adminTichaona Zindoga Political Editor
If any Zimbabwean, like many others across the world, rightly felt disgusted by the fiasco involving the United States and North Korea over a distasteful US movie about assassinating the North Korean president, there is something closer to the bone they may have missed over the weekend.
The US propaganda mouthpiece against Zimbabwe, Voice of America Studio 7 ran a rather vexatious interview with constitutional law expert Dr Alex Magaisa on, “What Happens in Case of Zimbabwe President’s Incapacitation?”
Without begrudging Magaisa’s rich vein of form these days, the substance for which his services were sought immediately strikes one as stinking.
The headline itself presupposes that the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe, Cde Mugabe, who was voted by a crushing majority for a five-year term during the 2013 harmonised elections, may suddenly fail to legally dispense his duties and thus warranting his removal from office.
Incapacitation, according to various definitions, means, “to make legally incapable or ineligible”, “to deprive of capacity or natural power” and generally relates to diminished mental capacity.
Magaisa gives his views as an expert, and partly as a politician himself, having been embedded in opposition politics. He tells us about how the Constitution “is clear on what should happen” citing relevant provisions.
But the interviewer, a Gibbs Dube, wants to know if, “there (is a) way that they can do it without causing so many problems?”
He also asks Magaisa whether he “anticipate(s) that the process would be as smooth as what happened, say in Nigeria where President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua died and in Malawi when Bingu wa Mutharika and most probably the two unfortunate cases of Zambia, Levy Mwanawasa and Michael Sata where the vice presidents were sworn in within hours.”
The interviewer is curious whether President Mugabe will “choose not to run” in elections due 2018 and, finally, whether First Lady Grace Mugabe, will be “a force if President Mugabe is not there”?
It is clear from the drift of these questions that the interviewer’s questions were not merely academic questions to a constitutional law expert. The thread shows that the questions come from a preconceived position, one of wishing to see President Mugabe leave office, even ingloriously.
This may take one back to the script of the offending movie, called “The Interview”, where the US makers of the movie, who are said to have worked with the military intelligence establishment, harbour a morbid fantasy to see the death of the North Korean president. By the way, the US and North Korea have a frosty relationship dating back to the Korean War. In fact, there is no formal diplomatic relationship, as there are no mutual envoys in the two countries.
The US’ interests in North Korea are administered by Sweden. The US has singly, and with the connivance of the UN Security Council, imposed sanctions on North Korea, the latest of which were over an alleged (and unsubstantiated) hacking of Sony, the company that made the offensive movie.
If one were to look at the two incidents, the Sony movie debacle and Gibbs Dube’s job at VOA Studio 7, the fact that these are more than cases of mere bad taste or morbid minds, becomes apparent. It is about regime change in target countries and one can surmise that the US would not want a reciprocal treatment. There are two ways to understand these cases, and especially in Zimbabwe’s case.
Medium is the message
That the “medium is the message” is one of the elementary facts in the study of communication.
In this case there is Hollywood, represented by Sony, which Hollywood as we know is a propaganda and imperialist tool for American culture and policies. This fact has been lately underscored with various commentators pointing out that Hollywood has been used to false-flag war against North Korea, as in other cases, any other cases, involving America and “the others” and “bad guys”.
It has also been often remarked how Americans are so daft and have short memories that they become easy fodder for propaganda, which makes “manufacturing consent” for wars, incessant wars, easy for the establishment.
Coming to VOA, it is less subtle and less glamorous than Hollywood but an out-and-out radio propaganda tool whose content would be illegal in America itself. It was founded during the Second World War and flourished during the Cold War where it sought to, chiefly, influence regime change in Eastern Europe and to a complementary extent, to project the utopia of the “American way of life”.
Ralph A. Uttaro describes VOA as the “‘official’ spokesman of the United States government in the arena of international Short Wave radio”.
In a paper, “The Voices of America in International Radio Propaganda”, Uttaro outlines various models and propaganda tools that the US has employed since 1945 such as Radio Liberty, Radio Free Europe and VOA.
The history of American radio propaganda is interesting and includes such facts as that a quarter of broadcasters are career members of the foreign service (in fact the State Department controls the propaganda) and that the stations are also financed by CIA.
In 1971, the chair of the Council on Foreign Relations averred to the President that, “I submit that these radios be given an opportunity to take their rightful place in the graveyard of Cold War relics.”
Senator Fulbright’s words were ignored.
Uttaro states that, “the zealous effort to promote the American form of government . . . takes the rather presumptuous view that America knows what is best for everyone, and that democracy is universally the most desirable form of government”.
He notes that the broadcasts are illegal at international law, stating: “The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and similar documents authorise the transmission of information and ideas across national boundaries without the consent of the government of the receiving state.”
But this right is not unlimited; the Covenant does not authorise activities violative of the United Nations Charter. The latter provides, in part, that “all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state . . . ”
This is where the argument that Studio 7 and other pirate radio stations are illegal comes in, in the case of Zimbabwe. It is also instructive to note that Studio 7 was set up in Zimbabwe in February 2003 to churn out raw propaganda reminiscent of the Cold War to help regime change in Zimbabwe. Its peer instruments of regime change were the opposition parties, civil society, newspapers and sanctions, all sponsored by America.
A WikiLeaks cable detailing the inaugural visit of VOA Africa programme chief Negussie Mengesha in October 2003 reveals the extent of this regime change nexus.
According to the cable, Mengesha met opposition MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai who “took his hat off to Studio 7” and Mr Sunsleey Chamunorwa, Editor-in-Chief of the independent weekly The Financial Gazette, Mr Bornwell Chakaodza (The Standard) and officials from the Zimbabwe Chapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) and the editorial team of the Media Monitoring Project at a luncheon hosted by USAID.
With these networks, which exist to date, the regime change agenda of the VOA and the purpose of the meetings cannot be gainsaid. It therefore comes as small wonder that VOA Studio 7 fantasises about the incapacitation of President Mugabe.
The second way to look at these events — to feel disgusted by the actions of the US — is to simply take to heart as fact that it is a blood-thirsty nation that thrives on perpetual wars and carnage. Such a country, and ultimately citizens, is bound to fantasise about death and incapacitation of other people.
The bad taste in movies and propaganda is a mere reflection of this sickness.
Online Reporter