The national interest is often referred to by the French phrase, raison d'état, and to many the shared meaning is about a nation's survival, security, as well as the pursuit of economic growth, wealth and power.

In supporting the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975, Australian Ambassador Richard Woolcott send a diplomatic cable in which he recommended "a pragmatic rather than a principled stand" in regards to the then imminent invasion of East Timor.

The Australian ambassador argued that his doctrine was the most appropriate because "that is what national interest and foreign policy is all about".

In international relations, the Woolcott doctrine is unambiguous and it neatly cuts through the Gordian knots, making it clear that realism is not about morality, ethics or even truisms.

After being asked by Amy Kellog of Fox News on what he thought about China's incursions in Africa, and if he thought China's influence is "positive", or "they have been propping people like your President Mugabe", Morgan Tsvangirai had this to say:

"Whatever you can say about the Chinese, they are not missionaries. They have business interests; they have their own national interests especially when it comes to resources."

Amy Kellog's question was as primitively unprofessional as has become the habit by most main stream journalists from the Western media whenever they carry an interview on Zimbabwe in general, and in regards to President Robert Mugabe in particular.

But the question carries the undertones of the national interest for those on whose behalf Fox News speaks. It carries the hopes of ruling Western elites and it is a reflection of the Western position on Zimbabwe.
More important than anything else in the question advanced to Tsvangirai was the assumption that "propping up people like your President Mugabe" is an inherently deplorable thing. ZANU PF is deemed illegal and illegitimate in the West, despite the party's huge reputation within Africa.

The pragmatic position to take against a person like Robert Mugabe cannot be a principled one if one is hailing from the tradition of white supremacy, neo-colonial hegemony, or is advancing the cause of the imperial authorities. These attributes are not based on principle but on racial supremacy, and as such they cannot be sustained by principle or morals.

Principle calls for justice, morality and equality among nations, and these are the pillars of Mugabe's loathed policies, namely the land redistribution program, and of late the economic empowerment policies targeted at shifting control of business in Zimbabwe from foreign domination to a more indigenous ownership.
Whoever props up a person like Mugabe props up the rule of "the bewildered masses", the rise of the wretched of the earth at the expense of the privileged owners of global capital –largely operating on a Western doctrine. This is a major problem for neo-liberal thinkers.

The national interest and foreign policy of the United States cannot be about the principled stance that the colonially robbed people of Zimbabwe must have what was robbed from them restored to their possession. Pragmatism does not always work in line with principle.

There are no problems understanding the mentality of Amy Kellogg and every other sabre-rattling Western journalist calling for the head of Robert Mugabe every so often – there are no inconsistencies, no need for any casuistry as all principles are often abandoned so it can frankly be acknowledged that the powerful do what they like, acting with "Kissingerian realism", as Noam Chomsky would describe it. The tradition of Westerners in international affairs has for a long time been based on the "What we say goes" doctrine.

The national interest of the United States in as far as the political environment in Zimbabwe is concerned is a matter of instructed knowledge for someone so initiated into the dictates of Western foreign policy as Morgan Tsvangirai.

He knows exactly all the areas where the US would benefit through investment – not under the policies of Robert Mugabe or of Zimbabwe but under Western directed policies that allows the subjugation of locals as providers of labour and skills, not as partners in the exploitation of their own resources.

Amy Kellogg asked, "Do you see a day when the U.S. will have investment opportunities in Zimbabwe?"
Answered Tsvangirai; "Definitely. I don't see anyone excluded from the potential of the country including business opportunities and investment opportunities. There is energy potential, there is mining potential.
There is industrial development potential. The people are the most educated in Africa."

It is amazing that Tsvangirai knows perfectly where there is potential for Western investors and has no idea about the potential of his own people in industrial development. But he knows that Zimbabweans would be quite handy as "the most educated in Africa" – a strict colonially constructed mentality that sees the African as good enough in only providing labour, be it skilled or unskilled.

Frustrated by the Robert Mugabe resolve and that of his ZANU PF party in fighting off Western pressure, Amy Kellogg like many other Westerners placed hope for the removal of the veteran African leader on anticipated ripple effects of the Tunisia and Egypt mass protests.

She asked Morgan Tsvangirai if he thought what happened in Tunisia and Egypt could also happen in Zimbabwe.
At this point Tsvangirai developed the usual hurricanes that often sweep through his head and rhapsodised what could have been very inciting sentiments had it not been that no sane Zimbabwean takes the man seriously, especially on matters related to mass action.

He said, "--there is nothing wrong with that, including in Zimbabwe. That was the whole purpose of our struggle for the last 10 years."

He was talking about people "taking their rights" and about them "demanding more rights", only when such rights are being demanded from domestic leadership, and not from the most oppressive Western imperialist regime. He was not taking about the masses of Zimbabwe demanding their right to land that was in the possession of colonial settlers.

When Zimbabweans demand their rights in as far as control of their natural resources is concerned, Tsvangirai asks his Western masters to isolate Zimbabwe and to sanction the people until "the rule of law returns" and "property rights are restored".

It is within the US' national interest doctrine to define September 11 attacks as terrorist attacks and yet the same national interest leads the same United States to define its own deadly attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan as "democracy promotion", regardless of how terrified the citizens of those countries are whenever Western fire power is poured on their hard earned infrastructure.

One wonders how it would be taken if Osama bin Laden defined the September 11 attacks as "justice promotion", something that may not be entirely ludicrous if the argument that the terror attacks were inspired by the US' own aggressive acts in international affairs were to be upheld for once.

Richard Woolcott's doctrinal leanings in supporting the Indonesian invasion of East Timor were not held when Saddam invaded Kuwait in August 1990.

In the case of the Kuwait invasion Australia's principled stand was to oppose and condemn Iraq and the differential reaction can be explained.

In the case of East Timor, support for war crimes and crimes against humanity was highly profitable to Australia and served the interests represented by policymakers, otherwise known as "the national interest".

The conquest of Kuwait harmed those interests. The same was true for the United States and every other one of the twenty eight allies that were part of the Gulf War, my mistake, the Gulf Massacre – for that is what it was.

Realism is crude but more preferable to the inflated and self-congratulatory rhetoric intended to manufacture public consent for the ratification of elitist acts, often disguised as public opinion or the national interest.

It does not matter it is an imperial country defining "national interest" or a liberated ex-colony doing so, the term is simply a residual Orwellism that messes up semantics.

Conventionally "the national interest" is used to designate the special interests of those whose domestic power allows them to craft state policy for their own ends.

So we have politicians that will craft state policy in a way that creates the misimpression that only these politicians are the custodians of a "people's human rights" and "freedoms and liberties".

So we have political leaders who define themselves as "human rights defenders" and as custodians of "democracy" – anointing themselves the authors and finishers of freedom and liberties in a "new Zimbabwe", ostensibly made new merely by their ascendance to power and the occupation of esteemed political offices.

Our liberation legacy has not been spared this convention either. There are politicians who anoint themselves custodians of our collective memory over the excruciating effects of colonial repression – seeking to control our present thought processes not for our own good but for the good of their own political ambitions.

Rhetoric on the liberation legacy designed to manufacture political consent for the sake of sidelining political competitors is not a matter of principle but of expediency. Those who seek to survive the political jungle by riding on the liberation legacy preach seniority and entitlement ahead of policy, and they use the liberation rhetoric to ward off competition within their own political parties and also at inter-party level.
This does not mean that the liberation legacy is not the foundation of Zimbabwe's national interest. The true national interest of Zimbabwe was born out of the liberation struggle, and that is our solid and unwavering foundation. President Robert Mugabe is very eloquent and convincing on this matter.

This foundation is itself in perpetual conflict with everything imperialistic in scope or perception. This is why the MDC finds itself in constant conflict with those who fought for the liberation of Zimbabwe.
The treacherous DNA of the MDC-T in particular is incompatible with anything that can be defined as liberation, the party itself being a tool of imperialistic domination and Western hegemony.

In the West the idea of a few elitists defining the national interest for all else is neither new nor surprising. It is a tradition.

Much as many Australians were opposed to the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, the "pragmatic" position taken by Woolcott was that "Timor's petroleum smells better than Timorese blood and tears", in the sombre words of one Timorese priest after the deadly Kraras massacre of 1983.

Today Zimbabwe's diamonds shine brighter than the lives of the Zimbabwean masses and this is why for the sake of our diamonds the UK and the US want the whole country isolated and the diamonds declared "blood diamonds" so we can suffer for eternity under ruinous sanctions until Westerners lay their imperialistic hands on these gems.

The "pragmatic" concept of the "national interest" is usually unacceptable to the majority of the people, and this is precisely why it is always articulated in secret, in meetings having no more than a handful of powerful elites.

Often most of the so-called state secrets are motivated by fear of genuine democracy.

The opposition to WikiLeaks by Western elites derives from fear of embarrassment rather than national security, or any other concern proclaimed in the name of the people or any other truism.

The fact that Tendai Biti speaks against the illegal sanctions on Zimbabwe publicly, calling for the lifting of such sanctions is indicative of his awareness of the democratic demands in terms of what the people of Zimbabwe think about these ruinous sanctions.

When the same Biti Nicodemously submits a list of eight Parastatals which he considered appropriate for the EU to remove from their sanctions regime, then we see a man running away from democracy.

The same goes for Morgan Tsvangirai's public calls for the lifting of "restrictive measures" and his private campaign for the intensification of the same measures, in reality the murderous sanctions placed by his masters on his own people.

Biti and Tsvangirai's actions have all been revealed by documents released by the WikiLeaks, the whistle blower publication not so popular with Western elites these days.

Zimbabweans must know that people like Biti and Tsvangirai will continue to pronounce themselves positively in public, while they pursue mass harming policies in private. This is in service to global capital and the powerful corporations that seek always to make profits at the expense of locals from developing countries.

Zimbabwe we are one and together we will overcome. It is homeland or death!

Reason Wafawarova is a political writer and can be contacted on wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk or reason@rwafawarova.com or visit www.rwafawarova.com

©  EsinIslam.Com