From the News Archives of: WWW.AfricanCrisis.Org

From the News Archives of: WWW.AfricanCrisis.OrgDate & Time Posted: 9/8/2007
Brilliant: Explanation of Robert Mugabe, Mbeki & the CIA
[This letter to the editor on News24.com is brilliant. The writer explains succinctly and clearly what the Grand Strategic Logic of ALL the major players are. He explains why America helped end Apartheid and what the game is in South Africa and Zimbabwe. I do not know who the author is. He clearly supports Mugabe. I do not. But, I agree 100% with his logic and description of the world and the local political situation. He is DEAD ON. Whoever the writer is, he knows a lot. It is worth revisiting what Dr Richard Cummings, ex-CIA wrote, and which I have drawn attention to:-Original Article: How the CIA defeated Apartheid & placed the ANC in powerSource: From International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, Summer 1995This letter in News24, coincides clearly with Dr Cummings' explanation in the International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence.I am so glad to see that someone else in S.Africa has seen the light and clicked on what exactly is going on. The writer obviously spurns Mbeki for shooting at the blacks to keep them in place, in order to continue "Western Economic Policies". I spurn Mbeki for another reason. There are key things in that article, such as the writer's admission that the ANC's "struggle heroes" did not get rid of Apartheid as much as the Western world did. It was the WESTERN WORLD which dismantled Apartheid. In another excellent recent analysis, the CATO Institute also mentions the "ANC Mythology" wherein it over-emphasises its victory over Apartheid without giving credit to the Western Liberals. (It actually pees off Western Liberals that the ANC gave them no credit for ending Apartheid. When I spoke to PW Botha personally, I asked him about the "Total Onslaught" which they foresaw. He told me that it was not just Military. They also understood that normal Western nations were involved. The attacks might not have been military, but South African Intelligence knew that all those nations were working together with the aim of bringing white rule to an end here.So as you can see, now that the dust has settled - we've seen all the different sides of the story and now all the stories are coming together. Some people laughed at PW Botha when he spoke of the "Total Onslaught". But it was not just attacks by Communists he was referring to - it was also "political and diplomatic and economic attacks" - if you will - from the Western world. To me, this represents the most succinct, and accurate description of the game as everyone played it. I might therefore as well include the discussions of FW De Klerk, about the strategy of LIBERALISM, as adopted by FW De Klerk, in an attempt at getting the Western World's Liberals off our backs - and the short and long-term consequences of such a strategy:-What if Apartheid had carried on? That should give everybody a good basis for understanding all the players and *ALL* the games going on over the last 40 years. Now... to figure out where it takes us in the future. You do realise of course, that if Mbeki betrays the Liberal Western World's faith in him, that the USA and the West will look FOR A NEW BULWARK AGAINST "Black African Freedom" as defined by Mugabe! Think about that. Jan]'Mugabe is the guiding light'07/09/2007 12:01 - (SA) Dear Editor, Mondli Makanhya is trying to draw a parallel between the struggle against apartheid and the current struggle in Zimbabwe against the "freely elected" government in that country. There is however no comparison if one views the two struggles at a higher global political platform. In 1981 I came to South Africa and was informed by the locals that apartheid was on its way out. In 1986 I wrote to a friend in Holland that Apartheid would not end until the Berlin wall had fallen. There lies the significant difference between what is happening in the current Zimbabwe and the then "apartheid government". If one cares to look at the events in SA following the fall of the Berlin wall, one can see the direct connection between the two events. After the collapse of the old Soviet Union, there was no need for the West to prop up the apartheid regime any longer. It had served its purpose as custodian of a strategic sea route in this part of the world. It had served its purpose to contain the Russian expansion in Africa. Apartheid had been a mere by-product of this strategy.The time had now come for the West to show its humanitarian face and make sure that South Africa would not fall in the hands of some reactionary group who would show the West the finger. They could well do without another Lumumba, Idi amin or Ghadaffi in Africa. Western economic policies The African National Congress won the first general elections and Mr Mandela became the President of a benevolent government. Uprisings with an unpredictable outcome had been prevented and all were happy. As in Europe in 1945, it was not the underground movements that liberated Europe from the Germans. How heroic they might have been. It was the allied forces and the Americans who did not want Europe to fall under Russia and communism for their own benefit. Similarly, it was not the ANC in SA or the struggle heroes that liberated South Africa; it was the West that did not allow apartheid to continue and handed SA over to the ANC under conditions that they would stick to western dictated economic policies. Trevor Manual did just that. Zimbabwe is of little interest to the West. Zimbabwe is landlocked, has a relatively small population and does not play a major political role in Africa in support of the West. Its mineral resources are not unique; it does not have oil. At 80, Mr Mugabe is on his way out sooner or later measured in the global political time frames of decades. Quiet diplomacy works well for SA. It supports the one without upsetting the other. Fruits of the West The long-term goals of any African government should be to strive for independence from the West. Robert Mugabe is the guiding light for what lies ahead for African countries if they want to free themselves. One day, African leaders might have the guts to do so but it will come at the kind of price that Zimbabweans are currently paying and worse. Freedom is expensive and demands sacrifices as the history of many European countries can teach you. It will get a lot worse before it gets better. The majority of African countries are - for all intents and purposes - still economically and culturally colonised. Despite our President's statement, name changes will never make South Africa an African country. For the time being, African leaders prefer to enjoy the fruits of the West at the price of paying lip service to their demands and a little unhappiness amongst the poor. Nothing a rubber bullet cannot control. Benzo,Pretoria http://www.news24.com/News24/MyNews24/Letters/0,,2-2127-2129_2176915,00.html



http://www.africancrisis.org/default2.asp