Charles Ray must walk his talk, if he is to be taken seriously

“At the end of the day, though I am here to do a job, and I like to get things done. I am here to advance US interests, and I strongly believe that US interests and Zimbabwean interests largely overlap.”
In fact what the US ambassador is saying is a very sobering truth. He is, and has always been in Zimbabwe to advance American interests. It therefore boggles the mind whether some of our own African ambassadors represent African interests when they are serving abroad?
One renowned international relations academic, Hedly Bull, posits that a diplomat facilitates communication between the political leaders of other states and other entities in world politics. Such communication involves outright lying in defence of the diplomat’s home country. Diplomats are therefore messengers and to put it crudely but accurately, they are envoys sent to lie for their countries abroad.
It is in this guise that it becomes very interesting to reflect on what the ambassador wrote. Let us always remember that Harold Lasswell defined politics as, who gets what, when and how? It cannot be disputed that the international system is anarchical and it has continued to be more of a Hobbesian state of nature.
It must never be taken for granted that Charles Ray is a very prudent politician and like a leopard he will never change his true spots of regime change. Most diplomats the world over are very cunning and deceptive. They hardly mean what they say. These people can tell you to go to hell in a way that you wholeheartedly look forward to the journey.
Dear reader, the question that requires some reflection is whose interests between those of America and Zimbabwe is to take centre stage. Who intends to benefit more from such co-operation? Hans Morgenthau a renowned international relations scholar pointed out that in the international system there is no collective interest but national interest.
Each state in the international system is always in pursuit of its own self-interest. During the Gulf war, many states took collective action against Iraq which had invaded Kuwait. However, on close analysis, one can note that each state that came to assist Kuwait was merely doing so as a way of securing its oil interests. One is always appaled to read that the Americans and their European allies are at the forefront of calling themselves “world protectors”.
The big question is to protect whom and from what? They protect their own interests, be it through diplomacy or war.
Arguably this explains why the world is witnessing a consequent reliance upon brute force like what happened in Iraq and Libya among other countries. This also explains why America, Britain and France are waging wars on a previously unthinkable and indescribable scale under the pretext of protecting humanity against abuse by their leaders.
Is there, therefore, a single thread that heralds that the year 2012 will in fact usher in a new beginning or a transformation of relations between the United States and Zimbabwe that will in- turn be beneficial to the Zimbabwean general populace across the political divide. The point of departure is that friction must be minimised.
The US, Britain, France and other developed countries must realise that Africa wants and must continue to develop. Africans themselves must be part of the equation and they must also be determinants of their own development and destiny. This then entails that if the developed countries are not willing to support the empowerment and indigenisation drive being advocated for by some African leaders then not only will the global populace be waiting for a train that will never arrive but will be standing in the wrong station altogether.
From the above it can be observed that politics must therefore not be a zero-sum game. The developed countries must come to grips with the reality that Africa as a continent is made up of sovereign states. These states must benefit from participating in the society of states.
Co-operation can take place only on the basis of agreements, but agreements may only be kept or adhered to only if they are convenient and only if it is pragmatic to keep them and they may as well be broken or not adhered to if the conditions are not favourable.
The truth is that agreements are possible only if the interests of the parties or countries involved overlap or are similar. The work of diplomats is to determine what this area of overlapping interest is and through diplomatic initiatives of reason and persuasion the diplomat tries by all means possible to consolidate these analogous interests.
One wonders whether there is much similarity between neo-liberal interests and pan-African concerns. Here, Charles Ray must be clear and not try to hide behind his own shadow. Is America now prepared to lift the sanctions it illegally imposed on Zimbabwe? Is it now prepared to take a new course and convince the EU to do the same?
Are they now prepared to support the Zimbabwean land reform and indigenisation exercise? Africa must be resolute and be on guard, for in politics there are no permanent friends or enemies but permanent interests. We must continue to analyse the world as it is and not what it ought to be.
Dear reader, this may be synonymous to an old fairy tale, were the leopard always invited different animals to a sumptuous super. At one point the leopard asked hare why he was always declining such invitations to which hare replied, “I have seen many of my friends who have accepted your invitations and have seen them entering your home but I have never seen them coming out.”
Ambassador Charles Ray is no different to the proverbial leopard. Africa must not forget Rwanda and the American Presidential Decision Directive 25 (PDD25). Madeline Albright actually coined the new American realism and Africans must not expect America to develop its countries for them neither must they be of the opinion that it will solve problems for them.
The Rwandan genocide was permitted to continue because Albright strongly believed that America did not have any interests in this African country. What our dear American ambassador must know is that diplomacy can play no role or serve any function were the American foreign policy can be comprehended and perceived as enforcing some kind of universal authority or is seen merely as a pursuit of self-regarding interests that take little or no account of the interests of others.
When Patrice Lumumba, Kwame Nkrumah, Thomas Sankara etc, stood up against western imperialism and neo-colonialism in Africa, the West saw that their interests on the continent were being undermined and campaigns to get rid of the true sons of the soil were initiated.
The contradictions between the manifest and latent agendas of neo-imperialism are particularly sharp where “big power coercion” is used to terrorise and exploit weaker states into submission, big powers have become international bullies and major sources of insecurity.
Neo-imperialism and regime change projects have arguably become dynamically linked. Can Washington, London and Paris allow Africans to be controllers of their own resources and determinants of their own destiny? Will they allow this to happen? Dear reader, this raises the question of who the Americans, the British and the French rely on to see that their interests are carried out to fruition.
It is therefore not surprising that they are sponsoring opposition movements under the guise of promoting democracy. It is not surprising why they have now introduced on the African continent the politics of fear.
African leaders are termed dictators and must therefore be afraid to champion and execute an African agenda that is beneficial to the majority of the African masses lest they step “on sensitive toes” and suffer the Muammar Gaddafi, Thomas Sankara, Patrice Lumumba fate.
Neo-imperialism has actually become predatory and is on a rampage. Africa must therefore not be overcome by sleep, remember the African adage that an old woman always becomes uneasy when dry bones are mentioned, so goes with Charles Ray’s new beginning. Suspicion engulfs many progressive African great thinkers; will anyone blame such thinkers to turn to the Hobbesian interpretations of worldly events? There is more to communication than just the exchanges of messages. Academics are aware that such messages have got to be subjected to an intense and rigorous analysis and these messages must be understood and interpreted in different ways.
Arguably the significance of a message may be in what it “omits” or in what it includes and in the choice of one’s phrases. Our dear American ambassador to Zimbabwe likes to get things done, advancing American interests, especially now that the 2012 elections in Zimbabwe are at hand.
Dear ambassador Charles Ray, your actions as well as those of your country towards Zimbabwe in particular and Africa in general speak louder than the rhetoric you say. Act first on Zidera Mr Ambassador, and then all progressive Africans will take you seriously.