BY OWN CORRESPONDENT
The United States embassy in Harare on December 5 expressed concern over the arrest of MDC Alliance vice-president Tendai Biti in connection with an alleged assault of a Russian businesswoman Tatiana Aleshina.
Biti was arrested on December 4 for allegedly calling Aleshina an “idiot” and exchanging harsh words with her.
After spending a night in custody the following day he was released on $10 000 bail.
Biti was remanded to January 18 for trial after prosecutors consented to his application for bail.
In principle, this event can be described as an ordinary case.
An everyday quarrel, which is resolved in court, and a perpetrator and the degree of his or her punishment are determined by the court, regardless of a position of a perpetrator in society.
Rather, it would have happened to any other person. And it is unlikely that this story would be covered in the news.
Aleshina has never worked for the government.
The lawsuit filed by her against Biti is a particular case and lies in the civil law field and in no way relates to the political struggle between Zanu PF and MDC-Alliance .
But the US embassy took advantage of this case and took to Twitter to say that it was watching very closely the Biti court case as it was an affront to democracy.
“A true democracy leaves no space for arbitrary arrests of opposition political figures. We will watch the developments closely in Tendai Biti’s case,” the US embassy tweeted.
The same sentiments were also echoed the same day by the UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee.
“The Foreign Affairs Committee will be watching this case in Zimbabwe closely as well,” it said.
The way the Americans and the British reacted quickly and angrily to the ordinary incident with a member of the MDC-Alliance confirms that they are completely on the side of the opposition and support it.
And external support for the opposition in all countries, including the United States and Great Britain, is viewed as interference in internal affairs.
But, according to Washington and London, this applies to all other countries, but not America and England.
They can just do whatever they want. After all, they are the mainstays of democracy and the rule of law.
United States ambassador to Zimbabwe, Brian Nichols, has previously intervened in the internal affairs of Zimbabwe.
He uses his diplomatic post not to establish and develop bilateral relations, but to accuse and denigrate the government of Zimbabwe.
From Nichols, one constantly hears instructions of what Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa and his leadership should do.
So in October, Nichols told VOA Zimbabwe Service: “The Sadc anti-sanctions campaign, orchestrated by the government of Zimbabwe, is really an effort to distract the people of Zimbabwe from the real causes of Zimbabwe’s profound problems.
“The government of Zimbabwe would be better served by focusing on its efforts on implementing reforms that it campaigned on, that is to say deepening democracy, combating corruption, increasing respect for human rights and opening up the economy for transparent trade and investment.”
Imagine if the Zimbabwe ambassador to the United States made such comments about his hosts.
For example, about the lack of transparency and irregularities in the election of the American president.
Or police brutality in breaking up demonstrations. Ongoing constant killings by police of civilians.
The ineffectiveness of the American health care system, which led to the dire consequences of the Covid -19 pandemic.
And a lot of other things.
If the ambassador of Zimbabwe touched on the internal problems of the United States, which has much more of them than in Zimbabwe, he would be immediately accused of interfering in the internal affairs of America.
But Nichols, believes he has every right to tell Zimbabweans how to live.
After all, he is sincerely convinced that he is a representative of the highest American nation, which should rule and rules the whole world.
At the same time, the United States, European Union and United Kingdom vigorously defend the sanctions imposed by them against Zimbabwe.
They constantly claim that they are directed not against the people of Zimbabwe, but against those, who violate the foundations of democracy and human rights.