The recent violence in Yemen, which has included a fairly substantial Saudi military cross-border operation, should not confused with al-Qa’idah operations on the Arabian Peninsula. It is true that there area many al-Qa’idah operatives in Yemen - they have relocated to the weakly-governed country from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. However, the group operating on the Saudi border are not al-Qa’idah - in fact, they are radically different. Bad guys, to be sure, just not of the al-Qa’idah ilk.

These are the Huthis, named for the now-dead leader of the group, Husayn Badr al-Din al-Huthi. This group first appeared in 2004 when they began a series of protests against the government in Sana’ for its cooperation (little as its has been) with the United States in the war on terror. Al-Huthi was killed in the initial uprising.

What is unique about the Huthis is that they are Shi’a Muslims. Most of the population of Yemen are Sunnis, as are virtually all members of al-Qa’idah. There is no apparent cooperation between the Huthis and al-Qa’idah. However, there are indications that the Huthis are being supported by another terrorist organization - the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. In late October, Yemen claims to have intercepted a ship carrying Iranian weapons to the Huthis. This makes sense - the Iranians are noted for supporting Shi’a groups - Hizballah is the prime example.

It should be noted that the Huthis follow a different Shi’a tradition than the Iranians. Iranians are overwhelmingly “Twelver” Shi’a, in other words, they believe in the succession of Muhammad through 12 imams. The Huthis are Zaydis, sometimes referred to “Fiver” Shi’a since they believe in the succession of Muhammad through the first five imams. The fifth imam was Zayd ibn ‘Ali (hence the descriptor “Zaydi”), the great great grandson of the prophet Muhammad - most Zaydis live in Yemen.

That said, it is plausible for the Iranians to be assisting the Huthis. Wherever there are Shi’a militants, there seems to be Iranian support. The Yemeni government has accused the Iranians of providing weapons to the group via Eritrea, as well as moving Hizballah militants from Lebanon. Last week, Iran announced that it was deploying warships to the Gulf of Aden supposedly to join in the fight against Somali pirates operating in the region. One could make the case that they are actually there to support the Huthis.

Realistically, what do the mullahs in Tehran hope to gain by supporting the Huthis in Yemen? Are they hoping to create a Shi’a state on the Arabian Peninsula? Are they hoping to overthrow the government of ‘Ali ‘Abdullah Salih? Perhaps they want to lessen Salih’s alleged (I use that word for a reason) cooperation with the United States in the war on terror?

None of those are the primary reason for Iranian interference in Yemeni affairs. It has to do with Yemen’s neighbor to the north, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Iran and Saudi Arabia have longstanding animosity on several levels. Both nations sit astride the Persian Gulf - Saudi Arabia to the west, Iran to the east. The Iranians, who are mostly ethnic Persians, believe it is called the “Persian” Gulf for a reason. In contrast, the Arabs refer to it as the Arab Gulf, and it is written that way on maps printed in the Arab world. Most of us who have to deal with the Arabs simply refer to it as al-khalij - “The Gulf.”

The Huthis have been active along the Saudi border, at times crossing into Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have reacted militarily, moving warships into the Red Sea to interdict the arms route from Eritrea. They have also conducted air strikes into northern Yemen and moved ground forces into the area. They have pledged to continue their military operations against the Huthis until the Huthis withdraw from a 10-kilometer security strip inside Yemen. At least six Saudi soldiers have been killed in the fighting.

If Iran is in fact supporting the Huthis as the Yemeni government claims, it may be trying to cause problems for Saudi Arabia. This comes at a time when the world is beginning to seriously focus on Iran’s nuclear program. It may be an attempt to divert some attention from that issue, or it may be an attempt to convince Saudi Arabia not to support the American position on that issue.

Bottom line: It won’t work. Many people care about the Iranian nuclear issue. Few people care about a group of Shi’a rebels in the mountains of Yemen.

Abayomi Azikiwe, editor of the Pan-African News Wire, addressing the "African-Americans Speak Out for Palestine" forum on January 31, 2009 in Detroit. (Photo: Alan Pollock)
Originally uploaded by Pan-African News Wire File Photos

China-Africa Summit in Egypt Hailed as Success

$US10 billion pledged by PRC to assist agricultural and other development projects

By Abayomi Azikiwe
Editor, Pan-African News Wire
News Analysis

A new chapter in relations between the People’s Republic China (PRC) and the African continent began during the recently held 4th Ministerial Conference of the China-Africa Cooperation Forum (FOCAC) which was held between November 6-9 in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh. During the summit Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao announced eight new measures to enhance partnerships with 53 African states in the areas of agriculture, debt relief, market access expansion, climate change, medical affairs, education, environmental protection and promotion of investment.

The summit was addressed by Premier Wen and was also attended by the Chinese Commerce Minister Chen Deming. Wen said that Beijing is “committed to…going all-out to assist African countries in improving their agricultural production and infrastructure.” (South African Mail & Guardian, November 9)

According to a statement made by Premier Wen, “The Chinese people cherish sincere friendship toward the African people, and China’s support to Africa’s development is concrete and real. We will help Africa build financing capabilities. We will provide $10 billion for Africa in concessional loans.” (Money Morning, November 10)

This summit in Sharm el-Sheikh is a continuation of the 2006 meeting which was held in Beijing. Economic cooperation between the PRC and the African continent has accelerated in recent years.

During 2008, China exceeded the United States in becoming the largest trading partner with Africa. Total trade between Beijing and the African continent totaled $107 billion. This represents a tenfold increase since 2000.

The Chinese oil industry has announced plans to invest $16 billion in efforts to boost its imports from Africa. The Chinese state-owned company, CNOOC Ltd, is conducting negotiations with Nigeria to purchase 6 billion barrels of oil, which would total over 17 percent of the West African nation’s reserves.

This deal, if approved, could generate $30-50 billion in revenue for Nigeria. Other trade relations between China and Africa involves the importation of large supplies of gold, silver, copper, cobalt, bauxite, iron ore and nickel.

In his statement to the summit, Premier Wen stated in part that “The rapidly growing relations and cooperation between China and Africa have attracted the world’s attention in recent years. I would like to point out that it was not just few years ago that China suddenly started its presence in Africa or Africa started its support for China.” (Xinhuanet.com, November 9)

Premier Wen continued by discussing the shared history between the peoples of Africa and China in the struggle against foreign domination and exploitation. He stressed that “As early as in the 1950s and 60s, China and Africa fought shoulder to shoulder in the historic struggle against imperialism, colonialism and hegemony and worked side by side in the hard endeavor to revive our respective national economies.”

China Provides Viable Alternative to Relations With the West

During the same time period that the FOCAC summit was taking place in Egypt, there was a ministerial meeting held between the finance ministers of the Group of 20 in Scotland. The G20, which is dominated by the capitalist of the West and Japan, has failed to honor the promises made to the African continent over the last three years.

At the previous G20 meeting held in Pittsburgh during early October, it was noted by various African states that the economic grouping has not honored its pledges to work seriously towards the alleviation of underdevelopment on the continent. In fact, over the last two years as a result of the global economic crisis, over 50 million people in Africa have been thrust into poverty.

According to Money Morning managing editor Jason Simpkins, “While U.S. and European officials this weekend squabbled over the specifics of an economic recovery plan, China took another step to ensure long-term economic growth by inking another multibillion dollar deal with Africa.” (Morning Money, November 10)

Also Daragh Maher, deputy head of global foreign exchange strategy at Calyon Credit Agricole, said that “The G20 meeting failed to deliver any real specifics as to how it intended to rebalance the global economy, suggesting the drift in the dollar is not likely to be addressed on a coordinated basis.” (Associated Press, November 10)

In contrast to these developments in the capitalist states, China has been successful in implementing its economic stimulus program that has resulted in significant results. “Indeed, China has found exceptional economic growth at a time when most of the Western world is struggling back from the brink. A continent rich in commodities, which have been skyrocketing in value, Africa is integral to China’s plans for sustained growth.” (Money Morning, November 10)

Nonetheless, the imperialist states and its allies have attempted to distort the nature of China’s economic and political relationships with various African states. In a statement issued by the right-wing Heritage Foundation, it claims that the PRC “aids and abets oppressive and destitute African dictatorships by legitimizing their misguided policies and praising their development models as suited to individual national conditions.”

The Pentagon has criticized the $7 billion in arm exports to the oil-rich nation of Sudan between 2003-2007 as evidence of China’s support of African states that have been criticized and targeted for destabilization by the United States. Zimbabwe has also benefitted from political and economic support from China and the U.S. has often cited this as an indication that Beijing’s intentions in Africa are not genuine.

Both Presidents Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan were present at the FOCAC summit in Sharm el-Sheikh. In contrast to the statements made by the Heritage Foundation, Zimbabwe hailed the fourth ministerial meeting of FOCAC as a “very successful meeting.” (Zimbabwe Herald, November 11)

After the Zimbabwe delegation returned from Sharm el-Sheikh, Foreign Affairs Minister Simbarashe Mumbengegwi, who accompanied President Robert Mugabe to Egypt, said that “It was a very successful meeting and we are pleased with the manner in which cooperation between Africa and China is developing.”

The Zimbabwe Foreign Affairs Minister continued by saying “At the last summit in Beijing in 2006, China pledged to assist in a number of ways and so far 95 percent of those promises have been fulfilled. We are confident that by the end of the year all the targets will have been met.” (Herald, November 11)

President Mugabe and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao held talks on November 7 in Egypt where they agreed on establishing a new development package for Zimbabwe which has been under western imperialist imposed sanctions since 2000. Zimbabwe came under attack after it enacted a reform program that returned significant land holdings to the African people. This land had been seized by the British colonialists during the 1890s.

In President Mugabe’s address to the FOCAC summit in Sharm el-Sheikh on November 8, he said that China’s cooperation with Africa provides the best model for relations between states in the economic, political and cultural spheres. Mugabe praised China-Africa partnerships stating that Beijing had built a strong economy without engaging in looting and plundering of the developing world as the West has done for centuries. (Xinhuanet, November 11)

Sala saunters in the red soil, her wrinkled skin glistening in the sun as she tries to keep up with the rest of the herd.

It is hard to believe the 6-week-old, dwarfed by her human keeper, will grow up to be one of nature’s biggest beasts.

Until then, she lives at a Nairobi orphanage that takes in baby elephants struggling to survive. There, she walks around in the lush wilderness with her peers, drinks soy milk and waves her trunk playfully as her keeper applies sunscreen on her delicate skin. A red garment tied around her back keeps it safe from the sun’s glare.

Sala is one of scores of animals orphaned by drought, poaching and shrinking habitats, which have decimated wildlife across Kenya. The baby elephant was found wandering, alone and confused, after her mother died of starvation, her caretaker said.

Conservation groups such as the David Sheldrick Foundation, where Sala is, have seen an influx of wildlife. The foundation takes in orphaned elephants and rhinos from across the country, a popular tourist destination because of its animals.

“You know if a human child came in need of care, you wouldn’t put a bullet in or turn it away,” said Daphne Sheldrick of the foundation. “Elephants are the same. … Whatever comes in, we have to make space.”

The facility has more than 20 elephants in Nairobi and more at another center in Tsavo National Park, where they are also rehabilitated.

Kenya depends on tourism as a main source of income. Sala taps into that to help earn the $900 monthly cost for her upkeep.

She slushes and slides in a mud bath for throngs of tourists and uses her trunk to nudge the only other person she dwarfs — a squirming toddler.

Sala and the other animals will be released back into the wilderness when they are old enough, which takes years.

Long after they are gone, their caretakers will still worry about the fragile animals they help nurture.

“After working with these elephants, it’s no longer just a job,” said Edwin Lusichi, the chief keeper. “It is from inside your heart, the love that you have for these animals.”

Source:
Cable Network News, “Kenya orphanage takes in elephant babies“, accessed November 18, 2009

Live in Small Bitescopyright Annie Kate2008

Oprah Winfrey and her students in South Africa. The talk show host and media mogul has invested $40 million in a school to educate South African girls.
Originally uploaded by Pan-African News Wire File Photos

Oprah Announces Plan to End Television Run

In a voice thick with emotion, Oprah Winfrey discussed ending her talk show in 2011 on her show today. Here are here remarks, which came at the end of Friday’s show.

“After much prayer, and months of careful thought, I’ve decided that next season — Season 25 — will be the last season of ‘The Oprah Winfrey Show,’” Winfrey said Friday. “And over the next couple of days, you may hear a lot of speculation in the press about why I am making this decision now, and that will mostly be conjecture. So I wanted you to hear this directly from me.

“Twenty-four years ago, on Sept. 8, 1986, I went live from Chicago to launch the first national “Oprah Winfrey Show.” I was beyond excited and as you all might expect, a little nervous. I knew then what a miraculous opportunity I had been given, but I certainly never could have imagined the yellow brick road of blessings that have led me to this moment with you. [Her voice grows thick with emotion] These years with you, our viewers, have enriched my life beyond all measure, and you all have graciously invited me into your living rooms, into your kitchens and into your lives.

“And for some of you longtime Oprah viewers, you have literally grown up with me. We’ve grown together. You’ve had your families and you’ve raised your children and you left a spot for me in your morning or your afternoon, depending on when the Oprah show airs in your town. So I just wanted to say that whether you’ve been here with me from the beginning or you came on board last week, I want you all to know that my relationship with you is one that I hold very dear, and your trust in me — the sharing of your precious time with me every day — has brought me the greatest joy I have ever known.

“So here we are, halfway through Season 24 and it still means as much to me to spend an hour with you as it did back in 1986. So why walk away and make next season the last? Here is the real reason. I love this show. This show has been my life. And I love it enough to know when it’s time to say goodbye. Twenty-five years feels right in my bones and feels right in my spirit. It’s the perfect number. The exact right time. …

“So I hope that you will take this 18-month ride with me, right through to the final show.”

Berta Ceci-Joubert, Sandra Hines, Pam Africa on the lead banner during the Bail Out the People Movement demonstration on Wall Street, April 3, 2009. (Photo: Alan Pollock)
Originally uploaded by Pan-African News Wire File Photos

Honduran resistance and Latin America

Published Nov 19, 2009 9:14 PM

Excerpts from a talk by Berta Joubert-Ceci of Philadelphia to the WWP National Conference, Nov. 14.

I want to ask you to please stand up. Let us give homage to the courageous people of Honduras. That resistance that today, for 140 days, has been in the streets, demanding the restitution of their president, José Manuel Zelaya Rosales, and the celebration of a Constitutional Assembly that will end injustice and inequality.

Let us applaud their courage and their fierce determination to end the criminal military coup perpetrated by the oligarchy and the U.S. This resistance that is armed only with their dignity face day by day military and police armed to the teeth by the U.S.

Let us not observe a moment of silence, comrades, but a moment of applause for the martyrs whose blood has instilled more strength into the people. For the resistance let us applaud.

This is a struggle between two classes—those who exploit: the oligarchy, the transnational corporations—and those who are exploited: the workers and peasants, the poor in Honduras. Two classes whose interests are totally contradictory. It might have not begun as such, but it has developed into it.

The constant demonstrations, the meetings to organize and to discuss the crisis, the interaction among unions, youth, peasants, Afro-Hondurans and women, have tremendously increased political consciousness. There has been a remarkable jump from quantity into quality. They see all the wealth that they have produced. First in the fields—remember Honduras was the “Banana Republic” of Chiquita—and now in the maquilas, the Adidas, the Nikes and so many others. They see all the wealth they make go into the hands of the rich families in Honduras and to the U.S. corporations.

Their struggle now is not only to reinstate Zelaya but for control of the resources, the economy and the country, to take it away from the hands of the oligarchy and the corporations. That is what the struggle for a Constitutional Assembly represents. That is why it is so important, because the current constitution paved the way to privatizations and the transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich and the corporations.

President Zelaya’s increasing the minimum wage was the lightning rod. The oligarchy and U.S. corporations initiated the road to the June 28 coup. They would not allow a wage raise or a change of their valuable constitution. But this was also a lesson for the masses: how not even a slight increase on their share of the profits would be tolerated by the rich! And the repression by the state has only pushed the struggle forward.

The struggle in Honduras is part of the tremendous popular developments in Latin America, where the people are trying to take control of their destiny away from U.S. imperialist domination. It is a struggle for the control of society between the workers and the peasants on one side, and the oligarchy and the U.S. corporations on the other. It is happening in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua. Progressive governments in those countries are allied with the masses and are trying to integrate their countries into a powerful bloc that stands up against imperialism. That is what ALBA represents.

But there are many other struggles in the region. For example, in Puerto Rico there is a workers’ movement against the layoffs by the pro-U.S. government of Luis Fortuño that has organized work stoppages and is planning a general strike. In Mexico, the movement is growing with militant actions after the layoffs of 46,000 workers from the electricity industry by President Felipe Calderón, a close U.S. ally. In Colombia, the criminal pro-U.S. Uribe paramilitary regime has continued to be fought by an armed insurgency and a popular movement, the former with weapons and the social movement with demonstrations.

Washington is preparing to mount a new military offensive in Latin America to break these progressive developments. The coup in Honduras has been a warning to these countries that imperialism will not stand quietly by and let the people choose their destiny.

That is why the U.S. will accept the result of the Honduran elections with or without President Zelaya restored to office. That is why the U.S. has just signed an agreement with Colombia for the use of seven military bases, which gives the U.S. military almost unlimited access to that country’s facilities and guarantees impunity for any criminal act by U.S. forces and that explicitly states the need to wage action against countries that the U.S. considers “enemies,” like Venezuela.

There is also the IV Fleet, which can even go into the rivers of the countries in Latin America, and the possibility of four new bases in Panama. And besides the direct military threats, there are the CIA operations to destabilize governments with the help of the opposition forces in those countries. The danger is real.

But the U.S. always discounts the peoples’ powerful will to struggle and international solidarity.

We, the working class of the world have a social connection. We have the same interests as the workers in Honduras, in Mexico and everywhere else. If their interests are threatened, so are ours. And so we must respond, with solidarity.

And for us, here in the U.S., it is crucial that we be the most internationalist, because this is the center of imperialism, we then MUST be internationalists to the core!

¡Viva la Resistencia hondureña!

Long live the workers’ struggle!

¡El pueblo unido, jamás será vencido!
——————————————————————————————-
Articles copyright 1995-2009 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Page printed from:
http://www.workers.org/2009/world/honduras_1126/

Joshua Nkomo of ZAPU and Robert Mugabe of ZANU, leaders of the Zimbabwe liberation struggle. This photo was taken during the revolutionary war to liberate ZImbabwe during the 1970s.
Originally uploaded by Pan-African News Wire File Photos

The Casablanca connection

Courtesy of the Zimbabwe Herald

IN 1978 Abel Muzorewa and Ndabaningi Sithole signed an agreement with Ian Smith to extirpate on the people of this land a mongrel offspring called Zimbabwe-Rhodesia.

Muzorewa was without political guile and for that reason he thought he could convince independence-hungry Zimbabweans that his immoral alliance with Smith was real belly-filling sustenance.

Every sane person denounced this arrangement and Muzorewa discovered how lonely national politics can be for the naïve.

Ostracised like a leper by serious political parties at home, he sought international recognition and was badly burnt when he tried to address the UN Security Council soon after a ‘‘terrorist’’ called Robert Mugabe had been welcomed there and he was told where he could stuff his delusions of grandeur.

No one would touch the sick man of Southern Africa called Zimbabwe-Rhodesia even with a long stick . . . except, of course, for apartheid South Africa and the Kingdom of Morocco.

South Africa’s support for Smith and his idiocies was understandable.

What may not seem so obvious is the “Casablanca Connection”.

But then again, Morocco was always a Smith supporter and stuck with the Rhodesians throughout their ungodly war on the owners of the land between the Zambezi and the Limpopo.

Morocco actively gave life to Rhodesia and was heavily involved in sanctions busting along with Jack Malloch’s Affretair (the same cargo line that reaped rich dividends from abetting Moise Tshombe in DRC, Jonas Savimbi in Angola and the Biafran civil war).

Moroccan royalty found it fitting to play host to a Rhodesian re-supply camp from which the victuals that kept white troops well fed enough to kill our people and with enough guns to believe the “not in a thousand years boast” were routed.

Morocco and South Africa were as thick as thieves and today Rabat remains probably the only capital in world that is yet to even consider the possibility of admitting to any sense of shame for having supported apartheid and tried at all costs to sustain it.

The people of Angola too know what kind of politics Morocco is interested in. They will tell you how the friendship with an American creation — an askari as Ayi Kwei Armah would say — called Savimbi almost totally destroyed their country.

What Morocco really is

Morocco has sycophantically sought to be in America’s good graces for over 300 years now and it is not surprising, therefore, that they have played the role of destabilisation agent in Africa with such gusto.

In December 1777, Morocco’s Sultan Muhammad III became the first leader in the whole world to recognise the newly-created Freemason’s State of America.

These ties were formalised in the Moroccan-American Treaty of Friendship negotiated by Thomas Barclay, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Sultan Muhammad III in 1786.

When Morocco became a Spanish colony America protested more loudly than it could ever do for the rest of the world.

In fact, America — in its typical shamelessness — never once considered the fact that it was busy colonising Latin America when it objected to imperial rule of Morocco.

During the incongruently named World War II Morocco lost hundreds of lives fighting for what was essentially a battle for supremacy between Western imperialist nations.

And from 1956 onwards Morocco remained America’s closest ally.

Today they are partners in the so-called war on terror and for its pains, Morocco has endured at least one major terrorist bombing in Casablanca in May 2003.

Unencumbered by the strictures placed on diplomats and our Foreign Affairs officers, I will say it — Morocco is the ugly wart on the face of Africa that everyone pretends does not exist.

Marechera, who was even more delightfully unburdened by common expectations of social tact, would have said Morocco’s foreign policy is the loud fart everyone silently agrees never happened.

A sordid present

That is Morocco’s sordid history.

But of what value is a history. Everyone has one of their own, some more unflattering than others, but there is always room for repentance otherwise evangelists would be out of business.

The problem is when you have a sordid present.

On Thursday Tsvangirai flew to Morocco for another date with the administration that has received more American money than any other African country bar one since 1950.

This is a meeting between America’s North African darling and its Southern African . . . I will let you, dear reader put in an appropriate adjective.

Morocco’s toadying has already been chronicled and Tsvangirai for his part has been buddy-buddy with Washington from the time he was sired as a political entity by the US foreign policy machine in the late 1990s.

Their love affair is well documented and needs no regurgitation here not only because of its tediousness but also because it leaves a sick feeling in the gut that hardly inspires hope for a truly independent Africa.

Zimbabwe’s foreign policy position on Morocco is as clear as Tsvangirai’s intentions in visiting that country are dim.

Morocco has refused to be a member of the African Union because it believes the bloc should allow Rabat to continue colonising and terrorising Western Sahara.

Zimbabwe, having fought a liberation struggle that left tens of thousands of this country’s finest sons and daughters in unmarked graves, can never countenance supporting Morocco’s actions in Western Sahara.

There is no need to ask what Tsvangirai has in common with Morocco.

What is imperative is to explore the possible outcomes of his inclination to be cosy with imperialists of any hue.

Beating Muzorewa’s vainglorious path

Is it a coincidence that Morocco supported that amorphous identity crisis-stricken thing called Zimbabwe-Rhodesia created to humour Muzorewa and frustrate true nationalism and self-determination and is now doing the same with the equally politically and ideologically schizophrenic IG?

What kind of advice is Tsvangirai likely to get from a Moroccan leadership whose moral compass has never quite known where magnetic north is for three whole centuries now?

But the apple never falls far from the tree and it is no great wonder that Tsvangirai will tend to gravitate towards those countries that have never hidden the fact that they love America more than they love themselves.

Maybe our Prime Minister is simply naïve and as such he deserves the benefit of the doubt while we keep our fingers crossed and hope that one day soon (the sooner the better).

Tsvangirai’s attempts to get legitimacy on Africa are eerily reminiscent of the path Muzorewa trod when he tried to sell himself to the continent as the Real McCoy.

There is an inherent internal conflict that has always plagued Tsvangirai’s bid to project himself as a statesman.

And it is the same conflict that afflicted apartheid South Africa which wanted to deny Pan Africanism but at the same time be politically accepted and recognised by independent African countries.

Tsvangirai wants Africa to accept him and yet he cavorts with people who are denying the people of Western Sahara their right to self-determination as the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic.

Morocco, for its part, has no such ideological ambiguity.

They are decidedly pro-America and anti-Africa and that is why they pulled out of the then OAU in 1984 and today remain the only country on the continent that is not a member of the AU.

So the question rises again: at what level then does Tsvangirai engage with Morocco? Like Muzorewa? For his own sake hopefully not because we all know how that clergyman’s political career ground to a screeching and ignominious halt.

A few weeks back Tsvangirai was skipping all over Southern Africa, trying to get regional leaders to view President Mugabe as the intransigent and unco-operative partner that he would like us all to be believe he is.

Soon after whining that Mugabe has not appointed his rich white chum Bennett as a deputy minister (because he is facing terror-related charges in this world that is all agog with the war on terror), Tsvangirai takes the first opportunity to jet to Morocco to meet a group of politicians who would more likely want to see the inclusive Government collapse than see it thrive.

By entertaining Tsvangirai is Morocco trying to fragment Zimbabwe the way it has done to Western Sahara?

What he should remember is that issues like Bennett, Gono, Tomana and provincial governors are not as great a threat to the success of the inclusive Government as is wining and dining with people who are actively seeking the demise of that same arrangement.

The inclusive Government will not collapse because of all those things that Tsvangirai incessantly cries about like a heroin baby.

It will fail because of the this kind of naïve political brinkmanship that tries to create a new foreign policy that has no foundation in the principles that inform Zimbabwe’s and Africa’s ethos, i.e. nationalism and Pan Africanism.

mabasa.sasa@zimpapapers.co.zw