THERE is no need for Zimbabweans to be excited about the possible outcome of the US presidential elections on November 8 because neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton deserves the tag ‘better devil’.
For, though Clinton and Trump might differ in their rhetoric, their foreign policy towards Third World countries, Zimbabwe in particular, has already been shaped over decades.
In the US, the attitude of those who govern towards African Americans is still influenced by the slave-master mentality.
Racist killings of blacks continue as most blacks remain confined to the ghettos and a good number locked up in jails,
In recent years, we thought we might see significant changes with the coming on board of the first black American President – a first generation son of a Kenyan father.
But as Barack Obama winds up his second four-year term, we are rudely reminded of the truism that white American interests dictate American policy towards Africa in general and Zimbabwe in particular.
The complexion of the executive president is immaterial.
About Obama, former Zambia Vice-President Guy Scott was spot on when he said: “Most people call him an American African instead of African-American.”
If he was not able to change the plight of blacks who had helped vote him into power in America, it would be naive of Africa to have expected him to do anything remarkable for the continent.
Let alone Zimbabwe.
Like Obama and George Bush, immediate presidents before them, neither Clinton nor Bush would in any way be moved by the devastating effects of sanctions on Zimbabweans.
If a black president would not forgive President Robert Mugabe for taking land from whites in order to redistribute it among impoverished black victims of colonial racism, what miracle could be expected from Clinton or Trump!
After all, the little Clinton and Trump know about Zimbabwe is that those whites who lost their farms are their kith and kin.
‘Blood is thicker than water’, so goes the saying that has become the cornerstone of American racism whether it is practised by a female or billionaire American president.
There is therefore no reason for excitement for Zimbabweans over who will be the next guest at White House.
Both are known advocates of the regime change, not only in Zimbabwe, but on the African continent, while at the same time they preach democracy.
Clinton ululated when Libyan President was killed at the instigation of America and its Western allies, just because of the oil wealth Muammar Gaddafi was equitably distributing to his people.
Already Trump has promised to bring about regime change in Uganda and Zimbabwe.
Both these prospective presidents are drunk with American waning power and see themselves as tin gods vis-a-vis Africa
That is why Zimbabweans shouldn’t be overly concerned about the November 8 poll results.
What is gratifying, however, is that the world order is rapidly changing, denying the US the unipolar status it thought it had achieved with the demise of the Soviet Union.
Economic groupings like BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) have emerged ready to challenge American-controlled IMF and World Bank.
This has greatly compromised America’s bullying powers to armtwist smaller countries like Zimbabwe into submission.
Because the US seems to be having so much on its hands, it no longer has that unrestrained power to effect regime change willy-nilly.
No wonder President Rodrigo Duterte of ‘little’ Phillipines recently had the courage to tell Obama ‘to go to hell’, as his country would get the weapons the US was reluctant to sell from Russia and China.
That is why, for Zimbabwe and other countries, the US presidential election of November 8 is a non-event.