The grandiosely professioned “author, poet, lecturer, journalist, editor, and lawyer”, Hal Colebatch, aka Quadrant contributor and freelance culture warrior, has the ultimate reductive explanation for the tragic situation in Zimbabwe – it was all Malcolm Fraser’s fault, and he should fix it. I’m sure Fraser – if he felt that he had any influence on Mugabe – would exercise it of his own accord, but the article really isn’t about a solution to the impasse which sees Zimbabwe on a most troubling precipice. Rather, Colebatch is playing one of the favoured games of the culture warrior – take advantage of atrocity to pin the blame on your domestic political opponents. It’s a habit they just can’t break. It appears to stem from some sort of Cold War nostalgia. Unable any more to tar even the most centrist of lefties with the communist brush, they (and we) stand condemned before the bar of history’s judgement for Stalin and Saddam (and in the whackier reaches of the right, Hitler as well – National Socialist, don’t you know?).
Leaving aside the fact that apparently African tyrants have no agency, and are pawns manipulated by liberal graziers from Victoria, there’s at least one big furphy in Colebatch’s article:
When Fraser was working to install Mugabe, Zimbabwe-Rhodesia had a black majority government under bishop Abel Muzorewa, a moderate without Mugabe’s Marxism or association with terrorist atrocities. This government’s constitution reserved 28 of 100 parliamentary seats for whites, still a disproportionately large number. There was universal adult suffrage.Muzorewa was apparently prepared to work closely with whites, who he recognised were vital to the economy, and he was also favoured by Thatcher (the “moderate” solution that Kevin credits Fraser with opposing). His record suggested he was a man who rejected violence and sought a peaceful settlement.
There had already been considerable changes away from white supremacy in the latter days of the Ian Smith regime. The armed forces, for example, had been taking black officers.
A Muzorewa regime might have failed, though with strong British and other Commonwealth support it could have had a good chance of success. In any event, it is hard to imagine how a Muzorewa-led Zimbabwe, retaining the whites’ agricultural, commercial and administrative expertise, could have led to a worse outcome than that which has transpired, with the country bankrupt, people starving and democracy in ruins.
Muzorewa, currently perched on a former white owned farm he was handed by Mugabe’s “war veterans”, may, of course, Bishopric notwithstanding, not be the saint Colebatch implies he is. But forget about that. What Colebatch conveniently leaves out of his morality tale is that the civil hostilities continued after Muzorewa had been sworn in, and that Zimbabwe Rhodesia – as it was called – had yet to achieve independence. Perhaps Colebatch is arguing for a continued British colonial regime with a dominion style parliament. If so, he ought to say it. The settlement Fraser was involved in brokering was designed to stop the continued violence and achieve a peaceful settlement based on democratic elections. The ones which ushered Muzorewa into power may have been conducted on the basis of “universal suffrage”, but if, as Iraq and numerous other conflicts demonstrate, one armed faction doesn’t disarm and contest the poll, it’s doubtful that the results either settle anything or have legitimacy. The elections conducted after talks involving Fraser led to Mugabe’s party ZANU winning 50 seats and Muzorewa’s UANC party winning precisely 3.
That’s a very significant ommission from Colebatch’s narrative.
Whether or not Colebatch thinks that Zimbabwe would have done better under some sort of colonial tutelage is one thing. Whether that solution was even feasible was quite another. And then there’s the absurdity of expecting Fraser to have foreseen the entire course of Zimbabwean history from the vantage point of what he knew in 1979. If Fraser hasn’t had a stellar record in terms of issuing the loud condemnations Colebatch demands of him, so be it, though this caricature of the truth leads me to doubt that Colebatch is representing Fraser’s subsequent actions accurately or fairly.
The inescapable fact is that Robert Mugabe, not Malcolm Fraser, is responsible for the hell hole Zimbabwe has become. Colebatch might profitably turn his attention to some constructive suggestions about how the will of the Zimbabwean people might now be made reality, but to use the awful situation the country finds itself in as a stick to beat up his political opponents with, speaks to how we should judge him.
Piers Akerman had a go at this one as well a couple of weeks ago in the Telegraph.
Personally I believe that if the minority whites had been prepared to assimilate and adopt mainstream Zimbabwean values, the problems would have been much easier to manage.
This was the point where I called bullshit on that article:
That very “strong support” would have guaranteed its failure. Colebatch surely must know that. If so, he’s a hypocrite; if not, a fool.
Mugabe, Joshua Nkomo and Smith would have pulled a Muzorewa regime apart, like Goering and Thaelmann did to Germany’s Weimar Republic. The only difference would be that Mugabe’s paranoid ravings about Britain would have some solid grounds to them. Smith would have gone down with apartheid South Africa and Mugabe would have the cloak of Mandela draped over him.
That’s about right, Andrew. Muzorewa couldn’t have been maintained in power except by undemocratic means. I mean – 3 seats won in an election the UK conducted. Hardly a sign that he enjoyed popular support. I was half expecting Colebatch to whip out some sort of “decolonisation was a mistake” argument, but he’s been much more dishonest – made one by stealth.
That’s on the assumption that he actually knows anything about the history. If he doesn’t, I suppose that absolves him from a gross misrepresentation of the truth. But it convicts him of a different kind of mendacity.
As gilmae has noted the mad right wing commentariat have been circulating this rubbish for at least a couple of weeks now. My suspicious mind can’t help thinking this is some kind of an attempt at petty revenge on Fraser for his trenchant criticism of Howard’s ditching of liberal principles over the term of that Government, which surely persuaded many on the centre right to turn against Howard and his neocon cronies, and probably is still causing difficulties in the Liberal Party. After all, its the sort of thing you’d expect the Howardites to do.
Could be, Paul.
I just don’t think they can help themselves. Whatever the nonsense of the month is they all write columns about it. Cf Planet today on the “Liberal students against brainwashing” thing. “Free-thinkers”, “Contrarians”… Harumph!
Colebatch even quotes the same sentences from Ayres’ biog of Fraser as Piers does.
Wouldn’t it save money to just get Bolt to write all the columns? He seems a prolific lad, judging by his blog.
I had a mighty laugh today when I read that article. I like it when the Oz includes these satirical pieces in their oped page – it really brightens my day.
btw – im sorry to do this, but:
Unescapable or inescapable?
Also, i think hell hole is one word.
Once again I apologise.
Hmm, yes, inescapable it is. Will fix. But I’m not too sure “hell hole” should be one word. Isn’t that like writing “alot”?
The ultimate authority on hell holes (no, not Rick Astley say that hell hole is two words, not one.
The Akerman/Bolt/Colebatch echo chamber says to me that these kinds of attacks are co-ordinated as Paul intimates. None of those mental giants know anything about Zimbabwe other than what their lackeys find for them in Conservapedia. Bolt used to be a sports reporter for goodness sake.
OED supplement says ‘hell-hole’
I think it’s more powerful rhetorically as two words – reminds you what the image evokes rather than just a word that can be over-used.
Let’s cut to the chase. When the likes of Colebatch, Akerman and others on the Right bluster about Mugabe, they are really saying in a coded way that apartheid and its collaborators like Buthelezi were good, and democracy and its champions like Nelson Mandela are bad, in South Africa. Let it not be forgotten that virtually the entire right-of centre side of Australian politics, with the honourable exception of Malcolm Fraser, spent virtually the entire apartheid period piously declaring “Of course we oppose apartheid, but…” with the “but” being that apartheid was nonetheless a lesser evil than “takeover” by the “communist” Mandela and the ANC.
And Colebatch is also a crap poet who would not be published by anyone other than his fellow muffin-puffers at Quadrant.
Hey, remember those ‘Shame Fraser Shame’ and ‘Fraser Lies’ bumper stickers that adorned Morris Minors and fridge doors all over Glebe and Leichhardt back in the early 1980s – when Robert Mugabe was still a revolutionary hero?
I bet they’re even harder to find now-days than those black and yellow ‘Capitalism Fouls Things Up’ stickers picturing a nuclear power station with smoke pouring out of the reactor dome – and which disappeared from every book-shop between the East Wind Book Shop to Glebe Books within 24 hours of the Chernobyl meltdown.
So funny, the Eighties.
I don’t know anything about this period of African history (let alone that it was so relevant in Australia!) so I would like to ask: isn’t it the case that Mugabe’s policies, economics etc. were quite good for the first half of his reign, and it was only in the later years that he started to screw the country? If so it seems particularly unfair to expect Fraser to have seen this coming in 1979.
Here we see a nice side of these conservative commentators coming out – because Fraser opposed Howard, he must be so left-wing that we can conclude he brokered the entry into government of a marxist radical. This about a man who used to be revered by conservatives … it shows how off the rails the conservative side of politics have gone.
Fuck, I remember reading once (during the Keating era) Robert Manne described in the Herald as a “right wing intellectual”. Of course most modern right-wing commentators refer to him as the loony left. What has happened to our politics?
SG: You aren’t alone in being a little in the dark on this period of African history. For so much authoritative prattling to be going on at this forum there must have been quite a bit of remedial readig going on.
As recently as October last year most anybody who mentioned Zimbabwe on this forum was bumbling along with greenhorn comments & barely able to name the capital city.
A few fellers went & grabbed a book so they could sound like they knew what they were talking about to defend Malcom Fraser.
She’s all after the fact catch-up knowledge – free of understanding.
“Personally I believe that if the minority whites had been prepared to assimilate and adopt mainstream Zimbabwean values, the problems would have been much easier to manage.”
*snort*
Actually, steve, I had a lecturer at Uni who’d written his PhD thesis on the Zimbabwean trade union movement and I got a bit interested in the country’s history about twelve years ago.
SG, Mugabe’s socialism and his desire for what was essentially a one-party state were pretty clear to folks at the time, and I’m sure to Fraser. But Marxist affiliations weren’t uncommon in colonial liberation movements (cf. Alkitiri and Fretelin in East Timor). It’s fair to say that Mugabe’s authoritarian and violent tendencies didn’t really emerge until a few years late – with the expulsion of Nkomo from the Cabinet in 1982 and what he then described as a “civil war” but might better have been seen as a series of massacres and a resistance movement. The point at which Nkomo was re-incorporated into the government in 1987 also saw significant changes to the British drafted constitution including the abolition of the office of PM and consolidation of power in the office of President.
And, your point, Eliot?
Are you suggesting that political opposition to a Liberal PM is wrong?
I don’t find myself particularly reconciled to Fraser’s rehabilitation of his reputation personally.
Speak for yourself bartender. If you don’t remember the history of Australian conservative’s penchant for racism and the quite deliberate political strategy of equating anti-rcism and anti colonialism with a plot to confiscate all property, you are either a fool, ignorant, or both.
The problem of how to be a conservative and not racist to boot was a ticklish question for the Australian Right. Luckily for them, and unluckily for everyone else, the Right has now turned its feverish attention to the civilisational crisis posed by Islam, as opposed to the crisis posed by the demands of black people to govern themselves, since it is now very economically ‘uncool’ to say the leat to appear to be a flagrant racist.
amused wrote:
Actually, they’ve changed tack to two different explanations about why it’s OK to be a racist. The first is that it’s OK to be a racist on immigration policy on “economic” grounds – aka the high value/high skill immigrant program. The second time it’s OK to be a racist is when you’re talking about “tolerance” – apparently it’s intolerant to not allow racism because that is an offshoot of po-mo, multi-culti political correctness which are three of the four horsemen of the apocalypse (the fourth being Malcolm Fraser). Convoluted new excuses for the old behaviours.
Bartender steve is from the deep north, where it’s still OK to be a racist for old fashioned reasons (where de white women at?). He’ll catch up in 2015.
Fraser has a response to Colebatch in today’s OZ http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/yoursay/index.php/theaustralian/comments/why_i_backed_mugabe/
I think he handles himself quite well but leave it to others to judge whether it is an accurate account of events.
Fraser is copping a belting in the comments on the Oz site – he doesn’t have many fans left on the right does he!
SATP, I remember (dimly – it was a long time and quite a few drinks ago) that, at the time, Mugabe looked like a huge improvement over Ian Smith (he didn’t seem to be a white-supremacist racist arsehole, just for a start). Don’t forget that Smith got to live out his days in Zimbabwe unmolested, which would not be the case if Mugabe had started out as vile as he’s become.
This sort of criticism of Fraser was actually quite loud before the election.
Ignoring the fact that no-one knew that Mugabe would turn out like this 30 years down the road , this meme has a two fold purpose.
1. Whoever is not with us is against us. If the right can turn on Fraser for daring to oppose whoever is the right’s darling of the moment woe betide them.
2. Painting the left as a supporter of dictators and despots. Want to show compassion to the poor? Want to save our health system? You leftist commie. Being of the left of course you support Mugabe, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and the purple people eater. All well known leftists.
People keep mentioning the former restraining influence of Mrs Mugabe, who unfortunately died some years ago. They say Robert has been much more brutal and dictatorial since her passing. Can anyone shed some light?
Ta.
Elections can bring to power regimes that then abolish democracy: Czech Communists and the Islamic Republic in Iran are examples. Assume that Colebatch’s anti-democratic policy had been adopted, the result would have been a war between the ‘internal settlement’ government and the mass of the black population with the Soviet Union on the side of the majority. This would have been a PR coup for the Soviet Union. Fraser as a good cold war warrior wanted to prevent this. Objective achieved Zimbabwe didn’t follow Angola and Mozambique into the Soviet orbit. So on Colebatch’s plan the 1980s would have seen increasing military conflict in Zimbabwe with large death tolls. With the fall of the Soviet Union the west would have lost interest in supporting its allies, a settlement would have ensued similar to that of the 1980s and Mugabe would have won the elections. I await Colebatch’s next column on how the US could have kept the Shah in power. Defending the 1980 settlement does not involve downplaying the massacres of the early 1980s. See this report: http://davidcoltart.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/breakingthesilence.pdf (PDF).
As for the current economic position, perhaps it is a lesson in peasant-based agriculture not being productive compared to large-scale farming. Stalin could have told Mugabe that.
Ambigulous, Fraser discusses the role of Mugabe’s first wife in his riposte to Colebatch:
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/yoursay/index.php/theaustralian/comments/why_i_backed_mugabe/
Geoff, if memory serves correctly, Nkomo and ZAPU were the pro-Soviet faction in Zimbabwe whilst Mugabe and ZANU-PF were pro-China. How does this sit with your interesting analysis and counterfactual?
I admit to a regrettable ignorance about Zimbabwean history, but I’m a bit more up on Australian psephology. I note that Colebatch’s impressive CV “author, poet, lecturer, journalist, editor, and lawyer” leaves out “unsuccessful Liberal candidate for a basically unloseable seat”.
Methinks he’s never got over it. Then again, this level of out-of-touchness with people’s basic concerns probably has something to do with it.
“but to use the awful situation the country finds itself in as a stick to beat up his political opponents with, speaks to how we should judge him.”
Is this Zimbabwe or Iraq you’re referring to?
Ambigulous,
Quite a few years ago now there was a rumour going round that Mugabe had syphilis and his unstable violent behaviour was attributed to syphilitic insanity. Its such a long time ago I can’t remember the source.
SATP,
I’ve been studying African colonial history for some time now because of my interest in the 18C slave trade.And anybody on LP who studied OZ history at uni, would have at least touched on the history of Sudan (first o/s deployment of NSW troops) and the history of South Africa (Boer War). When I was teaching we stopped at 1975, but I’ve no doubt the Fraser era is now studied in depth in Oz history courses at uni. This would include Fraser’s foreign policy which would have to include Zimbabwe.Its unwise to presume ignorance on current affairs on LP. As Mark and Amused have so ably demonstrated to you.
Sure, some of us have the usual qualifications and have done a bit of reading but unless you have the relevant degree from the University of Life Experience (ULE), especially the double degree Bachelor of Common Sense/Bachelor of Human Nature (BCS/BHumN), or alternatively the School of Hard Knocks (which has one of the best graduate programs in Anti-Intellectual Studies around), then your ‘knowledge’ isn’t worth much at all.
Thanks Mark, I was hoping for a bit more detail. Was Mugabe ever seriously in the China camp, in that other Cold War rivalry: USSR vs PRC?
Klaus, does holding a Bachelor’s, Master’s or PhD from a Uni preclude one from enrolling in those excellent courses you’re spruiking?
Klaus,
I graduated in all those courses (except the anti-intellectual one) before I went to uni.
Ambigulous, yes, the PRC funded his armed insurgency.
Presumably Klaus’ courses are marked by self-assessment? Glad to see everybody else has their Zimbabwe commentariat credentials up to date
Except David Rubie, whose bigoted view of NQ seems as if it comes from a leather armchaired London Gentelmen’s Club!
Anyway. As it has turned out, Mugabe was everything bad that Ian Smith was, only worse in every way, without the administrative & political competence which Smith had.
Mugabe has rooted one of the better-off countries in Africa.
Smith proved that he could turn Rhodesia into one of the better countries in Africa, while concurrenly fighting off a guerilla insurgency. Hideously racist though his administration was, it was miles better than the one which followed it.
I’d prefer to whip Howard with this mess, as he was the last Australian to use Zimbabwe as a political tool by going there as a Commonwealth whipping boy, then walking away and forgetting all about Mugabe. My warped read on that is that Howard liked what he saw in Mugabe. But in reality Africa is Africa’s problem and Europe’s responsibility. It was Europe that carved up Africa into these unworkable boundaries to suit their own territorial passions. It was Europe that raided the continent for everything that it had (Belgium and the Congo for instance). So Europeans have the moral responsibility to facilitate a modern Africa, but it is only Africans who can make this happen. Only Africans can decide how they want their country to work, even if they have to go back to a tribal route to get to it.
My mistake. That should have been Howard the “whipper boy” not “whipping boy”. Wrong end of the cane.
“Klaus, does holding a Bachelor’s, Master’s or PhD from a Uni preclude one from enrolling in those excellent courses you’re spruiking?”
No, it doesn’t preclude you, but you’re not entitled to HECS, RTS or any other support, and you’re going to have to pay up front every fortnight to the landlord, to the bank, and so on, with just enough left for a couple of longnecks of VB if you’re lucky.
Ah tallies of VB. The essential student survival ambrosia. In winter mixed with Stones Green Ginger wine. The memories!
Someone obviously wasn’t trying.
Couldn’t afford enough, DD.
Satp and others in the liquor trade should be wary of too much University bashing. Students are some of their biggest and most enthusiastic customers.
I got onto Green Ginger Wine before I went to uni. And Blackberry Nip.
#43: I heard that!
Never had to deal with a student demographic. Presumably they are a tamer, more articulate, less cashed up version of the young knuckleheads I currently have the mixed blessing of catering to.
No matter what uni students are like, they could not possibly be as odious as Corporates (my least favourite demographic)
In order of preference (In my ignorance I’d slot uni students in at about #9):
1/ Builders & building trades workers (chippies, labourers, plumbers, painters etc)
2/ Motor trades (mecanics, panel beaters etc)
3/ Assorted other trades
4/ Trade Unionists
5/ Motor cycle gangs
6/ Barristers & entourage
7/ Fishermen, truckies, stockmen & bush workers
8/ “grey people” 25-45yo
9/ dole-eys
10+/ Everybody else
>100/ corporate clients
SATP,
Uni students should probably be between trade unionists and bikies.
Stone’s Green Ginger, cheap sherry, cheap port, beer. If you remember anything from the 60’s [hah!!] it may be those lovely curved glass “flagons” that bulk wine was sold in, before le Chateua Cardboard. I recall a barrel shaped one with ribs, and a closer-to-cylindrical one. Quite heavy. This was when milk was sold in (recyclable) bottles too.
Queen Victoria on the Throne, bless her. No talk of Federation. Goldfields abuzz. I did mean the EIGHTEEN sixties.