Britain last week made a stark admission of its apparent involvement in gruesome regime change agendas in developing countries in the last two decades, which has seen more than five weak nations falling — with over 200 000 civilians killed — and the impoverishment of other states including Zimbabwe.
In debunking the apparent deviousness of the supposed world’s most powerful and democratic nations, Britain – which is believed to be one of the biggest sponsors of the MDC-T in Zimbabwe – admitted on Tuesday last week pursuant of regime change agendas in developing nations which are ‘sugar coated’ as democracy drives.
The admission was made by one of Britain’s most powerful politicians, former Deputy Prime Minister Lord John Prescott, in a seemingly well thought-out plea to his counterparts to revisit their conscientiousness.
Commenting on the West’s invasion of Iraq 10 years ago, Lord Prescott, in an interview with CNN said: “Looking back, everyone should ask themselves whether the war was justified, and whether the true objective was in fact regime change, not weapons of mass destruction… I've come to a conclusion: the justification for the intervention was wrong [We] may have got rid of (then Iraq President) Saddam (Hussein) , but it certainly never brought peace.” The former Deputy Prime Minister, who was also vice-chairman of Britain’s War Council at the time, shared that he “feels a share of responsibility for the Iraq war.’’
In the past two decades, the West has been actively pursuing what it coined as a “democracy agenda’’ in more than five developing countries, among them Zimbabwe, largely leaving a trail of destruction in some nations and instability leading to intense human suffering in others.
But as Lord Prescott painstakingly admits, although the regime change agenda in some cases was successful, certainly peace has not been achieved. It is largely believed that the real agendas for the West’s invasions of these countries have mostly been to control resources and means of production, among them oil, minerals and land, in the case of Zimbabwe.
In 2001, after Zimbabwe embarked on its land reform programme, the United States spearheaded the imposition of an embargo, dubbed the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act (ZDERA), claiming gross human rights abuses allegedly perpetrated by the Zanu-PF government led by President Mugabe. The sanctions led to an unparalleled economic decline in the country which resulted in acute human suffering. The real agenda here was reportedly regime change with the hope of repossessing the land.
In 2003, the United States and allies invaded Iraq with the red herring being that the country had weapons of mass destruction. These allegations however turned out to be false as no nuclear weapons were found even after the US army managed to capture and publicly kill Iraq’s President Saddam Hussein. The West immediately took control of the country and its oil. It is estimated that about 172 227 people died in Iraq, 121 227 of them civilians.
Libya also became a victim. Its leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, was labelled an “an enemy of his people’’ following an uprising within the country. Col Gaddafi was eventually booted out of power, later captured and publicly humiliated and killed by rebels in that country backed by the US government. After Colonel Gaddafi’s death, it emerged that the US and other Western countries had taken control of the country’s oil resources. And again, the country has never known peace since. About 25 000 people were reportedly killed during the uprising.
The same tactics had been previously used in Tunisia and Egypt giving rise to what has become known as the Arab Spring.
In all instances, the West funds opposition groups in the targeted countries, successfully dispose the country’s leadership and then walks away leaving behind chaotic states. In Afghanistan, tens of thousands of civilians have died in the decade long war initiated by the United States.
Commenting on America’s eargerness to invade Iraq, Lord Prescott said: “I was convinced in America you (making reference to the interviewer) were already preparing for war, despite us talking about the UN. You were getting your military machine ready. You were going to do it before the hot summer. So there’s no doubt in America — and I told (former British Prime Minister, Mr) Tony (Blair), the Yanks are going in whether you agree or not.”
Lord Prescott however, said Mr Blair “certainly believed” the invasion was because of the alleged weapons of mass destruction.
Mr Blair has also been giving interviews on the Iraq invasion repoterdly admitting that the war did not turn out the way he hoped it would. Nonetheless, he still insists that invading and toppling President Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do at the time.
Lord Prescott also told CNN that the action that was taken to stop the bloodshed in Kosovo and Sierra Leone, had helped persuade them to believe that military action in Iraq would be the right thing to do.
“Tony (Mr Blair) came to the view,” Lord Prescott recalled, “that no leader of a country was entitled to treat his people like that . . . It was for all us then to intervene to stop that.”
And with the international focus now on Iran and Syria, Lord Prescott disclosed, in the interview, that although the Iraq experience had taught him
“(Mr Blair) wants to do it now in Iran, possibly, and Syria. Absolute bloody crazy, in my view,” he said.
“You've got to ask yourselves, what are you doing it for, just to get rid of the evil men around the world? Because I've got to tell you, there's been more killings in Iraq since they've left, and still continuing.”
The British Embassy, stationed in Harare, last week asked for more time to respond to questions on Lord Prescott’s statements and whether regime change is part of that country’s agenda in developing states. However, political Analyst and dean of the Faculty of Communication and Information Science at the National University of Science and Technology, Dr Lawton Hikwa, insisted that regime change was an extension of the British foreign policy.
“Indeed . . . illegal regime change is part of the British foreign policy,” he said.
“From the outset colonialism was basically about plundering and amassing wealth from the colonised lands by the Western nations.
“Then the post-colonisation the relationship was maintained so that they could continue asserting their influence over that territory.
“So, anyone else who seemed to be acting contrary to that agenda was seen as an obstacle hence the beginning of regime change. Therefore, pre and post independence the British foreign policy, of which illegal regime change is a centre piece, has not changed at all,” said Dr Hikwa. Photo: Jeff Overs/BBC/PA Wire
|
No comments:
Post a Comment