THIS week Zimbabwe found itself in the news again after US National Security advisor, Herbert McMaster, informed the media that President Robert Mugabe was part of the ‘exclusive group of dictators’.
Insults hurled at President Mugabe by US officials are nothing new — when there is need by the US to show its strength and power, it takes to attacking smaller nations such as Zimbabwe.
In 2005, Condoleezza Rice called Zimbabwe ‘an outpost of tyranny’.
Nothing highlights the bullying tactics of the US better than the comedy skit I wrote about some months back that was featured on Saturday Night Live.
In the skit, President Donald Trump, having failed to bully countries such as Russia and Mexico, is advised to phone a small country and ‘show them the might of America’. Unfortunately for President Trump, the one country he chooses to call is Zimbabwe and he speaks to President Mugabe who gives him the tongue lashing of his life.
Zimbabwe is unique and America’s foreign policy on our nation is based on the long history that the country and its leadership has had in standing up against Western tyranny.
In fact, if any country deserves the title ‘outpost of tyranny’ it should be the US.
Zimbabwe’s foreign policy objectives are grounded in safeguarding the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity; the protection of its prestige and image; the pursuit of policies that improve the standard of living of all Zimbabweans wherever they are; and the creation and maintenance of an international environment conducive for the attainment of these goals.
In its formative years, Zimbabwe enunciated and followed a policy of ‘active non-alignment’.
In practice, this meant that Zimbabwe usually adhered to positions established by the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM); the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) and now the African Union (AU).
President Mugabe took up Zimbabwe’s seat at the United Nations (UN) in August 1980, stressing in an address to the General Assembly his country’s commitment to non-alignment with either the West or the communist world.
Zimbabwe has always been clear that it values independence, not just of its indigenous people, but also of its neighbours.
This is why Zimbabwe took a particular interest in the quest for independence for Namibia (South-West Africa) from South Africa and went into Mozambique and into the DRC.
As chairman of the front-line states in Southern Africa, Zimbabwe spoke out vigorously against the policies of apartheid in South Africa and frequently called for the imposition of economic sanctions against Pretoria.
Zimbabwe was forced to adapt quickly to a new role as a featured player in the strained politics of the area.
Harare also became the headquarters of the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference (SADCC), an assemblage of nine nations seeking reduced dependency on South Africa by intensified regional co-operation in industrialisation, energy, food distribution and animal disease control.
In November 1982, Zimbabwe was chosen by the OAU to hold one of the non-permanent seats in the UN Security Council for the following two years, which brought it to the centre stage of world events and gave it much-needed experience in international affairs.
In 1986, Zimbabwe was the site of the NAM summit meeting; the then Prime Minister Mugabe became chairman of that organisation, giving both Mugabe and Zimbabwe added international visibility and responsibility.
Zimbabwe has taken an active interest in the activities of the Organ on Politics, Defence and Security Co-operation set up by SADC to deal with inter and intra-state conflict resolution, while recognising the sovereignty and territorial integrity of member states.
Zimbabwe takes pride in this milestone and other institutions and mechanisms that include the SADC Mutual Defence Pact and the formation of the SADC Brigade.
The SADC member-states took the decision to conclude the Mutual Defence Pact on the basis of the principle of collective security. More importantly, this principle promotes the ‘injure one, injure all’ concept which saw the region come to the rescue of the DRC in the 1990s.
The SADC Brigade will not only contribute to peace and security in the region, but the continent as a whole, under the auspices of the African Standby Force.
Zimbabwe has developed and maintains close ties with a number of revolutionary states and organisations including the People’s Republic of China, Cuba, Iran and the Palestine Liberation Organisation.
Zimbabwe fully identifies with the African position or the Ezulwini Consensus on UN reform whose main elements include the allocation to Africa, in the Security Council, of two permanent seats and three more non-permanent seats; and either scrapping of the veto power for all permanent members or extension of the same to all members.
It should be noted here that Africa is the only continent without the veto in the present set up.
It is with this background that one should look at why Zimbabwe remains under the hawkish watch of the US and UK establishments.
The numerous reports, papers and seminars to discuss Zimbabwe are based on the premise that Zimbabwe is not just a principal player in regional, but in Africa’s, politics and unlike other nations, it is willing to put its money where its mouth is.
The various platforms that Zimbabwe, through President Mugabe, has stood up and enunciated that his country would not bow down to Western interference and undemocratic tactics since 1980 are telling of a people who will not accept to be subjugated by the West and its puppets again.