Here is my candid question, directed at the United Nations organization, but more so, at Britain, as directly responsible for the Zimbabwean situation. Zimbabwean people’s lives are influenced by Britain, including the prevailing endemic corruption. Smith’s Rhodesia Front committed severe human rights violations in a space of about fifteen years. ZANU PF has similarly committed those same violations, in the last forty-three years.
What I find more significant is casting our focus on the duplicity of the British government, more than any other entity in this world. Rhodesia Front was given punitive sanctions, lasting for fifteen years. Does this mean the RF government’s brutalities were worse than those committed by ZANU PF? This is when considering that ZANU PF is currently under targeted sanctions, if any, compared to sanctions imposed against Ian Smith’s RF.
Without any doubt, ZANU PF carries more documented atrocities than Ian Smith’s RF. What does this mean for the Zimbabwean people, carrying the brunt of ZANU PF’s misrule, for the last forty years? This was under the watchful eye of the accredited UN organization. Is this not a classic example of Britain having not benefitted much from Smith’s government? Hence, punishing Rhodesia by advocating for UN sanctions?
This is in light of the fact that Britain has not commented on the recently exposed gold Mafia scandal by Aljazeera. One assumes that Britain is obviously benefitting from such stinky activities. But, at the same time, the voices that have come from our neighbouring countries are more for the condemnation of the sanctions against ZANU PF, more than the condemnation of human rights violations.
Is it, not time that the truth should be told? Are the decried sanctions by SADC more severe than those imposed on Ian Smith? Who is benefitting from the token sanctions imposed against ZANU PF? My own observation is that those imposing those sanctions are benefitting more than ordinary Zimbabweans. To them, the corrupt deals, exposed by Aljazeera, are more important, as found to be sustaining other SADC countries’ economies. It is sad that our trusted academics seem unaware of such realities. The excuse for engaging in corrupt activities is the illegal sanctions imposed by the West, according to the ZANU PF narrative.
In the early days of the Zimbabwe government, Robert Mugabe was considered patriotic and non-racist. But Mugabe punished the Zimbabwean people more than Ian Smith, through his Gukurahundi escapades. Does this mean the world is blind to such realities? The butchering of the people of Matabeleland did not matter much to Britain. I suppose they would have considered that genocidal escapade more serious if carried out by Ian Smith. That brings me to the point of my concern about the much-loved beautiful country of Britain.