What is the role of the UN?

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.

Story pin image

In this world there cannot be anything wickeder than propaganda. Wars are waged as a result of propaganda. Truth is suppressed and propaganda is highlighted more than anything else. I find newspapers complicit, when only always highlighting scandalous activities. The newsman is interested in promoting chaos, only for the reason that people, ordinarily; enjoy buying newspapers with scandalous activities.

Smith’s government was declared racist and unpatriotic. But the statistical records show that the Rhodesian government had the most ethical government, sustaining the economy of this country. Obviously, without war, the blacks would have benefited more, from that racist government. There is nothing hidden about that reality, to the objective thinkers. This is just as there is nothing hidden about ZANU PF having systematically destroyed this country. It is unnecessary to debate about things that are obvious and observed by the sane people.

Economically, Zimbabwe is potentially better than most of the European countries. The only poison is ZANU PF.  Most Zimbabwean people are yet to be awakened to appreciate how toxic a thing called ZANU PF is. Britain knows that the removal of ZANU PF would be a threat to their economy. Hence they facilitated the coup to topple Mugabe, for Mnangagwa. Mugabe’s sin had then been to take land from the white farmers.

I may not have been an advocate of the farm inversions, but it exposed the duplicity of British policies, on human rights. Nothing was wrong when Mugabe was massacring the Ndebeles. But, to them, something became very wrong, when Mugabe suddenly took land from the white farmers?

Because of propaganda, most of our people could not understand that reality. Instead, they remain in assuming that Munangagwa is an enemy of Britain, and not the enemy of the Zimbabwean people. They are fooled, by propaganda, where the so-called sanctions mantra is projected as if more wicked than the gold mafia, for instance.

If Britain really cared about human rights issues, as always assumed, they would have advocated for punishing ZANU PF, similarly to how they advocated for sanctions against Ian Smith’s regime. The Rhodesian sanctions were more real; than the current token sanctions, that ZANU PF would like us to believe that theirs are more severe than those imposed on Smith. The truth remains in that Britain can never treat their preferred man, ED Mnangagwa, badly.

Through the corrupt activities of Mnangagwa, the British economy is sustained, at the detriment of Zimbabwean economy.  They conveniently choose to view Mnangagwa as better than Ian Smith; because they know which side their bread is buttered. Zimbabwe is generally, a peace-loving country with peaceful people, except that it is cursed with ZANU PF.

This truth remains hidden to the majority of our people, until after the removal of ZANU PF, by God’s grace. I say by God’s grace, as I am not yet convinced that ZANU PF will accept defeat in the forth coming elections. They would rather plunge the country into another DRC. Mark my word. This would be the most welcome news to Britain.

In mentioning ZANU PF, I am aware that the party is sustained by a spiritual system that glues ignorant people into its structures. Most of those people are enslaved, but being unaware. Only a few, probably less than ten, are in control of the ZANU PF party. The rest of those supporters are either beneficiaries or manipulated by those in authority, out of ignorance. They are fed with lies, which they believe without question.

If the economies of the Western countries are strong, it is all because of the benefits received from the autocratic rulers of Africa. This includes benefits from chaotic situations where looting of mineral resources are rampant, at the expense of the victims of such wars. The warmongers benefit more under the disguise of the assumed peace-keeping activities.

Without knowing the source of troubles, Africa remains accursed. However, the African problems are neither caused by the skin-color, or by looters, necessarily. The endemic African problem is ignorance. Though, ignorance is not problematic, per se, as long as aware of being ignorant.

The cause of problems among the naïve humanity is the assumption of knowing what one would be ignorant on. There is comfort in assuming to know when a person doesn’t know. But that is where the hidden danger lies. Everything changes for the better, as soon as an ignorant person realizes his condition of ignorance.

Does the United Nations feel bothered about African problems, or they are racially selective? The highlighted ignorance is assumed to be focused on oppressed African people. But those sitting in the glory of being world leaders are equally, exposed to danger. History has it that Rome, basking in the glory of supremacy for many centuries, were brought to their demise by barbarians. Under complacency, the Romans assumed to be secure only to be surprised by the barbarians.

The lives of human beings are interlinked, regardless of race. Hence, the golden law insists on treating other fellow humans as one likes to be treated. Zimbabwe is poised to an unclear destiny. What is currently viewed as an African problem will soon become a global problem. Thanks to the lackadaisical analysis by the influential people. If Zimbabwe degenerates further, the entire world equally becomes accursed. However, if Zimbabwe succeeds, the entire world would also carry some hope.

There must have been some hope for humanity, when the UN Charter on human rights was enacted. The only problem lies in failure to have a powerful enforcer to put order, across the world. The secretary general seems incapacitated, due to the considered powerful nations blatantly violating the UN Charter. Why is it considered difficult to confront those violating the UN Charter, when such people would also be signatories?

Without workable mechanisms to handle the violations of the Charter, the world remains accursed. For instance, when the former president of USA, George Bush and his friend, Tony Blair, violated the Charter, the UN did not confront them. Why? Hence, it becomes difficult to enforce it on Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. This is what spells limitations on UN.

In 1979, Dr. Edison Zvobgo pointed out that sanctions should be imposed on human rights violators. However, his own party, ZANU PF went on to do just that, as early as 1982, after gaining power. The UN ignored; yet having summarily agreed with Dr Zvobgo’s declaration.

The Gukurahundi atrocities remain unhandled by the UN, notwithstanding many lives lost. Was the UN quietness considered as an act of promoting peace? To me this was an oversight, obviously leading the world on a wrong trajectory. The UN provisions are poised to become meaningless.

Some countries take comfort in violating their own constitutions, thereby promoting lawlessness, setting wrong precedence. The violation of the constitution should never be allowed, regardless of how convenient that might appear to be. The state of lawlessness is too precarious to imagine, as subscribing to anarchy.

Currently, the provisions of the UN Charter are as good as non-existent. Zimbabwe is on its own—at its moment of desperation. The Zimbabwean People do not have recourse, under a highly oppressive regime. Powerful nations do not see urgency, where black people’s rights are violated. To them, it is only their interests that need protection.

Imposing sanctions against Ian Smith was of interest to Britain, as Britain would not get anything from an efficiently run government. It cannot be in the interest of Britain to antagonize Mnangagwa, whose corruption bears British interests. Nothing is exciting, for normal people under the current environment. Wealth is considered more important than human lives.

The degeneration of human rights in Zimbabwe leaves everyone without hope, including the perpetrators. But this also negatively affects the neighboring countries, although experiencing high profits in business, promoted by the unproductive Zimbabwe. Those countries will eventually experience the effects of lawlessness from an anarchical Zimbabwe.

The objectives of SADC are disregarded, similarly to how UN provisions are disregarded. We live in an extremely careless world, unaware of the consequences of carelessness. Human beings were never created to live like animals. Zimbabweans are in this situation, also, only because they failed to take responsibility, even before the year 1980.

There is a narrative that Britain decided to ensure Robert Mugabe’s ascension, viewed as would protect their interests. But, had Zimbabweans, taken time to analyze Mugabe’s credentials, due diligence would have been exercised, by many? It ought to have been the interest of every Zimbabwean to choose the right person, even at that time.

Why did the Lancaster House adopt the idea of dividing Zimbabweans according to race? Was this designed to help Zimbabweans to prosper, or aimed at causing their demise? The insanity of the Lancaster House was not intended to address Zimbabwean problems. Why were the white people considered special, as to be allowed to have their own special electoral voting. How more could Britain have been racist?

Was there a special reason for that arrangement? As an independent analyst, I still maintain that Britain, wrongfully took credit in seemingly solving the Zimbabwean situation. When considering that the guerillas received their weaponry from Russia, it would have been most appropriate for Britain to include them at the negotiating table. The PF was sold a dummy, by the British government.

The winner was, actually, not the Zimbabwean people, nor the Rhodesians. The winner was Margret Thatcher and her racist government. They pulled wool on the Zimbabwean people’s faces. I remember, even Ian Smith being surprised that the new leaders displayed having fought, only to be in power, and nothing more.

Ian Smith died a disappointed person. He had a better vision for this country than those who died seeking to liberate the Zimbabwean people. I suppose, the stupidity of Muzorewa, like Mwonzora, was his failure to independently articulate his own vision for Zimbabwe. He was viewed as relying on Smith’s documented vision, yet seemingly unwilling to take that position. He sought to grab black support, but without integrity.

Andrew Masuku is the author of Dimensions of a New Civilization, laying down standards for uplifting Zimbabwe from the current state of economic depression into a model for other nations worldwide. A decaying tree provides an opportunity for a blossoming sprout. Written from a Christian perspective, the book is a product of inspiration, bringing relief to those having witnessed the strings of unworkable solutions––leading to the current economic and social decay. Most Zimbabweans should find the book as a long-awaited providential oasis of hope, in a simple conversational tone.

The Print copy is now available at Amazon.com for $13.99

Also available as an e-copy at Lulu.com  for $6.99