admin
Gibson Nyikadzino Correspondent
Former United States president Donald Trump’s advisor John Bolton last week made some revelations that require an intense contextual interpretation pertaining the US’ disregard for constitutionality in countries whose values are not in sync with those of the US.
Bolton confessed the US’ habit and trend to plan coups that topple leaders who are a hindrance to their ambition. This is part of America’s foreign policy whose footprints are visible and still fresh in the minds of nationalist progressives.
The modus operandi of the CIA has been the same, that is through the financing of illegal protest movements, infiltrate state institutions and collapse them in the middle of chaos.
In 1953, the CIA deposed the popular government of Mohammed Mosaddeq in Iran; in 1954 toppled the government of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala; in 1964 it was Brazil’s turn when the CIA deposed Joao Goulart.
The popular administration of Salvador Allende was toppled by the CIA managed coup in Chile in 1971 and the unfortunate death of Omar Torrijos of Panama in 1981 that was orchestrated by the CIA.
The common denominator in these coups was the idea of “popular protests”, “a people’s uprising” and “nationalist outcry”.
Last week, the chairperson of the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition (CiZC), one Peter Mutasa, made very disturbing remarks ahead of his organisation’s planned protests scheduled for next week. The protests which the CiZC is planning with the coordination of the CCC, are being bankrolled by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), also known as the “second CIA”.
The “second CIA” does the bidding of the US government through “colour revolutions” as what the CCC tried and failed in May through their “Operation Yellow Sting”.
Mutasa, while flanked by representatives of other “civic organisations” that are on the payroll of the “second CIA”, said his organisation “is going to incite people to protest peacefully in the confines of their constitutional rights.”
Mutasa said his organisation is concerned with the harassment of “human rights defenders”.
The word “incite” does not co-exist with the word “peaceful”, they are opposites. To incite means, “to encourage or stir up violent or unlawful behaviour.”
State institutions the world over have always responded to maintain order when people “incite” citizens towards “violent and unlawful behaviour”. In 2018 France used the law enforcement department of the state to restore order after the Yellow Vests protests, which were deemed peaceful, had become violent.
Who are the rights defenders?
There has been a selective application of the term “human rights defenders” in Zimbabwe. For people like Mutasa, “human rights defenders” are defined in the context of looking for more finances and extending the begging bowl to the West.
Did you know that these “human rights defenders” have misappropriated and diverted funds from the “second CIA” for personal use. Some have bought lavish properties in Harare’s low density suburbs while others have built themselves houses through funds meant to help the “vulnerable groups in Zimbabwe.”
This writer asked Mutasa the principle standard used by his coalition to characterise one as a human rights defender. The response was nothing but a commercial bait coming from a nomad surviving on the benevolence of the NED.
CiZC has failed to stand and defend the rights of the millions of Zimbabweans who have been burdened by the woes of the illegal sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe over two decades ago.
Human rights are not defended along partisan lines for they are equated to a religious and spiritual calling where the good shepherd has no discrimination of his flock.
Genuine human rights defenders do not let their services be driven by financial rewards nor do they manipulate the vulnerable to get favours from foreigners.
Soon their demise will be known and their shame will be in public when the list of their properties acquired through malice is made publicised.
Duplicitous nationalists
Over the past 70 years, there has been a progression in the evolution of different generational fighters who genuinely desire to uphold patriotic values of their founding fathers.
The pan-Africanist generation of forebearers like Algeria’s Ben Bella, Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah and Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser made consistent calls for the total emancipation and independence of Africa without bypassing the values of national unity at a micro level in their countries.
After the pan-Africanist generation was the nationalist generation with leaders such as Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, Joshua Nkomo, President Mnangagwa, Zambia’s Kenneth Kaunda, Congo’s Patrice Lumumba and Tanzania’s Julius Mwalimu Nyerere.
Furthermore came the globalist generation, one that started to invoke the desire to return Africa’s independence in the hands of erstwhile colonisers. They values have been detached with objectives of Africa as an instrument of enlightenment against Western oppression.
From this stems the group of the Jonas Savimbi’s and other treacherous Africans who helped the cause of Western resurgence in Africa, not for the benefit of the people, but to attract praise from the Western community as “democrats”, “human rights defenders” and “new nationalists”.
Theirs is a nationalism which is deceitful. For without money or the carrot being dangled, they cannot sacrifice their lives with compassion towards the vulnerable.
Without money, they cannot work to contribute to shaping the national discourse when it comes to food security, industrialisation, women empowerment and family values.
The only satisfaction they have is driven from the “second CIA” describing them as “human rights defenders”, “social justice activists” and “upright men”.
What if
If one reads the October 2001 US Patriotic Act, they will get a full realisation on how the law was used to take away the civil liberties of the people in the name of fighting terrorism.
That law gives the US government the power to tap calls, access emails, stop-and-search and restrict the use of certain words in social circles thus literally taking away a citizens private life.
Equally, the United Kingdom’s Terrorism Act of 2000 has tough provisions too for its selective application of what terrorism is especially when applied along racial lines. For a white Caucasian, any act of terror is expressed through various reasons, but for a Middle East, African or Arab immigrant national, it is as legislated.
It is possible to use legislation to ensure stability to protect the state’s values. What if Zimbabwe accelerated the Private Voluntary Organisations Amendment Bill to finality? What if the government fails to regulate NGOs, how more happy will the “second CIA” become?
What if the government says NGOs should disclose the sources of their funds, will that not ensure accountability and transparency in a sector where some have used the vulnerable to buy properties?
What if the PVO Amendment Bill is not passed, how much chaos will have been created to disrupt our values because of the love of money?
What if foreign funds from NED are being used to institute anarchy and promote unconstitutional behaviour by organisations like the CiZC?
These are questions whose answers are readily available if the government is ready to stop the “second CIA” in its track.
Online Reporter