twelve years later and almost to the day, on the 4th of March 2015, Barack Obama said: “These actions and policies (of Robert Mugabe) continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States.”
Why would a man who leads a nation of 14 million with a US$14 billion economy be considered a threat to the foreign policy of a country that has a population of 320 million people and an economy of nearly US$17 trillion?
Does it even make sense?
The United States is currently the sole superpower in the world. It has nuclear weapons with almost two million of its population under arms. It has squashed and subdued many countries.
Why does such a giant feel so threatened by a seemingly insignificant nation?
Well, the answer lies in the capacity of Robert Mugabe to impact, influence and inspire a change to the current world order.
Influence trumps brute force.
When influence is wielded by a charismatic and articulate individual even hard-edged power yields.
Everyone who seeks power, seeks either the ability to do things or the ability to influence things.
President Mugabe has become the beacon or guidepost for all those who are unhappy with the American hegemony, bully boy arm-twisting and other coercive tactics.
Should his defiance succeed, then it might inspire other nations and a crop of Third World rulers who will scorn the will of the United States.
It is this loss of influence which the US cannot brook.
This President who dares challenge the Great US should be made an example of because he is a threat to the foreign policy of Washington by what he represents.
When President Mugabe stands before the United Nations General Assembly and condemns the killing of the American Ambassador at Benghazi but also calls on all those joining the condemnation to also join him in condemning the barbaric execution of Muammar Gadaffi at Sirte, it resonates with everyone with a sense of fairness.
But the equating of American lives to any other lives in the world is considered a sacrilege.
What he dares say is exactly what billions of people would have loved to say but could not.
Being the de facto leader of those that oppose this unipolar order is what threatens the United States.
His candour on the world stage wins him friends among the downtrodden and inspires revolutions that stand up to the United Sates.
That upsets the world order.
When he laments American skulduggery in dealing with Israel and Palestine, it echoes with the Arab nations.
When he challenges the rest of the world to have some courage and speak out, that is considered impiety towards the great god, the US.
But this is not only about politics. There is also economics involved in this foreign policy matrix.
Slavery and colonialism were all not just about imperial arrogance. They were not simple ego trips.
They were about resources: Human resources was the slavery. Material resources was colonialism.
Eighty-five percent of Africa’s resources are used by only eight nations as raw materials for their development.
Now here comes Robert Mugabe who says that there should be beneficiation of these resources in the country of origin; that Africa should stop selling primary goods; that the majority owners of resource-based companies should be of the local indigenous population.
The United States realises straight away that this man has to be stopped.
Remember even when he took over the Chairmanship of SADC he focused on beneficiation of resources and the congress was themed “SADC Strategy for Economic Transformation: Leveraging the Region’s Diverse Resources for Sustainable Economic and Social Development through Value Addition and Beneficiation”.
This fire from one country has catastrophic consequences to US foreign policy.
The United States would like to control who is sold what. They want to know who is getting uranium from the Congolese.
Remember the atomic bomb used in the Second World War came from the Shinkolobwe Mine in the Democratic Republic of Congo!
Should the Congolese emulate the Mugabe philosophy and control their cobalt, uranium, silver, tantalum and niobium, what would happen?
Now imagine the Congo has 80 percent of the world’s coltan! They are then inspired by Robert Mugabe’s doctrine of indigenisation, value addition and beneficiation and do what Venezuela did with its oil?
Wouldn’t that be an extraordinary threat to US foreign policy?
During the liberation struggle, American foreign policy towards Rhodesia was shaped by its need for Rhodesian chrome.
America did not really enforce the sanctions as they were importing and stockpiling chrome from Southern Rhodesia.
Their whole foreign policy is shaped by their need for resources. That imperative as a determinant of foreign policy still subsists.
SADC is just 14 countries.
Now this Robert Mugabe is also chairman of 53 other African countries besides his own through his Chairmanship of the AU.
Being the iconic figure that he is, if he influences other African countries to adopt the same ideology, where will Uncle Sam be?
Then there is the Non-Aligned Movement, an organisation of over 120 countries! If they are also inspired to defiance, what would remain of the United States?
The biggest casualty of this Mugabe defiance is corporate America.
Were the Iraqis, the Saudis, Libyans, Angolans and Nigerians to start to indigenise their oil, where will corporate America be?
Consider that the United Sates was built on land taken from native Americans (Indians) many years ago, and now Robert Mugabe has claimed his land back.
His actions have already inspired those in South Africa, Kenya and Namibia, amongst many others.
There is a real risk that he could inspire countries further afield including the Aborigines in Australia and the Maori in New Zealand.
Things should not be allowed to be influenced by the land reform in Zimbabwe. It should not be allowed to impact other countries lest it changes the order of things.
Zimbabwe has been under sanctions for 15 years now. President Mugabe has stood up to the West and won the fight.
It is this bold resistance to the raw power of the United States which threatens their foreign policy.
If Robert Mugabe prevails, there will eventually be many other Robert Mugabes out there.
Patrice Lumumba died for his potential influence.
Zimbabwe must be sanctioned so that there will be no economic development lest Robert Mugabe’s success be a big awakening that motivates others to follow suit.
But the genie is out of the bottle.
The Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act and its sanctions have nothing to do with President Mugabe’s domestic policy. They have nothing to do with human rights. They have nothing to do with democracy.
It is all about US hegemony.
Let us never forget that the stated foreign policy of the United Sates is “to sustain a democratic, secure and prosperous world for benefit of the American people”. It adds the benefit of the world as an afterthought.
This is what President Mugabe poses an extraordinary threat to.
President Obama and the whole American establishment believe that bold and open defiance must be crushed.
Remember slavery and colonialism were packaged as the spreading of Christianity and civilisation.
We now know what the real intention was.
Today the catch phrases are spreading democracy, law and order and development. The world knows where this will end but chooses to turn a blind eye.
Those that point this out should be stopped. Be it Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Nicholas Maduro or Robert Mugabe.
