HomeOld_PostsRegime change agenda...why Zim needs its own version of the Logan Act

Regime change agenda…why Zim needs its own version of the Logan Act

Published on

By Dambudzo Mapuranga and 

Tafadzwa Masango 

ON January 30 1799, the US Congress passed the Logan Act to prevent any individual from corresponding with a foreign Government without permission from the US Government. 

In its present form, the Act, as amended in 1964, reads:

“Any citizen of the US, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the US, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign Government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the US, or to defeat the measures of the US, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

The key elements of this Act are (1) a communication with a foreign Government; (2) without authority of the US; (3) for the purpose of influencing the actions of the foreign Government in relation to a dispute with the US or of defeating US policy.

In modern times, while there have been no prosecutions under the Act, the Act has occasionally been raised in foreign policy disputes, often involving diplomacy in tension with the official foreign policy of the president by members of Congress or other prominent personalities. 

For example, in 1975, Senators McGovern and Sparkman travelled to Cuba to meet with Cuban Government officials, prompting a discussion of possible Logan Act violations. 

In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan invoked the Logan Act in criticising unauthorised diplomatic efforts by Jesse Jackson (a private citizen) regarding Cuba and Jim Wright (the Speaker of the House of Representatives) regarding Nicaragua. 

More recently, some commentators objected on Logan Act grounds when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi travelled to Syria in 2007 to meet with Syrian President Assad, and other commentators raised Logan Act objections to a 2015 letter addressed to the government of Iran by a group of Republican Senators regarding the Barack Obama administration’s pending negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme. 

No moves to prosecute were made in any of these instances. 

In the McGovern/Sparkman episode, the US State Department concluded that no violation had occurred; in part because the Department concluded the Senators were acting in pursuance of their official legislative duties.

When it dawned on Western governments, the Americans in particular, that military attacks and intelligence operations through the use of the CIA were becoming highly unpopular in the US, the US establishment had to come up with less controversial means to maintain its global dominance. 

This led to a shift from shooting warfare to a psychological, economic and political warfare as a means of removing governments that were unfavourable to US interests. 

Soft power, as it is called, harnesses intangible resources such as culture, ideology and institutions to further the regime change agenda. 

Soft power enlists international and regional institutions to do the bidding on behalf of the US Government and its allies. 

Soft power seeks to hide the involvement of the US in the act, preferring instead to act through proxies like NGOs and CSOs which have been created for that particular purpose. 

To make the deception complete and to operate less suspiciously and in a more subtle manner, international NGOs are formed and remain headquartered in Western capitals, while local and regional NGOs are set up and pretend to be promoting a local agenda. 

These NGOs feign independence from foreign control. However, their day-to-day activities promote a foreign agenda as instructed and supervised by their creators and sponsors. 

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is a hybrid organisaton which, according to researchers James Ciment and Immanuel Ness, was devised to, “…eliminate stigma associated with CIA covert activities in the wake of Watergate and the Church Committee… it is a master piece of politics, of public relations and of cynicism; in effect allowing the CIA to launder money.” 

Quoted by the Washington Post of September 22 1991, then NED founding and acting president Allen Weinstein said: “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” 

The collusion of unpatriotic Zimbabweans with the architects of the regime change agenda is not only well-known, but well-documented. 

NED has been one of the chief financiers of various ‘democratisation’ NGOs and CSOs in Zimbabwe. 

Much like Judas’ 30 pieces of silver, those who have received funding from NED have done so knowing fully well that they are selling out their country.  

In July 2007, Dave Peterson, a senior director of the NED Africa Programme, informed the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations  Subcommittee on African Affairs that, in Zimbabwe, NED had been, “…successful in building a strong and vital programme of support to civil society, including the media, political parties and trade unions.” 

Specifically, in respect of the ZCTU, Peterson described it as, “…arguably the leading institution of civil society in Zimbabwe.”

As early as 2003, George Soros wanted ZANU PF removed from power. 

In a paper titled ‘America’s global Rule’, Soros said: “I would like to see regime change in many other places. 

I am particularly concerned about Zimbabwe where the regime is going from bad to worse.” 

To fulfill his wish for Zimbabwe, Soros enlisted the services of a team of Zimbabweans led by Dr Reginald Matchaba-Hove. 

Dr Matchaba-Hove was the regional chairman of Soros’ Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa, and the ‘democratisation’ CSO, Zimbabwe Election Support Network (ZESN), which have, over the years, become some of the most active in the regime change push. 

Prior to 1999, Dr Matchaba-Hove was chairman of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Association. 

He also served on the Steering Committee of the World Movement for Democracy, was a Trustee of the Southern African Trust and a member of the Management Committee of the African Development Forum. 

The one thing all these organisations have in common is that they are part of the NED ‘family’ of institutions set-up by the US to effect regime change in Zimbabwe.

It is important to note that, in his heyday, Dr Matchaba-Hove worked closely with ZINASU at the height of its ‘effectiveness’ as a violent critic of Government in the 1990s. 

This is the ZINASU that included the likes of Nelson Chamisa, Learnmore Jongwe and Brian Kagoro who were part of an inner team that organised the Union’s violent demonstration of June 1998 which resulted in massive destruction of ZUPCO buses, private vehicles and damaged a series of buildings in Zimbabwe. 

Interestingly, we have seen ZINASU reorganising itself and morphing into the new leadership in the MDC opposition party. One can only begin to guess what sort of violence and destruction is being planned by these young men and women who, if utterances by former ZINASU secretary-general Job Sikhala are to go by, all they can think of is overthrowing, destroying, burning and looting. 

I would challenge anyone to pinpoint anything positive that ZINASU did for students of this country. 

All they can account for is a trail of destroyed property, the number of refrigerators they urinated in at the University of Zimbabwe and the grooming of a fifth column of quisling politicians who, today, run our cities and chant obscenities in our Parliament, while stoking violence at rallies. 

The story behind ZINASU is that it was never intended to be a constructive student organisation. 

ZINASU was formed by the local US Embassy in 1986

for the sole purpose of destabilising ZANU PF with the ultimate objective of regime change. 

ZINASU became a major training forum for opposition and resistance politics which eventually grew to be a pillar of the regime change movement in the country. 

A US Government report prepared by the State Department and titled, Zimbabwe 2007 Performance Report reads: “Youth organisations like the Zimbabwe National Students Union and Youth Initiatives for Democracy in Zimbabwe are two good examples of …civil society organiations that were nurtured through US funding from an idea to a level where they are able to stand on their own and attract other funders.”

Among some of these local facilitators of regime change are Isabella Matambanadzo and Deprose Muchena. On September 18 2007, the pair briefed a gathering of Americans involved on the project to remove the ZANU PF Government from power on the ‘situation in Zimbabwe’. 

The event was jointly organised by NED and Soros’ OSI and titled ‘Zimbabwe, an update from the Ground’. 

Basically, it was a report back on what local CSOs, activists and the opposition were doing in pursuit of the regime change agenda, the challenges, successes and to map a way forward. More importantly, it was to drum up more funds for all the locals involved, given they were ‘always under threat from Government’. 

Matambanadzo, once again, surfaced as the face of Richard Branson’s Enterprise Zimbabwe, which was launched on  September 22 2010. 

Enterprise Zimbabwe, according to Branson, would work with the late Morgan Tsvangirai and not necessarily with the Zimbabwean Government to, ‘help the economy thrive again’. How one can work with an opposition figure without the participation of Government to improve the economy remains a mystery. 

What is obvious is that this was just another tactic of channelling funds to the opposition because, nowhere can one testify that this so-called ‘Enterprise’ improved the economy generally, or point to a single ordinary Zimbabwean who benefitted from this scheme. 

Over the years, we have heard so many statements and reports produced by Human Rights Watch (HRW) concerning the ‘Zimbabwe Situation’. 

HRW has been on the forefront of demonising Zimbabwe. 

What many have failed to realise is that HRW is just another special project of the US establishment. 

It is a joint venture between Soros and the US State Department. 

Its funders include Soros, Aaron Diamond Foundation, the Ford Foundation, Novib, Oxfam and the Rockefeller Foundation. 

At one time, Soros had, on the HRW board, his personal tax lawyer, while Peter Osnos (the chairman) was his publisher and CEO of Public Affairs Publishers. 

The other members of the Board usually consist of  ex-intelligence officers, diplomats and former civil servants. 

Their goal – regime change, Zimbabwe included!


LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest articles

Kariba Municipality commits to President’s service delivery blueprint

By Kundai Marunya IT is rare to find opposition-controlled urban councils throwing their weight on...

The resurgence of Theileriosis in 2024 

THE issues of global changes, climate change and tick-borne diseases cannot be ignored, given...

Britain haunted by its hostile policy on Zimbabwe

TWO critical lessons drawn from the recent debate on Zimbabwe in the British House...

The contentious issue of race

 By Nthungo YaAfrika AS much as Africans would want to have closure to many of...

More like this

Kariba Municipality commits to President’s service delivery blueprint

By Kundai Marunya IT is rare to find opposition-controlled urban councils throwing their weight on...

The resurgence of Theileriosis in 2024 

THE issues of global changes, climate change and tick-borne diseases cannot be ignored, given...

Britain haunted by its hostile policy on Zimbabwe

TWO critical lessons drawn from the recent debate on Zimbabwe in the British House...

Discover more from Celebrating Being Zimbabwean

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading