Thursday 24 July 2014

Flight MH17: Swallowed in The Confusion of Conflict

The happenings surrounding the apparent shooting down of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 are a perfect example of the confusion that reigns in the midst of conflict.

The Western media seem to think that conflict happens as a well organised choreographed activity where everybody knows their place and everything that happens can be attributed to a plan. The intended outcome is that every plan can eventually be attributed to someone.

Sad for them conflict is not choreographed. It is a mass of confused happenings often with the thumb not knowing what the forefinger is doing. The ethnic Ukrainian in the army will never know what the ethnic Russian sitting next to him is thinking and vice versa.

It happens in every conflict. The Americans never new what the Afghans sitting next to them were thinking, until maybe the bullets started flying in green-on-blue attacks.

The bottom line is that every single action is ultimately up to an individual person, who have their own individual aims apart from the collective aims. Once individual aims diverge significantly from stated collective aims confusion might set in. It is a sign of rebellion against the collective.

It is very much likely the responsible people in both Ukraine and Russia probably do not know exactly where all their BUK systems were. One cannot rule out that some, from either side, may have been in rebel hands.

This more likely for the Ukrainian side, since some of their own armed forced have defected or shown sympathy for the rebel cause. Like in Syria, units of the Ukraine armed forces have defected to the rebel side with their equipment.

This perfectly dovetails with my theory on clan politics and their role in the Ukrainian conflict. Members of the Russian clan in the Ukraine armed forces would have felt it better to join the rebels rather than turn against their own clan.

The act of shooting down the airliner itself may have happened because of the confusion that reigns in conflict. Nobody knows who was flying where and for what purpose. In such scenarios people tend to act on the famed gut feeling.

The handling of the aftermaths was also plagued by confusion. Bodies were left lying in open fields for days.

The rebels claim they were told by OSCE observers to leave the collection of bodies to experts. The OSCE denies this. However remember that the 'suggestion' did not have to come on an OSCE letterhead for it to be taken seriously. Especially in a confused situation like this. It may have been an off-the-cuff remark by an official on the ground.

One does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the rebels did not have the expertise to handle an air accident of this magnitude and nature. The way they eventually trundled around the debris field with cranes and heavy trucks is evidence of that. The rebels themselves clearly acknowledge that shortcoming and rightly expected someone better qualified than themselves to come and handle the task.

However the question of who to send was quickly swallowed up in the dust cloud of confusion. Western leaders seemed to suggest that Russia should take charge of the crash site while at the same time blaming Russia for interfering in Ukraine. If there was a moment Russia did not want to be seen as interfering in Ukraine I can't think of a worse moment than this one.

To make matters worse some leaders and media, particularly from the Western side concentrated on trying to allocate blame. On their part, Russia did not want responsibility for the bucket-load of excrement. They did their best to put some distance between themselves and the accident. 'No we are not responsible for anything' was their basic position.

The accident happened on Ukrainian territory. Conventionally they should be expected to have responsibility. However the fact is the Ukrainian government does not have full control of its territory, and could not be depended upon to handle the recovery.

The only way to handle the situation, in the interests of the bereaved families was outside of conventional ways. The bereaved families and governments, particularly the Dutch government, should thank the Malaysian government for having the wisdom and vision to wade through confusion and eventually extract the remains of the deceased from the rebel area.

If they had fallen lock step in with the Western approach of allocating blame, it is very likely those bodies would have languished in rebel territory for weeks if not months.


Monday 21 July 2014

The 'Blame Russia' Game Leading to Nowhere

It seems the favourite passtime of Western governments and media has become blaming Russia for a situation that they themselves encouraged and actively campaigned for.

At the start of the Ukraine crisis there was an elected pro-Russia leader in power in Kiev. This was a leader elected in credible peacetime elections. When a section of his population became restive, he did not unleash the full might of the armed forces under his command upon them. Instead he negotiated and made huge concessions.

With the full backing and encouragement of Western governments and media, these concessions were ignored. The pro-Russian leader then left power. He could have chosen to fight but he did not.

The violence that is going on now could have been rebels in Western Ukraine against the government. To me that indicates Viktor Yanukovych made a decision to save his country. A man who placed his country above the petty tribal politics that are ripping Ukraine apart today.

Western backed two bit tribalist leaders then unconstitutionally seized power, with much cheering from very same Western leaders who are pointing fingers at Russia. At one point Western foreign ministers were trooping to Kiev to pat these tribalists on the back, like a herd of drought stricken wildebeest rushing to a watering hole.

The tribalists subsequently organised elections that make the much maligned elections run by my country, Zimbabwe, look like a raffle run by honest old ladies. Half the country could not even get the chance to vote. Yet the so called paragons of democracy in the West were tripping over their own toes in the rush to endorse the farce.

Now that their short-sighted actions have led to a disaster that has claimed mostly Western lives, they have been screaming like a troop of monkeys that has seen a leopard, pointing fingers at Russia. They forget that they invited conflict to their own doorsteps by encouraging one side of a tribal conflict to be unreasonable.

Honestly speaking what do they want Russia to do? Occupy Western Ukraine and impose order? I don't think they would be happy with that. Would they rather have Putin do policing on Kiev's behalf? Why should Putin take responsibility, and costs, for short-sightedness that the West and those in power in Kiev are responsible for. Let them shovel their own waste.

If the shoe of controlling one half of Ukraine's tribes could not fit on a pro-Russian leader's foot, what made the West thing it would fit on the other foot without crippling the country? They forced it on and now the country is crippled. They should not be surprised.

At this point, the only thing I see in Ukraine is long term conflict. Western leaders should be prepared to gather and stomach that harvest, because they planted the crop of nettles. Throwing tantrums at Russia won't help them in the slightest bit. It will only make the nettles bigger, and yield a much pricklier harvest.

It is the West who need to change course, not Russia. Ethnic linkages going back centuries are not controlled by one man.

The West should ask themselves why Britain remains closely allied to the United States. A poodle as some would put it. It is because of ethnic links. No single leader can change the character of that relationship.

No one should expect Vladmir Putin, to perform miracles and change the character of ethnic links between Russia and eastern Ukraine. He will not be able to, even if he wanted. If he tried, the discontent within Russia would probably threaten the fabric of her own society.

Friday 18 July 2014

Clan Politics and Ukraine

What is going on Ukraine is serious war but I could not help but compare it with the games played by African boys herding cattle in the savannah scrub-lands of Zimbabwe.

Those were the best days of my life.

Life was lackadaisical, with occasional bursts of exciting activity. The years sauntered by, with passing seasons colourfully marked by the foliage of musasa trees exploding into various hues of red and orange.

During that time I, along with other boys, would be found trailing ourselves after our families' cattle, tasked with preventing them from invading the fields full of young succulent maize plants.

Herding cattle is not the most exciting of activities. We invented lots of games and activities to while time. Football was a favourite. Occasionally we set about getting some of the boys among us to fight so that we could enjoy the spectacle.

Our favourite way starting a fight was called kupwanya mazamu amai (breaking your mothers breasts). Nothing riles an African brother like insulting his mother. We would built four mounts of soil, and allocate two to each of guys we wanted to fight saying, 'These are your mother's breasts.'

The logic was that if somebody kickedyour 'mother's breasts' you had to defend your honour through violence. If any of the planned pugilists was reluctant to break the other's mother's breasts, we would egg them on through ridicule and mockery.

It was guaranteed that the moment they kicked each other's "mother's breasts" they would ferociously set upon one another with flailing fists, kicks, scratching nails, head-butts and the occasional sinking of teeth into the rival.

Meanwhile we would be enjoying the spectacle and cheering them on with whistling, shouts of encouragement and the occasional delighted dancing. One could hardly believe that such a fierce fight was over nothing but little mounts of dirt.

A bleeding nose later we would stop the fight, and set about placating the warriors saying things like 'The fight was nice but you guys must remain friends.' Most of the time they did remain friends. No permanent damage would be done to the relationship of even physically to the fighters.

Is what is going on in Ukraine any better than fighting over little mounts of dirt? If I take a government soldier and a rebel and ask them to explain why they are fighting can any of them give me any answer that is better than 'He kicked my mother's breasts!' Never mind that those mother's breasts are little mounts of soil made by others.

There is no way anyone is going to uproot Ukraine and plant it in the Hudson bay, or even the English Channel. Ukraine borders Russia and that is the way it is going to be until donkeys grow horns. Not just that, but Ukraine has got a large population of ethnic Russians.

Consequently, any wise Ukrainian leader, would be better off maintaining relations with Russia than pandering to the whims of hoped for allies thousands of kilometres away. Sometimes we need to accept things the way they are, not the way would like them. It is called accepting reality.

Keeping peace with your neighbour is far much better than making friends with a stranger. Especially if you are married to the neighbour's cousin. It is totally unrealistic to expect peace in your own house when you are insulting your wife's cousin or to expect the cousin to remain quiet while you are beating your wife.

Ukrainians need to do a reality check. There is no way they are going to be virulently anti-Russia and still expect their ethnic Russian population to be happy.

It is also simple logic that if East Ukrainians are ethnically related to Russians then they probably have 'clan members' and sometimes relatives in Russian society including the armed forces. For those of us who belong to clans and know how they work, we know they tend to stick together even across national borders. Take a look at how the Mafia has extended tentacles all over the world from clan roots in Italy.

There is no better time to call upon clan links than in times of need. Clan links are always difficult if not impossible to break. What Ukraine should fear is not what Putin thinks, but what the clan links to Russia might lead to. I personally think that Putin has little choice but to flow with the clan links.

What the Ukraine needs right now, is a reality check from within. There is no way they are going to fight with ethnic Russians in their country and expect the Russians in Russia to stand by. A swear upon the blood of my VaBarwe clan, at some point or another, the Russian clan will respond.

Monday 14 July 2014

Are the Americans creating more terrorists in Middle East.

Do the Americans have any idea what they are doing in the Middle East.

For a long time and particularly since ISIL started overrunning the Bush project, Iraqi, I have been trying to make head or tail of what the American policy in the Middle East is? As of this moment I am convinced I would have much better luck unthreading a very large bowl of spaghetti.

The mayhem that is ensuing in Iraq at the hands of ISIL is unbelievable. They have captured heavy American supplied weapons. They have been machine-gunning civilians in a manner that rivals the Srebrenica massacre.

They seem to have nudged a deck of cards the USA spend more than a decade delicately stacking together.

The leader of the blood-thirsty group has declared a caliphate and demanded the allegiance of each and every Muslim. They clearly suggest they have no intention of respecting existing borders or even stopping just in the Levant. Secular countries like Jordan certainly have good reason to worry for their future.

Their rhetoric and methods makes the Taliban sound like Sunday school preachers.

Oh! Did I mention the Taliban? Aren't they another group that arose out of superpower misadventure in the region. Specifically the Taliban rose out of the ashes of the Mujaheedin, sponsored by the USA against a Soviet supported regime.

Isn't it ironic that ISIL is rising out of a rebellion sponsored by the USA against a Russian supported regime? Those who do not think history is repeating itself, please I beg to have your opinion on what you think is happening. Oh, remind me again what is it they say, about making the same mistake over and over, and stupidity?

To me it very much looks like USA foreign policy in the Middle East is floundering in a huge pool of sectarian quicksand.

Their best strategy as of this moment, would be to shore up the Iraqi government as best as they can and give Assad breathing space as well. That is their best hope at restoring and maintaining order in the region in a reasonable time frame. Carefully note the use of the words 'best' and 'hope'. I am not sticking my neck out and giving any guarantees. I also deliberately left out adjectives like 'loved' and 'liked'. The best way forward may not be a way they like or love.

One guarantee I am prepared to give is that violence radicalises people. The situation in the middle East is breeding more radicals than ever. A lot of people in the world, including those of us who have nothing to do with it, and are virtually powerless to change the course of events in the middle east, will pay a price.

Al Qaeda sponsored radicalism, which has its roots in the American sponsored anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan of the 1980s, is starting to spread mayhem across Africa. Boko Haram is a manace in Nigeria, al Shahaab in Somalia and Kenya, AQIM (Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb) has wreaked havoc in Mali and the Sahel.

I doubt the Americans would have sponsored the Mujaheedin with such gusto if they knew they were opening such a can of worms. I do not sit in their boardrooms, so I do not know the true answer. I do not think they ever guessed that Osama bin Laden was going to emerge out of their activities. They were short sighted.

Unfortunately there is absolutely no sign that the Americans have learnt from their mistakes. Look at the course they took in Syria and where it has left their pet project in Iraq. If there is any direction in American policy in the Middle East at present maybe I am a complete idiot for not being able to see it. To me their policy seems to have the resolute direction of a windcock in a whirlwind.

As of their latest talk, the Americans want to sponsor 'moderate Islamist rebels' against the Western educated Bashar Assad, and hope the same Islamists will also fight the extreme radicals of ISIL. Bookmakers I think this is your territory. Start taking the bets. Will it work?

It seems to be an assumption on the part of the Americans that there is a solid dividing wall between the 'good' or 'moderate' Islamists and the radical Islamists. My personal opinion is that the dividing line is a fuzzy foggy one across which individuals, fighting units and sometimes entire rebel groups drift back and forth, with whatever weapons they have in their hands.

Maybe my logic is wrong but to me the best strategy to bring stability to the region is to shore up Assad and tone down the anti-Iran rhethoric, and strengthen the Iraq government. The Americans need to stop having their foreign policy in the middle east run for them by Sunni secterianists. To achieve this, they need to pull the leash on regimes sponsoring rebellions in other countries.

Nonetheless, the developments in that part of world are too big for the minds running the United States at the moment. By this I do not mean just Obama and his crop of advisers, but several of his predecessor and a maybe couple of the regimes before them, as well.

Oh Roosevelt! Oh Washington! Oh Lincoln! Where are you when your country needs wise leadership?

The world after the Soviet Union has been beyond the ability of US politicians, who were forged in the furnace adversarial cold war politics, to adjust to. To them they must have a big bad enemy to deal with even when their country is the only big thing around.

After the collapse of USSR they talked so much about a New World Order. Am I alone in feeling that if they came to this New World Order they definitely forgot their minds in the Old World Order? They are still thinking very much in the old way.

Of course they occasionally go forth six-guns blazing in an effort to prove their mettle. Unfortunately, the more they thrash about, the deeper they sink into a foreign policy cesspool.

Also, unfortunately for us the little countries trying to keep our heads above the water, they drag us down with them. They come in, try something without listening to anyone. When things do not work out as they fantasised, they ship out and leave others to deal with the mess.

The US adventure in Somalia during the Clinton years has evolved into a major problem for Somalia's neighbours, particularly Kenya. Pakistan has had to carry much of the burden of Afghanistan's instability since the US sponsored the anti-Soviet mujaheedin. They have also dragged NATO allies into the mess.

Iraqi after Sadaam has been a perfect model of instability. At the time Iraqi was invaded, everyone except the Americans and their allies was saying he was well contained. Now the Americans have shipped out leaving behind an apparently two bit leadership that do not seem to know their index finger from the thumb.

Need I mention Libya after Gadhafi. He was taken out after he had swung well towards rapprochement with the West. Africa was humiliated in the process, with Zuma having to dodge bombs and missiles on his way to  try and negotiate a peaceful way forward. His efforts were ignored with very little effort, if any, to hide the disdain. Right now testosterone driven hoodlums are fighting each other on Tripoli airport grounds.

My personal take is that the US think they know it all when in fact they know nothing. Take for example the vision Bush Junior expounded when he invaded Iraq for the second time. By now Iraq should be an oasis of American ideals. A leading democracy in the region.

What he didn't know was that he was dragging the USA into a cesspit of sectarian divisions which according to some schools of thought are rooted in pre-Islamic tribal divisions between Arabs and Persians, not just Islamic sects. Maybe it is because I am from Africa but I am yet to see democratic ideals transcend tribalism.

Ancient, deep rooted divisions cannot be papered over by any kind of ideology or idealism. They are best healed by long term peace. Conflict of whatever magnitude simply renews them for many more generations.

Take for example the tribal conflict between the Assyrians and Israelites recorded in the Bible. It is still going on with unbelievable ferocity today. One would be shocked at the amount of money and effort supposedly enlightened people are putting into perpetuating what is essentially a pointless centuries old tribal war.

As I write this Palestinians and Israel at each other's throats again. Missiles and rockets have replaced the swords and chariots of yester-millenium, but it is still the same tribal conflict.

Friday 4 July 2014

Open Letter to President Mugabe on reported 'No Land For Whites' statements.

Your Excellency, The Head of State and Government, Commander In Chief of the Defence Forces, President Robert Gabriel Mugabe, I respectfully beg to differ reported assertion that whites should not own land in Zimbabwe.

Denying rights to whites, is not what you spend eleven years in detention for. I have always believed that the suffering you, and thousands of others, went through was so that each and every Zimbabwean would enjoy equal rights. That was a noble fight.

Your Excellency the last time I checked Zimbabwe's constitution did not classify citizens' rights by race, religion or ideology. That is to say the nation you fought for, and helped build to where it is, is not a segregated apartheid state like South Africa and Rhodesia were. It is not a nation that denies property rights to certain races like those evil racists used to.

I hope Your Excellency, you then understand that I was terribly confused when I read in the press that you had declared that whites should not be allowed to own land in Zimbabwe.

Are they any less Zimbabwean than you and me?

Your Excellency may I also draw you attention to the fact that our history as a proud Bantu people, has never been one of discrimination. You are my elder, and I am sure you know these tenets far much better than I do.

For example I am sure you know that descendants of the Portugueese, vana Sinyoro Vazungu vemachira machena, assimilated into our culture without any problem and were given chieftaincy and noble-ship by our forefathers. You probably know the history of the Chitsunge chieftaincy far much better than small boys born yesterday like me do.

I am sure you are also aware that the first European to see the great ancient city that gives our country its name was Adam Renders, not Karl Mauch as Eurocentric history narrates. The main reason European historians ignored Adam Renders was that had been taken in by our African community. Our community accepted him so much that he married the daughter of a chief (mwana waMambo) and lived among us as an equal.

He looked after Karl Mauch for the nine months he was exploring the Great Zimbabwe. Our culture has always accepted and accommodated others, not rejected them.

As you can see, it is not only from the viewpoint of modern day rights conscious humanism that it is wrong to say whites can't own land in Zimbabwe, but from the rich depth of our own culture.

Our culture values Hunhu (humane-ness) above everything else. Yes the forefathers of whites may have come with race based discrimination that makes us bitter. Let us not allow bitterness to diminish our own Hunhu.

Your Excellency, please do not misunderstand my position. I fully support land redistribution to CORRECT past racist, segregationist and idiotic policies that landed us in a lot of trouble. However there is no way I will support reverse racism.

To me a 'no land for whites' policy is as a bad as the 'no land for blacks' policy of old. I hope our country will never go that route.