Black critics of Mugabe support white supremacy

Black people around the world are undermined by the black critics of Mugabe. The black critics are supporting white supremacist beliefs that black people:
i. should be denied rights and economic benefits enjoyed by white people;
ii. should support white leadership because of their inferiority.

In general, the Zimbabwean issue is about whether black people can limit the selfish interference of Western elites in their own countries. In particular, it is about black people restoring ownership of their land from white beneficiaries of colonialism. This is a southern African problem because in the region the descendants of colonisers own most of the best land.

Black people should not judge Mugabe's black critics on the basis of their opposition to his violence and 'dictatorship'. The real issue is their relationship to the white supremacist campaign to remove a leader who is in opposition to it. The critics are dangerous because they refuse to openly oppose white supremacy.

Mugabe's violence is not the issue. Violence was needed to remove colonialism in Zimbabwe. No doubt, there were human rights abuses during the struggle. Yet, a key objective was black land ownership. Violence is a natural outcome of white farmers refusing to give up land their descendants stole through violence. The MDC has no problem with violence. But, in no way would British people accept most of their land being owned by non-whites.

Democracy is not the issue. Reporting on the 2002 Presidential elections, the Tanzanian Observer Mission concluded: "The results of the election are the wishes of the people of Zimbabwe." A similar conclusion was reached by missions from Mozambique, Russia, the former OAU, China, Zambia, Malawi, the December 12th Movement from the US, Iran, and Japan. The two missions most quoted in the West were from a Commonwealth group, dominated by white nations, and from opposition MPs in southern Africa, which was funded by the anti-Mugabe European Union. Mugabe's black critics use them as the basis of their 'Mugabe stole the elections' claim.

What is the issue? A massive, covert and overt regime change campaign by white elites. Is it because they love human rights and democracy? This group is lead by Zimbabwean white farmers, white South Africans, right-wing Western politicians and business leaders. This group has the support or acquiescence of white liberals. Some white liberals are fooled. Yet, the politics of the leaders are white supremacist. They share the politics of people who actively opposed the Zimbabwean national struggle.

A network of organisations are leading this campaign. It includes: Zimbabwe Democracy Trust, the Westminster Democracy Foundation, the European Union's Africa Working Group, the London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs, and the US State Department. There are also, of course, Western governments. Their methods are:
- the creation of and financial support of opposition groups
- use of money to turn civil groups into oppositional groups
- use of violence to destablise Zimbabwe and provoke the Government
- crippling the Zimbabwean economy
- a media campaign
- threatening black countries with the withdrawal of financial support.

On 4 August 2002, The Sunday Mail in Harare reported: "…the British government had funded the opposition party to the tune of nearly Zim$10m in the run-up to the parliamentary elections. The opposition party has also confirmed this." The report reveals that the MDC receives financial backing from Germany, Holland, Denmark and the US.

In other words, Western elites have created and funded opposition groups and have sought to undermine the economy to produce more support from Zimbabweans. These elites are engaging in foreign activity that would be unacceptable in their own countries.

The strategy of the black critics is to blind people to any other issue other than Mugabe's human rights abuses. Yet, these are abuses they deliberately provoke. The most charitable view of them is that they are suffering so much from those abuses that they are blind to or do not consider the white supremacist agenda of their allies. But this makes them dangerous fools.
It could be that they are aware of the white supremacy of their allies and have struck a faustian deal them to get rid of someone who is far worse. But if Mugabe were that bad there would be former members of the War Veterans fighting alongside former members of the Rhodesian army to get rid of the 'brutal dictator'.

It could be that their actual alliance is with white liberals. But clearly white supremacists are using white liberals as a respectable front for their colonial ambitions. The black critics still ought to be deliberately distancing themselves from the white supremacists. Yet, none of this is a satisfactory explanation. The reality is that the leaders of the black critics are paid hands of racists. It is the continuing silence of the so-called opposition that proves their complicity in white supremacy.