By Takura Zhangazha*
Linking Africa and African history to its contemporary placement in
international relations is now rarely done.
Not least in Zimbabwe’s case with its peculiar pariah status
globally. Particularly where it concerns
its relationship statuses with its former colonial power, the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK).
Or the United States of America (USA) and the European Union(EU) who in
all likelihood followed the lead of the UK in how they approach their relations
with Zimbabwe.
On the other hand there are at least two other global superpowers
that have generally differed with the more hegemonic ones in how they relate
with Zimbabwe. These are the Peoples
Republic of China (PRC) and the Russia Republic (Russia). They have both taken a different view on
Zimbabwe. The most demonstrable difference with their superpower counterparts was
when they jointly vetoed a draft United Nations Security Council (UNSC) draft resolution to
sanction Zimbabwe’s political leaders and their allies in 2008.
In either global hegemonic camps' intentions it can all be considered as being
fair enough in love and (diplomatic) war.
As we were taught at university, in international relations there are
not permanent friends but permanent interests.
So in the case of the differing global hegemons’ approach
to Zimbabwe the key question is not what their intentions are because these
are generally the same in the final analysis. That is where they can, they will extract or negotiate extraction in their own interests. It is more important to
ask what our own interests are in our relations with them. Or to put it more
simply the responsibility of agency in these relations remains primarily with
us and not them.
Even where we would argue that Zimbabwe has been the proverbial
grass that suffers when elephants fight, it would still be remiss to assume we
are mere pawns in the game. We also make
decisions about who to interact with and why.
In this, I will give a specific example of how as an
example, in 1966 at the Havana
Tri-Continental Conference, the inimitable African revolutionary Amilcar
Cabral explained the following (and I quote him at length for clarity) :
“It is useful to recall in this Tricontinental
gathering, so rich in experience and example, that however great the similarity
between our various cases and however identical our enemies, national
liberation and social revolution are not exportable commodities; they are, and
increasingly so every day, the outcome of local and national elaboration, more
or less influenced by external factors (be they favorable or unfavorable) but
essentially determined and formed by the historical reality of each people, and
carried to success by the overcoming or correct solution of the internal
contradictions between the various categories characterising this reality...”
We know and even knew upon attainment of our national independence
that no matter the amount of help we received mainly from China and Russia as
well as Scandinavian Europe, none of these countries that came to our aid
defined the revolution for us. They
helped but they did not own it.
Where we come to our contemporary Zimbabwean placement in
the world, we may have now forgotten historical aspects to how we got
here. Both in the recent as well as distant
past. And its all understandable given global
developments such as the crumbling of the Soviet Union, now Russia or the rise
of China as a global superpower and the continually dramatic rise of the
neoliberal and nationalistic right in the global west.
In this, the Covid19 pandemic as it continues to change our
lives also reshapes global relations and priorities. With the most apparent element to this being
the issue of what the World Trade Organisation (WTO) has referred to as ‘vaccine nationalism’ and
the politicization of its distribution.
Zimbabwe recently
received a donated consignment of the SinoPharm vaccine from China. Even as
it awaits another paid for consignment from the same. Social media went
slightly apoplectic at the fact that the government had decided to source the
vaccine from China. Some opposition politicians remained highly suspicious of
the fact that the vaccine came from China and therefore cannot be considered
viable without clear scientific justification. And probably just demonstrating abstract
preference for sourcing the vaccine from the west or at least western pharmaceutical
companies.
At the same time government has insisted that it made the
correct decision and has emphasized its longstanding relationship with China as
a key reason for trust in the latter’s science.
In either case what is important is our application of our
minds to our own context. Within the framework of a pandemic. We know we need all the help we can get. But as is wont with everything that we do, we
tend to politicize things that are essentially about the lives and livelihoods
of our people.
In this we may sometimes find ourselves thinking on behalf
of those with whom to seek to curry favour.
Or choosing to argue on behalf of one or the other global hegemonic side
as of old. In most instances this will relate to the given global narratives
around what/who China or Russia are perceived or known to be. Especially as
captured by global mainstream media narratives.
It however remains imperative that we avoid falling into the
trap of these narratives as easily as we would have before Covid19 struck
us. Instead we must, in a Cabralist
sense, begin to apply our minds more assiduously to our local context in order
to find sustainable solutions as to how we deal with the pandemic. While at the same time remembering that in
international relations and where we seek help from others, it is our own
agency that matters the most.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity (takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment