Friday, April 6, 2007

US confirms sponsoring Zimbabwe opposition

The story below confirms what we have always said but we were told that we were daydreaming. Now the United States have confirmed voluntarily. Going into an election year, this will inflict a deadly blow for the Western controlled opposition...just like that infamous CNN video footage where Morgan Tsvangirai was captured receiving "donations".

By Staff Reporter, NewZimbabwe.com
Last updated: 04/06/2007 11:20:01

THE United States government has acknowledged that it sponsors public events in Zimbabwe aimed at undermining the country's president, Robert Mugabe, in tactics it says are aimed at creating a more level political playing field.In its annual report on supporting democracy worldwide, the US State Department said its strategy for Zimbabwe also included steps to "support persons who criticised the government." More...

Article courtesy of Newzimbabwe.com

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

The MDC officially now represent the USA and UK governments and not the people of Zimbabwe. Tsvangirai becomes the new Bishop Muzorewa. Do Zimbabwe want another Iraq in Africa? or another Jonas Savimbi or Moboto Tseseko (DRC) who represented the USA/UK

Kuthula said...

Its very unfortunate! We have been taken back to the pre-independence era. And in all this when we said that some people were selling out, we were treated as idiots saying things we do not know. Now their own backers have exposed them!!

Anonymous said...

Do you know that at one time ZANU PF received funding from the British? Specifically the late Dr Zvobgo confirmed that he received £14 000 from Tinny Rowland, I cannot remember exactly what year it was. They also continue to receive financial assistance from China up to this date. As much as I do not like the Americans for their flawed foreign policy, I think it would be unfair to blame some blame some people for accepting foreign gifts when everyone else is in fact receiving of similar gifts. I understand that the Nordic countries, particularly Sweden gave material support to ZANLA combatants (Tongogara confirmed it), are you suggesting that it was wrong to accept gifts from capitalists or is it just the UK and America you are worried about?

Kuthula said...

I think we need to be very clear about funding. It was ok to get assistance from the other countries because they were helping ZIMBABWEANS rid themselves of a group of illegitimate foreigners who had COLONISED the natives of Zimbabwe and were unleashing brutality. This was done under international law. The UN Charter officially recognised our struggle as legitimate.
In fact, just as the British should fund the land reform, they had the obligation to undo their mess that they created when they unleashed Cecil John Rhodes. They had an obligation to assist us eliminate their menace.
Yes, Zvobvo could have got 14 000 pounds (I don’t have the pound sign, lol) but in your outline, we do not know what it was for and when that was because knowing the details would help us understand the details of the case. To just say he received 14 000 pounds and it was wrong would be a mistake. Remember, when we discuss this issue we have to look at it within the framework of laws such as the 1992 Political Parties (Finances) Act as well the Vienna Convention or even the UN Charter. So it’s not a matter that if you just give money then you must be crucified. Rather, we need to understand the nitty gritties within a particular framework in order to carefully conclude.
But in the case of America, they are clearly violating the rules of international cooperation bordering on the illegal. They have long since torn the Vienna Convention to shreds; they have long burnt the UN Charter and threw its ashes in the sea. That is problematic. All these acts are against a legally recognised government representing the interests of Zimbabwe. In this case, it’s not us who are targeting UK or US; they are the ones setting themselves up for criticism. In fact, its not only these two governments but also other Western government acting under the Common Policy Position, which binds them together. It’s just that the UK and US seem to be the protagonists here.