When former South African President Thabo Mbeki brokered the historic power
sharing deal between Zimbabwe’s president Robert Mugabe and the Opposition,
there was guarded optimism that African diplomacy had come of age.
The Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the AU, who are
guarantors of the September 15 power sharing deal, touted it as the solution
to Zimbabwe’s decade old economic "of dictators" tag.
With a new breed of leaders in Botswana’s Ian Khama, Tanzania’s Jakaya
Kikwete, Zambia’s Levy Mwanawasa — he has since died – and South Africa’s
Africa Thabo Mbeki – he would resign a week later – met, the continent had
every reason to believe that SADC would bring the hard-nosed Mugabe into
line.
Despite tough talk by South Africa and Botswana that the Zimbabwean crisis
had dragged on for too long, those well schooled in African politics did not
order the champagne.
African leaders
They knew that when faced with a choice between morality and expediency,
African leaders choose expediency. The AU and SADC observers were
unequivocal that President Mugabe had stolen the June election.
Yet it was only Botswana, Nigeria, Kenya and Liberia that rejected the old
Zimbabwean dictator’s posturing and refused to accept him as a legitimate
Head of State.
Expectations were that the Opposition would reject the AU position but it
confounded its critics by agreeing to discuss a unity government with the
election loser; there was so much optimism that SADC would score a first by
finding an African solution to an African problem.
But the SADC initiative hit a brick wall a fortnight ago when an
extra-ordinary summit tried to impose an unworkable solution to the impasse
over the sharing of cabinet portfolios between Mr Mugabe’s ruling Zanu PF
and the opposition MDC.
The five out of 15 Heads of State who bothered to attend the summit in
Johannesburg were outfoxed by the wily Mugabe.
He managed to have adopted, the unworkable position that the feuding parties
co-share the Interior Ministry.
Analysts say the failure of SADC in Zimbabwe can be traced to its
unwillingness to tackle regional crises that first emerged in the DRC in
1998. Similar half hearted attempts have been seen in SADC interventions in
Lesotho and Swaziland where dictatorships have been legitimised.
Professor Andre du Pisani, a former Dean of Economics at the University of
Namibia and consultant to SADC believes the regional body’s failure in
Zimbabwe can be traced to Mr Mugabe’s consistent exploitation of the
politics of the liberation movements.
Mr Mugabe continues to hide behind claims that his political opponents are
agents of imperialism. As a result, the ruling ANC in South Africa, FRELIMO
in Mozambique, Namibia’s SWAPO and MPLA in Angola continue to support Mr
Mugabe, making it difficult for the regional leaders to censure the
dictator.
Even if Botswana, Zambia and to a lesser extent Tanzania have been vocal in
rejecting Mr Mugabe’s dictatorship, countries led by the liberation
movements have managed to drown their voices.
To demonstrate that the Harare regime believes its politics of scare
mongering work, it is now bogged down in a diplomatic row with Botswana
after it made outrageous but familiar accusations that Gaborone was training
opposition linked bandits.
Botswana has dismissed the charges as outrageous and has asked SADC to
undertake a fact-finding mission to probe the allegations.
Perhaps even President Seretse Ian Khama, who himself presides over a
government that can hardly pass for a democracy is more interested in seeing
a stop to refugees flocking into his country. Botswana last week complained
its resources were overstretched by 1,000 refugees.
But more perplexing has been South Africa’s reluctance to act on Zimbabwe.
Mr Mbeki’s loyalty to Mr Mugabe was legendary. In a recent letter to Mr
Jacob Zuma, the new leader of ANC, Mr Mbeki mentions Mr Mugabe as one of the
liberation war heroes who inspire him.
Naturally, Zimbabweans were hopeful South Africa’s caretaker President
Kgalema Motlanthe would take a firmer stance. But the new leader only
proffered a feeble attempt at tackling the crisis next door. South Africa’s
handling of the Zimbabwean problem has drawn sharp criticism from many
quarters and its gentle treatment of Mr Mugabe has infuriated many.
Moral leadership
South Africa has always been reluctant to claim the moral leadership it so
richly deserves and instead chose to support dictators such as Mr Mugabe,
Libya’s Col Muamar Gaddafi and Cuba’s Fidel Castro.
Critics argue this is largely due out of gratitude for the help it received
during the struggle against apartheid.
Yet Zimbabwe was never one of the best supporters of the ANC and even threw
Mr Mbeki into prison after arms believed to be of Umkhonto Wesizwe, a
military wing of the liberation movement, were discovered in Zimbabwe.
Instead Mr Mugabe has always been an ally of the Pan Africanist Congress,
which was smaller than the ANC.
So what is preventing an ANC government from stopping the rot in Harare?
Zimbabweans desperate for change have all sorts of answers.
"South Africa is desperate for human resources ahead of the 2010 Soccer
World Cup and they will not be happy to see the Zimbabwean crisis being
resolved," said Mr Munyaradzi Mudzengi, a mechanic in Harare.
Others are of the view that South Africa wants to cement its status as an
economic superpower by ensuring that its only threat – Zimbabwe – does not
recover from its self-created problems.
By KITSEPILE NYATHI NATION Correspondent
http://www.nation.co.ke
Post published in: Uncategorized