STEPHEN Sackur, the BBC HARDtalk host was recently in Zimbabwe, clearly on a shameless whirlwind mission to stock-up the dying fires of regime change by re-opening the wounds of civil strife that were sealed by the Unity Accord between ZANU and ZAPU in 1987. Through that Unity Accord, Zimbabwe side-stepped the abyss of foreign-sponsored civil wars into which many post-independent African countries have fallen. And yet, good as that may seem, it is surprisingly something the British ‘champions of good governance’ have not appreciated. And, Stephen Sackur has been the obdurate British voice of discord in a stand-off that has yielded results that have defied all regime change theories which the racists have successfully applied everywhere else around the globe. They have tried to destroy the ZANU PF government from outside and failed. They have tried to destroy it from within a unity government and again failed. They tried to destroy Zimbabwe through non-governmental organisations (NGOs) conspiracies and failed. They tried to destroy it through the ballot box and were humiliated at the July 31 2013 elections. They tried to destroy ZANU through neo-liberals within the party itself and again failed. They tried to destroy it through the regional body, the Southern African Development Community (SADC), but SADC conversely made President Mugabe Chairman, so that if they have to talk to the regional body, they have to do it through him. Then the ‘house nigger’ Barack Obama, hosted virtually all African Union (AU) heads of state in a patronising bid to isolate Mugabe, but the pampered guests surprised their host when came straight from Washington to endorse Cde Robert Mugabe as AU Chairman. And to top it all, the Western-sponsored MDC regime change project has splintered into irreconcilable components. And this is the background against which racist Stephen Sackur comes to tell us that, ‘Zimbabwe is in desperate need of change (because it has) a President who has ruled this country for three-and-a-half decades and who is now aged 91’. And he is arrogantly oblivious that his own 89-year-old head of state, Queen Elizabeth II, was literally born in power and will only be relieved by death and not an electorate. However, what is more interesting to note is Sackur’s intense dislike of Vice-President Emmerson Mnangagwa and curious worry that the war veteran might become president of Zimbabwe (not UK). So too is the simple-minded attempt to use the Matabeleland disturbances to spoil the VP’s political chances. And, his naivety is disturbing in the sense that he self-righteously doesn’t expect the very same Zimbabweans who forgave Rhodesians for the genocide they committed against all black people (Shona and Ndebele included) to also forgive their own errors as they did in the 1987 Unity Accord. In his white supremacist mindset, the 1987 Unity Accord cannot work without British endorsement. Despite being reminded numerous times he obviously has not accepted that ‘Zimbabwe is no longer a British colony.’ Then, there is a question Sackur should not have asked Professor Moyo. He asked: “Do you think anybody in South Africa is prepared to take lectures from a representative of the Mugabe Government when it comes to allegations of violence, of extraordinary repression of people including people of a different ethnicity inside their own country? Is Zimbabwe in any position at all to take moral high ground on this sort of issue (xenophobia)?” It is clear Sackur is deluded by a racist self-righteousness to believe that his audience is still one that is passive to racist BBC propaganda and not one that has read British imperial history and recognised that it’s also a history of unrestrained genocide against all people indigenous to British occupied lands. There is no recognition that globalisation through satellite television is making everyone aware that that genocide has for centuries been an intrinsic part of British foreign policy. Victims of British brutality who were driven to the edges of extinction through wholesale carnage in Africa, America, Asia and Australia, cannot mistake the same patterns of genocide in British-occupied Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. And, Zimbabwe’s only luck this time around has been the all-weather friendship of Russia and China which vetoed NATO’s genocidal intentions. The division of Zimbabwe along tribal lines especially between Shona and Ndebele is a phenomenon upon which British domination of indigenous Zimbabweans was premised right from occupation. The reason Jameson gave for the invasion and conquest of Matabeleland in 1893 was to protect the Shona from ‘Ndebele massacres’ when the same British settlers were busy raping Shona women and girl children (married or single) and dispossessing all Shona people of their land and livestock. In the end, neither Shona nor Ndebele were spared the fate of dispossession and abuse by British settlers. It is also critically important for the Ndebele to know that after the invasion of Matabeleland, the land and the cattle the British invaders confiscated from them were not given to the Shona. This is notwithstanding the indisputable fact that the majority of all the cattle the Ndebele claimed to be theirs had been raided from the Shona. The critical lesson to draw from this fact is that both Shona and Ndebele did not let the issue cloud their reason to recognise their chances of survival were better as Africans acting in unison against the genocidal and predatory racism that informed British imperialism. Thus the First Chimurenga became a successful unity accord precedent destined to inspire the Second Chimurenga. All objective Zimbabweans are also called upon to remember Stephen Sackur’s interview with David Coltart after the formation of the Government of National Unity in 2008. Sackur shamelessly reminded Coltart kuti: “People like you were saying – when the national unity government was formed – white farmers could at least breathe a sigh of relief because you would put a break on the confiscation of land and the wholesale removal of white farmers from their own farms.” This promise made by Coltart to white farmers was in essence to stop the compulsory acquisition of land from white settlers who had killed both Shona and Ndebele people to possess it. Coltart’s own military deployment to Matabeleland during Rhodesia was not a ‘mercy mission’ to save the Ndebele from the Shona, but a mission to exterminate all Ndebele people suspected of supporting their own liberation from Rhodesian tyranny. Coltart’s promise to his white settler kith and kin was to stop the re-distribution of acquired land to both Shona and Ndebele victims of British settler dispossession. The promise was not only to stop the correction of historical imbalances in land ownership in order to empower the Ndebele, but also to keep both Ndebele and Shona permanently disempowered by British settlers. It is therefore important for those who might have entertained Stephen Sackur’s divide and rule mischief to recognise that he is a typical pathological British racist who never puts African issues in their proper historical context in order to justify the high moral ground from which he judges the very same Africans who are the survivors of genocides perpetrated by British settlers in Africa. His sick mind obviously never tells him that the same moral (if it is a moral at all) that he invokes to keep Matabeleland disturbances alive can also be invoked to resurrect Chibondo, Butcher Farm, Nyadzonia, Chimoio, Tembwe, Freedom Camp and Mkushi to make his Rhodesian kith and kin accountable for their sins.