Kenya: Why Is Britain Not Doing Zimbabwe?

It is a shame that Britain and her media cannot afford not to be biased especially on Black African issues. It was Britain who colonised Kenya as well as Zimbabwe, Uganda, Nigeria and many other failed Black African states. Britain ought to be acting like a father nation to Anglophone Africa as a whole, but unfortunately it acts like a biased and dubious father. Britain applies different rules to its former colonies as it suits her selfish interests.

After one of the most civilised general elections in Black African history was held in Zimbabwe in 2002, the British government could not accept the will of the people because Robert Mugabe whom it loathed for sacking white British farmers was re-elected. The British government and its overbearing media have been campaigning for the total collapse of Zimbabwe to the extent of severally encouraging civil uprising. Britain and her media have also tried to persuade South Africa to stop allowing Zimbabwean immigrants in their bid to ensure the total collapse of Zimbabwe.

It was particularly significant that the same British government and British media that turned democracy defenders over Zimbabwe in 2000, after the sacking of white farmers, did not react against Nigeria after far worse general elections were held in Nigeria in 2003 by the worst president in Nigeria‘s history, General Obasanjo who killed and maimed to ensure a re-election. A number of top opposition leaders and perceived opponents of the president even within his own party were assassinated to ensure a smooth re-election yet; the same British government which condemned Zimbabwe did not even issue any strong statement in condemnation of the Nigerian government. We all know that nobody was killed by Mugabe in 2002 in order to get re-elected.

Again in 2007, the same evil president conducted the most fraudulent elections imaginable. International observers unanimously condemned it entirely because there were no elections at all. Father Britain and her media declined to condemn what even openly racists would agree was far worse than anything that ever happened in Zimbabwe.
Right now, it is happening again in Kenya. Another case of massive electoral fraud has occurred in one of Britain’s ex-colonies, and rather than greet it with the same measure applied to Zimbabwe, Britain and her media are dancing about to thwart the very kind of revolution they have been sponsoring and campaigning to happen in Zimbabwe since 2000.

The entire British media is now focused on Kenya, tactically demonising the opposition leader for no justifiable reason. Times online called Odinga ruthless, stubborn and desperate and made him look like the cause of the violence. Odinga is being blamed for the civil unrest in reaction to the massive election fraud perpetrated by the incumbent president. Odinga is being demonised for refusing to compromise over an indisputable case of electoral fraud. He is in fact being condemned by British media for allegedly doing that which the entire white world has been urging Morgan Tsvangirai to do in Zimbabwe which has failed because the majority of the people continued to support Mugabe. One wonders what kind of father nation Britain is when it cannot apply the same rules and standard to its former colonies.

It may be right to argue that Britain is entitled to be selfish and protective of her economic interests as she does by way of supporting the worst governments in Black Africa. Mohammed Buhari, the main opposition leader in Nigeria in both the 2003 and 2007 general elections, despite having an impeccable record as an incorruptible Nigerian leader (having been tested and trusted) did not attract the kind of support Mr Tsvangirai of Zimbabwe have always enjoyed because having a reformist president in Nigeria would not favour western economic interests. Odinga is being demonised because he sounds too radical and Britain is not comfortable with having people like him in power to wake up the sleeping giants in Black Africa. Today we get all sorts of patronising British media reports about Kenya as being the most successful African country all in the bid to demoralise ordinary Kenyans determined to make the kind of history Britain supported the Ukrainians to make in 2004. British media reporters and analysts have been drumming “tribal” war songs in their perverted desire to scuttle the general ill-feelings among ordinary Kenyans irrespective of ethnic background by consistently insinuating ethnic crisis rather than political crisis which is the case.

For those that care to think, the question is how the anti-Kibaki disturbances can be said to be entirely about the Luos against the Kikuyus when the Luos are only the third largest ethnic group (not tribe as White supremacists choose to regard Black African ethnic groups). How did the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) of Mr. Odinga enjoy so much support if it is just a party of 13% of Kenyans which translates to just about 4.8million of the about 37 million population of Kenya?

Clearly, western governments might be entitled to play dodgy tactics because it does not seem reasonable on the face of it, for Britain or any other successful western economic giant to genuinely support the emergence of successful Black African states because it does not make sense for any merchant to close his sources of cheap goods large profits. It is even right to say that neither Britain nor any other former colonial master owes a dime of support or sincerity to failed Black Africa because each sovereign state ought to fend for itself as we all claim to be equal human beings.

However, considering the real fact that Black Africa desperately needs to build successful societies for the survival of its people and the fact that Britain seeks to be a father nation with conscience, based on its history of fighting injustices both internally and externally, it may be right to expect a more genuine leadership from her. Britain can rightly lay claim to being a beacon of justice and political morality based on its leading roles in ending slavery and ending colonialism and apartheid regimes. The British media is respected across the world and is arguably, the most powerful opinion leader in the world. With a little bit more of genuineness, Britain and her media can truly change this world. Britain and her media do not owe Black Africa anything, but they are highly welcome as genuine helpers. If the Britain truly cares about the Black race, she must change her style in Black Africa. Britain must change from being purely mercantile and often dubious to a more respectable role that befits her leadership status in the world. Britain and other colonial masters might be entitled to manipulate us as it suits their economic interests, but it seems more sensible to play good masters than continuing to play hypocrisy especially now that China is becoming a real threat to their supremacy!

It is plainly obvious that turning good masters and genuine father nations would benefit both the White world and the failed Black world. It is not difficult to be fair-minded as leading nations in international affairs. Simply setting the same standard for everyone and applying the same rules would do. It is unacceptable to set a very high standard of democracy for Zimbabwe and sing a different tune when it comes to Nigeria or Kenya. Democracy and good governance must mean the same in all situations and in all societies. What is good for the Zimbabweans must also be good for Kenyans, Nigerians, Ugandans and other failed Black African states!!