Instead of locking Mr Robert Mugabe, the illegally self-declared
president of Zimbabwe, out of its summit, the AU inexplicably embraced him.
This disgraceful act, together with the AU’s call for Mr Mugabe to
share power with Mr Morgan Tsvangirai of the opposition Movement for
Democratic Change, gives a measure of legitimacy to a sadistic despot who
should be sitting in prison.
Significantly, the AU’s weak-kneed response tells the world that Mr
Mugabe is not the only sick man of Africa.
Visceral distaste
I have now developed a visceral distaste for all things Mugabe. Take
his valiant struggle against barbaric British colonialism, for instance.
What good is that history if all he has done with it is to destroy the
country he so heroically fought for? The other totem that he pulls out of
his bag of tricks is sovereignty.
While no African can gainsay the importance of this universal
principle, what good is it if all Mr Mugabe does is use it as a shield to
oppress his people?
Take the hypocrisy of the West over the Zimbabwe crisis, for example.
What good is recognising that hypocrisy when all Mr Mugabe does with it is
insist that former colonial and racist powers have no right to oppose his
brutalities?
Mr Mugabe is adept at using all kinds of canards to escape
responsibility for the ruin of Zimbabwe. Even if I agreed with him on his
critiques of the West – and I do – I could never in a million years condone
his despotic rule.
The West can go hang
It seems that the only thing that matters to Mr Mugabe is Mr Mugabe
himself. As far as he is concerned, the West can go to hell, or “hang” as
his lackey angrily told reporters at Sharm el-Sheikh on Tuesday.
But the truth of the matter is that Mr Mugabe actually means to tell
Zimbabweans to go “hang.”
After all, he has no power over the West. His power – the crude
instrument against an impoverished population – can only be wielded against
his own people, not the West.
I am deeply saddened that Mr Mugabe’s stellar history has turned into
such a racist caricature of the stereotypical African tin despot.
Ruins of Zimbabwe
I remember that day in 1980 when he led Zimbabwe to freedom. For
those who do not remember, Bob Marley, the iconic reggae star, performed at
the independence celebrations to signify the renaissance of a country and
continent from the chains of bondage.
All that hope is now gone, replaced by – ironically – the ruins of
Zimbabwe. What is in Mr Mugabe that makes him so sick? Is there something
in his history or childhood that can explain his deep psychosis?
I am not a psychologist, but I will advance a hypothesis. In his
person, Mr Mugabe embodies two of the three most damaging traumas that
Africans have been put through in the modern era.
The first is slavery which, to my knowledge, did not directly affect
Mr Mugabe. The second is colonialism, which defined the man and shaped his
political identity and understanding of power.
The third, and final, one is Cold War post-colonialism which stunted
Africa’s political growth.
 Of the latter two, I believe that it is colonialism that was most
responsible for Mr Mugabe’s psychological damage. His dialectical
relationship with whites has forged his identity.
White domination
Mr Mugabe’s life – like that of many Africans his age – was marked by
white domination from his childhood through adulthood.
It was after all only a mere 28 years ago that he seemingly wrested
Zimbabwe from whites. But, in fact, white domination of Zimbabwe continued
in agriculture and other sectors of the economy until he ran everything into
the ground.
Even today, when many white Zimbabweans have fled the country, Mr
Mugabe still sees himself as fighting against white oppressors.
To him, white oppressors are everywhere – if not in Zimbabwe, then in
the West. He is obsessed with them. Is he merely hallucinating? Or is
there some truth in his phobia?
Global power
Only a fool would not admit that the West or the global North – which
is dominated by whites – controls global power and wealth. In that sense,
Mr Mugabe is right to be resentful that the West exercises control over
Africa.
But that fact should be the reason why he must free and empower
Zimbabweans, not oppress, kill, and pillage them.
 How else would Africa free itself politically and economically from
the West if Mr Mugabe and his ilk continue to destroy their countries?
Historical traumas
The only fruitful answer to the historical traumas that Mr Mugabe and
other Africans have suffered is to create open and free societies where the
vast potential of Africa can be realised.
Killing Africans to protest at Western domination makes no sense.
As I wrote last week, Africa must choke off the Mugabe regime –
through diplomatic isolation and cutting off all economic, political, and
military links.
 Starve the regime to death. I do not believe that a military
intervention disguised as peacekeepers – as Prime Minister Raila Odinga has
suggested – is the answer.
Military action is a last resort against a sovereign state in
exceptional circumstances like genocide or a horrible civil war.
This is not the case in Zimbabwe. I am also not too crazy about a
so-called Kenya-style solution. Instead, what is needed is a transitional
government to organise free and fair elections in a year.
I am confident that Mr Tsvangirai and the MDC would sweep the polls in
a free vote.
Out of power
Mr Mugabe must be sent into retirement, and it is the AU that must do
it, not the European Union or the United States. The latter can support
African initiatives to resolve the Zimbabwean crisis, but they must not lead
Africa in this effort.
That is why Africans and the AU must step up and squeeze the sick man
of Africa out of power. Otherwise, Mr Mugabe’s continuation in power makes
the entire continent sick.