Here is the thing with Mbeki’s fabled “quiet diplomacy”: it has not, does not and will not work.
While Mbeki and his simpering entourage of struggle buddies have been donning their Armani suits and hopping north on their private jets for the last few years, Zimbabwe has steadily accelerated into anarchy under their entrusted watch. As a result of their cronyism and morally corrupt incompetence, we are now getting a small taste of what a failed state on our border is all about.
We have already been subjected to massive illegal immigration from Zimbabwe during the reign of the laughable, Hitleresque buffoon in Harare. It has placed massive strain on our already strained facilities from hospitals to police stations, schools to roads and jobs. While a manageable number of immigrants work hard and add to the economy, an unmanageable number of such immigrants form a desperate human tsunami, swamping the possible good that controlled immigration could offer, leaving destruction in its wake.
It is happening right now on our northern borders. Thousands of people are daily trying to join the millions already here. Massive illegal immigration is creating a refugee crisis that we South Africans can not hope to cope with on our own.
In addition, we now have to deal with a cholera epidemic that is almost certainly going to cross the Limpopo and start infecting and killing South African citizens. We have to deal with refugees that have no option but to turn to crime in order to feed themselves. We have to deal with an international perception that regionally groups us together with Zimbabwe and judges us by their actions. Those that know better have noted our inability to provoke change up north and lump us together anyway. Frankly, we deserve it.
Why are we in this position? We are here because nobody in charge of our country bothered to take the threat seriously when it was obvious what was coming. The media and opposition parties have been hammering on about this fairly obvious outcome for years now. So endless were the warnings and the horror stories that they have faded out into background noise. The ANC government’s response has been to respect the sovereignty of Zimbabwe, respect the leadership of Zimbabwe and respect the rights of those leaders to travel and visit our country and be greeted on the tarmac.
By mutual exclusion, their response has also been to disrespect the wishes of the people of Zimbabwe who did not vote these thugs into power, to disrespect the rules of law and democracy when the sham elections were hammered into shape by Zanu-PF militia and to disrespect the human rights of farmers, farm workers and millions of hungry Zimbabweans. People were beaten and murdered and had their generations of work, their jobs and lives destroyed and were doomed to starvation. We stood by and watched and then we sickeningly prevented the world from taking any kind of action in the UN and ratified their elections.
Seven hundred thousand people were bulldozed out of their homes. That makes Sophiatown and District Six look like a joke, yet how raw are those wounds? We stood by and did nothing and said nothing. Intimidation, beatings and killings are commonplace in Zimbabwe today. There is no free press. There is barely an economy. There is almost no food being produced. There are no viable hospitals. There is no free trade. Our leaders chose to ignore this whilst maintaining the respect for those who are in charge of this diabolical mess.
It is now obvious that without intervention, nothing concrete is going to change in Zimbabwe. Since quiet diplomacy has now thankfully died and gone to bunnyland where it belonged all along, what are the options?
There is, to be blunt, only one option: Zimbabwe needs to have the results of the last contested election enforced. The MDC needs to take power as per the election mandate given by Zimbabwe’s long-suffering people. The MDC will then have to get foreign support; an embarrassing necessity for yet another African disaster imposed on Africans by Africans.
Blaming the West’s actions a hundred years ago and hiding behind some colonial, racial excuse is simply bull. The country was more than viable when Mugabe took over. He had the hopes of the world with him. He killed those hopes along with his own people. It is his fault. It is Zanu-PF’s fault. It is not Tony Blair’s fault. It is not Britain’s fault. A Zimbabwean born, Zimbabwean bred, Zimbabwean megalomaniac has destroyed Zimbabwe. That is the hard, cold truth.
The stability of the region and the upholding of democratic principles and human rights demand change there in a voice so loud that it can now not be ignored.
It is also obvious that this will not happen without some kind of real pressure being imposed on the Mugabe regime to step down. It is also clear that any kind of power sharing deal is simply a joke and will be dominated by Mugabe. This will have dire consequences for Zimbabwe and for its neighbours. There would be no credibility; nothing would really change and quite frankly, Zimbabwe has spoken and they don’t want him any more.
So, since Zimbabweans and the vast majority of SADC’s people all want the same thing, why not implement the following:
One month from now, with the blessing of SADC and the UN, a repentant and suitably humbled South Africa should lead a coalition comprising a significant peace keeping force into Zimbabwe to stabilise the situation there. It should constitute representative troops from every SADC country and any AU country that can spare them. Negotiations should ensure as much prior compliance with the security apparatus and the military of Zimbabwe as possible to prevent open fighting. It is quite likely that under the current climate in Zimbabwe, the military leaders would be happy to make a deal to save their own complicit skins and abandon Mugabe completely at the threat of large-scale, unified military action from multiple states.
The peace keeping force should initially centre in Harare and Bulawayo, and offer protection to the MDC with a mandate to allow the party to take full governmental control of Zimbabwe, starting with those two cities. If Mugabe does not stand down, he should be captured, arrested and tried. If he does stand down, he should be arrested and tried. Why should he be afforded any kind of leniency? People with far shorter rap sheets are waiting in line at the International Criminal Court. He would fit in perfectly. His “struggle credentials” are now a joke. His motives for “struggling” were quite clearly for self-enrichment and the pursuit of absolute personal power. He is an embarrassment to actual struggle heroes and should be exposed as such.
Why has it become necessary to take such radical action? Should we not keep talking? Is military intervention ethically justified? Is this simply an emotional reaction that upon closer scrutiny will prove to be a bad decision?
Contrary to popular belief, governments of countries do not invade other countries for humanitarian reasons. It is often sugarcoated in this way to appeal to the electorate, a fundamentally emotionally charged mass of voters with no real interest in the gritty details of rule or national strategy. There need to be some very real benefits to the invading countries to necessitate such action. The NATO bombing of Serbia, the US-led coalition invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and the US backed invasion of South Ossetia are all recent examples of action taken purely for overwhelmingly strategic reasons. They were all coated in humanitarian sugar and in some cases there may have even been beneficial humanitarian spin-offs after the fighting and bombing stopped. Strategic gain, however, dominated the decision to invade in all cases.
Going to war is a huge decision and should not be taken lightly, but sometimes the options just run dry. As safe as talking is, it is has proven totally ineffective. SADC have a number of important strategic reasons to validate this action in addition to the compelling humanitarian necessity:
• Invasion for peace keeping reasons would almost certainly have overwhelming international and UN support should South Africa and SADC back the plan. The world is horrified by what is going on in Zimbabwe. The world is further horrified by the South African reaction and lack of condemnation. We are seen as complicit at best. We need to redeem our image in the eyes of the world with concrete action and earn back our respect.
• The regional stability of SADC is threatened. The worse things get in Zimbabwe, the worse things get for SADC countries. The quality of life of all SADC citizens is directly affected by the decline of Zimbabwe. Foreign investment in these lean times will be harder to come by as a result of Zimbabwean catalysed regional instability and the resulting poor image projected abroad. Refugees place enormous strain on the countries receiving them. Zimbabwe’s leadership is dragging us all down during difficult times. We need to stop the rot now.
• The physical well-being, safety and security of the citizens of South Africa is under direct threat from Zimbabwean refugees who are exporting cholera and crime into our country as a result of the collapse of their country. This poses a threat to our own domestic stability. Recent riots and killings are the tip of the potential xenophobic iceberg that will only become visible when the real tsunami hits. It is the mandate of government to protect our citizens from external and internal threat. Zimbabwe is now both. Action needs to be taken. Talking has clearly not worked.
• South Africa is funding the crisis in Zimbabwe directly with taxpayers’ money. We are paying for food aid for starving Zimbabweans. We are supporting millions of Zimbabwean refugees. We are exporting desperately needed electricity, providing urgent and expensive healthcare and we are allocating our resources to prop up an impotent mediation process. We have allowed Mugabe to destroy the economic benefits of a flourishing trading partner on our border. Zimbabwe’s ruin is costing us big money that we need for our own people. There is therefore a huge economic imperative for instituting regime change in Zimbabwe.
• Mugabe has begun to dismantle the working structure of the MDC, kidnapping activists and party figures. If he is successful, there will soon be no viable party to replace Zanu-PF. Removal of Mugabe under those conditions will either be impossible or create a power vacuum and almost certainly a civil war. Mugabe knows that invasion will be forced down the list of options if there is no viable replacement for his government. It is therefore critical to act quickly before he has more time to achieve this objective. The MDC is intact, has been voted into power, is ready to rule and can hardly do any worse than ZANU-PF. It is imperative that they get the chance before they are structurally incapable of doing so.
• It is in South Africa’s local and international interest to project our regional power in a globally acceptable and benevolent but firm way. If we do not do this and somebody else does, Nigeria for example, that country will become the conduit for international negotiation and the gateway to Africa. The benefits of being the portal country to a massive region cannot be underestimated in the context of our foreign policy strategy. We are in a unique position to project an image of a country that upholds universal human rights and democracy – good power. That image landed us 2010. We have not done much in recent years to improve this image, choosing rather to drag it through the filth and dump it in the trash. This is our chance to put things right and gain friends in high places.
• The timing of military action in Zimbabwe could not be better. The Zimbabwean military is unpaid and morale is therefore low. The crisis is getting major international media and condemnation of Mugabe and Zanu-PF is universal. Mbeki has been replaced in South Africa and would provide the ideal scapegoat for our previous indiscretions. Zuma needs a huge boost to his popularity and image both locally and internationally. It is a risk but should it pay off, he will instantly be known as the saviour of Zimbabwe and much less as the corruption king of South Africa.
• Regime change in Zimbabwe is as inevitable as the fall of apartheid was. The sooner it happens, the sooner the rebuilding will begin and the decline will end. The longer we wait, the longer it will take to rebuild Zimbabwe and the greater the problems that we will have to deal with here in South Africa. We have wasted enough time already.
The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the security of our country and the well being of our citizens are increasingly coming under threat from the north. As well as having serious humanitarian reasons for catalysing regime change in Zimbabwe, there are some very compelling strategic reasons to do so as well. Those compelling strategic reasons should result in concrete action.
The time for talking is over. The time to act is now.
Mugabe does not negotiate. He manipulates, murders, tortures, lies and steals. We have put up with him for long enough. We do not need any more proof. We need a new neighbour. We need a new neighbour now.
This entry was posted
on Monday, December 22nd, 2008 at 1:03 pm and is filed under Perspective, News & Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
84 Responses to “Why invasion of Zimbabwe is a very real option”
BRAVO !!! That is saying it like it is. About time too.
It’s sad that it’s come to this, but the invasion option becomes more compelling all the time.
It would be of great interest to see the operational performance of the SANDF, which has never really been tested in a large scale operation since transformation. Perhaps the SA taxpayer will be reassured.
Long on reasons why military action should be taken, but short on explanations how it would be mounted and conducted ‘one month from now’ by a ‘coalition’ led by a ‘repentent SA’, and lacking any consideration whatever of the dangers for regional stability of such a military intervention - if the ANC would agree to it, if any ANC leader were to propose it.
I agree with the broad outline of the plan. 2 things are paramount in military action….willingness…and ability. Even if our government grew a backbone, they do not have the ability to defend SA against foreign invasion, much less lead one.
Our Army and Navy is experiencing a logistical nightmare. They do not have the manpower, training or equipment to launch the campaign you propose.
Where the SADF was once a fearsome fighting machine, capable of defending our country, the SANDF is now a shadow of its former self.
It walked the same route as any other public service delivery. There is a shocking lack of discipline and the AIDS rate doesn’t help.
You had all better hope and pray that Swaziland or the Boeremag have no big ambitions. A police force of just over 130,000 and an Army of less that 10 infantry battalions and 2 mechanised battalions can hardly defend our country.
This is the reason for our quiet diplomacy. We are impotent, and the protection of our sovereign state will once again fall to those who have the willingness and ability and training to defend their women, children and property.
Unfortunately, you are probably right but I suspect that the various SADC countries (including South Africa) would think twice before moving on Zimbabwe. Why?…. because they are scared of the unpredicatble Mugabe / ZANU PF regime. A cornered rat is a dangerous thing.
anton kleinschmidt on December 23rd, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Just what qualifies the USA and EU to make haughty demands upon the leadership of Zimbabwe?
Or interfere with wanton disregard for basic diplomatic principles?
More so when there’s an unresolved conflict between London and Harare.
Examples of astute western diplomacy and decisive action abound.
Iran.
(The USA once imposed a soft leader who capitulated to their demands until the 1979 revolution halted American influence there)
Iraq.
(The USA armed and funded the Iraq/Iran war, resulting in the deaths of over one million people.)
The USA then made a triumphant return not only in 1991, with George Bush Senior, as president, but again in 2002, with his affable, shoe-ducking son at the helm.
More destruction, widespread violent deaths and anarchy followed as the USA and the bizarrely named Coalition of the willing’ – comprising the usual suspects, mostly EU states - destroyed social, economic and political infrastructure – went about their business while looting the Iraq’s valuable oil and gas reserves.
Cuba.
The botched Bay of Pigs invasion was just one of countless attempts to murder Fidel Castro and his leadership and impose a compliant government.
Exactly what was Castro’s sin?
Well, Castro was a communist the USA declared.
But it didn’t end there.
Economic sanctions – more like the Zimbabwe Democracy – which stifles trade with USA or USA-aligned companies – were applied.
To this day, Cubans are impoverished by the USA economic embargo.
Rwanda.
Belgium’s ethnic-charged colonisation policy and France’s interference in the internal affairs of Rwanda – led to a horrendous and massive genocide.
DRC.
The CIA organised and funded assassination of Patrice Lumumba still reverberates as political anarchy and war thrive.
Angola.
American support for Jonas Savimbi sustained a bloody war for close to three decades.
These are just a few examples, out of many, which sometimes, remain removed from the mainstream media.
One wonders, looking at the many political crises around, mostly manufactured via Western greed, corruption or inept leadership, whether the world is witnessing a modern day Scramble for Africa.
In many of the crises included above, and add Zimbabwe to that list, the EU and USA have been intimately involved in creating political crises, which manifest dire economic consequences.
Curiously, in most instances, the so-called guilty party is always a liberation era leader or party.
Right now military intervention is the only solution. My greatest concern is whether SA will be able to muster a proper force for such action. Our “best” are currently deployed in mostly Sudan. The rest is a total shamble. The troops are not well-trained, they are not medically fit (the UN have strict policies regarding this, especially concerning HIV/AIDS positive troops), our equipment needed to be replaced 10 years ago, we lack experience, etc, etc.
If you look back in history, you’ll remember that the SANDF was met with fierce resistance by the meager Lesotho Defense Force. Those guys nearly kicked our butts! Ten years down the line things have only worsened for us.
Our fighter planes were recently withdrawn from service, while we’re still waiting for the new Gripens. That means no air superiority can be enforced. The land forces are poorly equipped, and what they have, are falling apart. I bet that any convoy of Ratels will not reach the border with more than 60% of its original composition. And then we still have to get to Harare!
If military intervention is ever considered we will have to assemble the best of the rest of Africa. A country like Botswana is properly equipped. We might be able to plan and coordinate military action, but we certainly don’t have the means to execute it ourselves. The SANDF just does not have that capability anymore. A pity, but it’s the truth.
I’m counting on a country like Botswana to make our wishes come true. At least they have a disciplined army AND the proper equipment for the job. And the best of all - their politicians give a damn about struggle loyalties.
I was trying to think of justifiable and successful cases where a country invaded a neighbouring country to restore law and order. The only case that I could think of was Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia in 1979. I think that history would regard that as a success but are there others?
Obviously there are cases where such occupations have not been successful or justified.
I don’t think though that there is the slightest chance that SA will invade. Give me odds of 100-1 and I might put money on a Botswanan invasion (with UK military intelligence support). Khama seems to be justifiably fed up and he has an excellently trained army.
You’re entitled to your opinion; however, any invasion by the WEST into Zimbabwe would have catastrophic consequences for southern Africa and Africa in general. It would set a precedent where the U.S. and European Union would invade a sovereign state that did not present a “threat” to their neighbors. I personally think Zimbabwe is being punished because Mugabe instituted the land reform program. The land reform program in Zimbabwe needed to happen; it was morally wrong for “whites” to own 97% of the land in Zimbabwe just as it is morally wrong that whites own 87% of the land in South Africa. I’m not a racist but the jury is still out on South Africa in regards to “land reform”. Whites and other minorities have a place in Africa but they must share the land with the natives.
I recognize that Mugabe is no saint but the WEST should take a hint from the Chinese and allow Zimbabwe to resolve their own problems. The WEST interference in Zimbabwe will be seen around the world as Britain and America exercising their military power to pursue economic gains in Zimbabwe. Mr. Morgan Tsvangari, with the MDC is a “puppet” for the WEST and his leadership of President of Zimbabwe would be disastrous. Africa needs leaders who will put Africa first. Also, the ordinary Zimbabwean on the street supports land reform and the white farmers will not get their farms back.
I’m black American and I make no claims to be a scholar on African politics. I’m just saying that Botswana and South Africa should be very careful with Zimbabwe and not allow the WEST to use their countries for an invasion of Zimbabwe. Today, it might be Zimbabwe and tomorrow it could be South Africa. The only way forward in Zimbabwe is diplomacy; not military might. Thanks for your time. Black American in New Orleans.
It is very true that Zimbabwe is a totally failed stated and if there is anything need to be done, then is now.
Already what is happening in Zimbabwe right now has a direct impact on any South African citizen.
The exodus of immigrants into our country has now threatens everybody’s life with cholera epidemic.
Yet our leaders have continue to appease Mugabe who on several occasion demonstrated that he runs the show, and SA leaders are just lap-dogs.
You would have thought that SA will offer Zim a carrot and stick, but that has never happened, and I don’t think is being discussed.
Although I do applaud the very fact that SA respect the soverign of Zim. at the same time I will calculate the amount of damage that this route of diplomacy has caused to the entire region.
Although I am not completely in favor of invasion, I will suggest that a show of force to speed up the negotiations is a better solution.
Some changes need soft force to make then happened.
Mugabe’s regime continue to tarnish SA’s image, and our capability of being a honest broker and defender of democracy and the rule of law are in question world wide.
To reposition ourselves, Zimbabwe and return the situation to its normal then some kind of force has to be applied no doubt about that.
It will not be wrong to assigned any SADC country to charge if we cannot.
But that, at the same time should not in any way mean that we should fold our arms and do nothing.
If we truely love Zimbabwe then we will put aside politics and do the right thing.
Brilliant article. In my humble opinion, you can forget the proposed invasion by SADC.
Mugabe’s right, the African body has neither the will nor fortitude to invade in the name of justice and humanity. After all, it’s a “sovereign” state and, furthermore, no one dare challenge the revered veteran “liberation hero”, least of all any of his “comrades”.
Sadly, I see no short term solution. The ANC’s foreign policy towards ZANU/PF is tantamont to a crime against humanity, and there are no signs of any change of thinking, despite the massive groundswell of public support in SA for a hardline approach, a la Botswana. Incredibly, ANC continues to prop up the Mugabe regime, despite it’s offences against morality and genocide.
In my view, the only expedient solution would be for the MDC to form a government in exile in a secret location/s and commence a strategy of insurrection, employing covert internal guerilla operations. It would only take a spark to ignite a revolution against ZANU/PF.
Identify the 25 most important militrary and other leaders. Set up six to ten teams of about 120 personnel each. Go after Mugabe first, and then the others. Arrest them and take them out of the country. Then put in peace-keepers, as you say, in the main centres.
Then have a LOT OF FOOD available for IMMEDIATE distribution, followed by teams of medical personnel. Treat the entire country like a refugee camp (not in the sense of imprisoning people), and register everyone who asks for aid. Use biometric scanning.
Keep the country’s people fed and looked after for 3 to 6 months while you bring in experts to get the economy going. Invite the sugar companies - this is one of the quickest really helpful crops (do not plant tobacco again).
The first six months might cost $5 billion. It would be worth it - even if SA paid the whole cost.
Grant, your analysis and suggestions are disappointing to say the least; and reflect some level of ignorance on the situation in Zim. You assume that heads of the military are controlled by Mugabe. Have you heard of the so-called Joint Operations Command or Council or whatever they call themselves. These are goons who have all the power over Mugabe and the military chiefs are part of this band of thugs. We may just learn at the end of it all that Mugabe had been a puppet of this JOC. I’m sure you’ll recall that in March, immediately after the elections, it was reported that Mugabe wished to concede defeat; and this JOC advised otherwise and devised a strategy to “win” the run-off.
It is easy to suggest a military invasion. Who’s going to clean up the mess after Mugabe is removed from power? What guarantees will you have that his military cronies would not stage a coup to reclaim “their” government?
You say, Seven hundred thousand people were bulldozed out of their homes. That makes Sophiatown and District Six look like a joke, yet how raw are those wounds? We stood by and did nothing and said nothing.
I suppose “we” here refers to whites. Blacks were already fighting R4 rifles with stones and petrol bombs; they were not sitting by and suffering in silence and hoping some messiah would come salvage them their misery. It is time that Zimbabweans themselves take to the streets and cause an uprising against the tyrannical regime of Mugabe. Tsvangirai must stop jumping from one hotel room to the other; and get back to Zimbabwe and start mobilising his supporters against Mugabe’s regime. Zimbabweans must first attempt to help themselves before they expect the rest of region to send armed forces to remove Mugabe from power. There has been a lot of pressure from the outside which yielded zilch. There needs to be pressure from the inside.
Revolutions are by their nature bloody; and the Zimbabweans need to be prepared to sacrifice lives if needs be, in order that there can be change in their country. Tsvangirai has spent the past few months whinging and not providing any measure of leadership to his people. The time is now for hime to lead!
We do not have the political will to undertake a step like this. Our leaders has thought it well to send R300,000,000-00 worth of food aid today. Who will distribute it? Our government has been backing Mugabe through thick and thin, and this makes me believe that Mugabe will use this aid to prop up some type of support by supplying the food to his strong holds. Who will monitor where the food goes? Our esteemed election monitors have been declaring his last 2 elections free and far!
As for our military…. They have all the latest machinery but can they operate it. As they are unionized, will they be willing to work longer then the normal hours? Are they trained in the art of warfare? How many woman will they rape in their efforts to free Zimbabwe? How big an embarrassment will our army be to us?
Africans have been covering their corrupt brothers all along, why will it be different now. As someone said the other day, “our leaders are entitled to enrich themselves by any means possible… as they have been prevented to do so during the struggle!”
Should they ever get to charge Mugabe, then Thabo Mbeki should share the dock with him.
The fact that the Security forces,Police and civil service are so absolutely demoralised and bitter would suggest that it may not take long for militant action to take place from within and it would not cost much to give them some encouragement. Good article
I heard Helmut Heitmann (spelling?), of Jane’s Defence publication, expounding why we would be unable to take military action. Simply, our Defence Force is undermanned, under-resourced and unfit(and already stretched by our peacekeeping commitments). He felt we would be sent packing with our tails between our legs. EISH!
As much as the reasons justifying an invasion are compelling has the writer taken a look at the SANDF lately, I doubt they could successfully rob a 7-11 in Grassy Park, let alone invade a neighbour!
SA has just sent Mugabe R300 million to pay his army - pretending it is for food aid.This is to prevent an embarrassing military coup. If they had sent actual food, we could have believed them.
I am seriously worried about you. The land reform problem in Zimbabwe has been explained to you many times and you keep forgetting - including the facts that the stats are wrong for land ownership, including also in SA. Short term memory loss is indicative of the beginning of Alheimers, which can start as young as forty. Please see a doctor. Nowdays there are medicines which stop the decline.
Did you miss the SADC, and hence African ruling, the land reform programme in Zimbabwe was by nature racist, and therefore illegal under the terms of SADC membership?
You, like to many others, measure Mugabe as a success because, despite the fact that he has screwed everything up totally, is responsibile for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and the displacement of millions, not to mention the abject suffering of his people (who were statistically far better off under white rule), he managed to restle the land from the whites and give it back to blacks (only his few chommies, not the actual people), which somehow makes everything else somehow justifiable.
A pity then that his own African peers have declared that illegal, and, whilst land reform, carried out sensibly and practically is essential, the farm seizures will have to be reversed, by law, and to have any hope of feeding the people.
There seem to be two areas of general confusion here:
1) That I am somehow proposing a Western led offensive. Nowhere in this article was this proposed. The route proposed was for South Africa and SADC to approach the UN and get a mandate for a sanctioned peacekeeping force to move into Zimbabwe and help the MDC take control after winning the election. Nowhere is it proposed that the US or Britain lead the force or provide troops. I doubt that they would. That’s the thing with the abolition of colonial control; you get to solve your own problems and provide your own troops.
2) That this force was the SANDF alone. I suggested that South Africa should lead the force but that it should constitute as many AU states as possible. Retaliatory action by Zim against SA is feasible. Retaliatory action by Zim against Africa in its entirety is not.
@ Sentletse and Todd Kid –Why turn a strategic piece without the mention of a colour into a racial affair? You are reading your own personal issues into this analysis. Since you brought it up, perhaps I can ask you how outraged you would be right now if Mugabe was a white guy bulldozing the homes of 700 000 people and killing thousands of people in the style of the apartheid regime? I speculate that you would be far angrier and ready to invade. I therefore propose that you examine your own issues with race and your own inability to equate the murder of white on black with black on black. The rest of us have moved on and you are being left behind.
As for the military chiefs running the show behind the scenes and Mugabe being a puppet; conspiracy theory and irrelevant. Regardless of who is running the show, a peacekeeping force will neutralise their ability to do so and should they prove to be holding the reigns, they will be arrested and tried. I don’t think too many military chiefs will be holding up their hands in that scenario and as I suggested, faced with a large military force, the military top brass may start negotiating rather than being hauled off to the ICC. They are not fighting an ideological war here. It is simply oppression and they would know better than anyone that it can’t last. Offer them an out and they will crack.
You should remember that Mbeki, an Africanist, firmly pursued a policy of African solutions for African problems. Even if SA had had the military and economic might to intervene and ’solve’ the Zim crisis, such a path for Mbeki was ruled out politically. That situation has not changed with the change of leadership.
In practice, the west are ‘leaving’ Zim and Africa to solve the problem - it is just that meantime they verbally condemn Mugabe. They have only three options: to support the dictator, criticise him, or remain silent. Which would you have them do?
‘The west’ is not alone in condemning Mugabe anymore. Many SAns, black and white, do so now. It is less of a race issue than when the farm invasions started 10 years ago. Only this morning Archbishop Tutu has again slammed the SA govt. for supporting rogue and authoritarian regimes in the Security Council. Has he got a point?
There have always been two distinct issues in the Zim tragedy: what, if anything, could or should the SA govt. do about it?; and what do each of us as individuals think about it?
Many have never believed SA could or would do anything about it but that has still left them to decide personally what are the rights and wrongs of the situation.
People can argue politics but, finally, that is the issue for them. We not only find out who Mugabe is, but ourselves.
It is a useful piece in that it has elicited some sensible response.
But the idea of military intervention by a united Africa belongs in wonderland with Alice. As you are aware neither SADC nor the AU have been able to agree on a communique condemning Mugabe let alone a plan for joint military action.
GRANT, engage your mind not your emotions. Black people in this country during apartheid did not sit on their backside and wait for someone to come help them fight apartheid; they sacrificed their lives, from school kids to adults. Zimbabweans also need to take some responsibility for their situation; and do something about it.
No I would not support a nonsensical military invasion even if Mugabe was white. I opposed the military invasion in Iraq and I will continue to oppose mindless military escapades. You appear to have a romantic idea about what peacekeeping forces do. They’re toothless bunch who cannot do much to stop escalating violence. The Rwandan genocide happened under the watch of these so-called peacekeeping forces. If the U.S. and it’s allies can’t send troops to Somalia and planning to withdraw from Iraq, what makes you think they’d send troops to Zimbabwe. Zim is least of their priorities at the moment. You further assume that Zimbabwe is a signatory to the ICC. The ICC has juridiction over countries who are its signatories. The U.S. is one of those not part of the ICC, hence we will never see Bush brought to justice for his terrorist activities of the last 9 years.
You have still not answered my question. Who will have to clean up the mess after that military invasion?
I say it again - Tsvangirai is a much to blame for the current mess as Mugabe. He has failed his people!
Like Tutu - I am ashamed to be called a South African.
This country’s solution to problems - taught to them by the ANC., who will reap the harvest of their solutions.
Anarchy waiting in the wings.
http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=909936
Man necklaced in Pretoria
Sapa Published:Dec 24, 2008
Pretoria police have discovered the body of a man burnt beyond recognition with his hands tied behind his back in Danville, the SABC reported.
Police spokesperson Dumisani Ndlazi says the body was discovered by a passerby.
Ndlazi says police suspect that the man was set alight with a tyre and dumped in bushes.
My question ?
Was this a criminal or makwere kwere ?
Criminals are usually beaten and stoned to death - necklaces are for “others” who threaten their lifestyle.
Old,female,paleface on December 24th, 2008 at 10:56 am
SADC will never support an invasion into another frontline state whilst a former liberation movement is in power in that country. The SA military is probably behind those of Angola and Zimbabwe in terms of combat readiness and given the inability of the AU to supply troops to Sudan and somalia I doubt there would be much comitment towards Zim, nevermind the politics. .
All that was always required was for SA to stop supporting ZANU-PF and take a stronger stance against the situation. Our diplomacy after the rerun (at UN and SADC) has basically allowed Mugabe and ZANU to recover from the setback of an illigitimate election and march election loss. We (region) continue to treat Mugabe as the elected president in an election sadc itself declared not free and fair. In this sense the region has dug itself in a hole as a result of sa’s diplomacy. The region will be hard pressed to change tune now and not look like crumbling to western pressure - the very thing sa wants to avoid.
The mdc is powerless inside zim and can only rely on international support. zANU still controls top brass of police and military allthough they are also divided along factional lines - including the joc. it is rubish to suggest the generlas control mugabe. A quick look at the histiory has shown how mugabe uses the people around him and plays them off agasinst one another. Ask mujuru’s, mnangagwa,s, nkomo and so forth. Rumour had it that cio chief was put on sabtical when he advised in favour of talks when other joc member convinced (note not forced) mugabe to stay on. In sa the aparthied generals lost a lot of power with the removal of pw and his inner circle. These generals stand to gain more from a deal then touging it out and going to the hague for sure.
the reality is that sa missed a good chance to do something about zim and has now made it more difficult for themselves…by having ideology and loyalty blind realpoltik considerations and strategic thinking.The crisis is now more internationalised and regime change more on the cards as a result of our fumbling of the situation. Unless we beleive that keeping zanu-pf in power is more important than other considerations.
I have been to Limpopo, close to the Zim border recently. I used to read about the zim situation in papers and Internet not knowing exactly what is happening on the ground. I noticed during my visit to Limpopo that it is worse than reported. You do not even have to be in Zim to see it, just drive along the N1 North through the Hendrick Verwoed Tunnels in Limpopo, you will notice the number of Zimbabweans walking along that road towards Louis Trichardt, stop by the road side and ask them, you will cry all the way after hearing their stories. As if that was not enough I went to visit my relatives in Muraleni village, where the railway line passes through. I took a walk down the railway line only to find that Zimbabweans are like flowers along the railway line. They say it is the easiest direction to Louis Trichardt and even Pietersburg and Joburg. Most of them only have small bags with some food leftovers. I look at this situation and see their opressor saying there is no crisis in Zim and mostly blaming the west for his mistakes. With more than 500 Zimbabwean crossing the border to SA everyday, I ask myself why dont SA just take over governance in Zim because within a space of five years all zimbabweans will be living in South Africa. Where will be the sovereigty of zim as a state, it will be a state of Zanu PF leaders only, or will they also join the masses they displaced to South Africa. I think its time the ANC deploys Zuma to be the president of zim while zimbabwean politicians are busy trying to find a political solution to their problem, anyway SA is indirectly governing Zim because I am told there are more that 3 million Zimbabweans living in our midst. What is happening in Zimbabwe is affecting us badly and therefore we cannot talk of sovereignity when other countries are suffering because of one man’s greed. The less we talk about the disease they brought to us the better, the same applies to the crime the once law abiding citizens of zim are now committing in our country to earn a living. Can somebody show Mugabe and Zanu PF a RED card please.
Todd Kid, you may not know this but in 2000 Mugabe held a referendum to legalise the takeover of ‘white’ farmlands. The majority of Zimbabweans voted a resounding NO. A furious Mugabe went ahead anyway, grabbing more than 100 million acres of farmland. Tens of thousands of farmworkers and their families were tortured and 1.5 million lost their homes, jobs and communities.
Grant … the most constructive article Ive yet read on forceful intervention in Zimbabwe.
Sentletse, Zimbabweans in their present state of hunger and ill-health are in no state to mount any meaningful resistance to Mugabe’s regime. Besides, nearly 70% of the 6-8 million people left in Zim are children. By calling for Zimbabweans to fight the regime themselves you are technically advocating the creation of yet another child army in Africa.
Sentletse - I generally prefer to answer comments that are constructive and without the condescending tone but in your case I will make an exception. So, with emotions on the back burner and mind firmly engaged as you have requested, I offer you the following:
You constantly berate Zimbabweans for not liberating themselves and following the example of the mighty South African liberation movement, with which you no doubt identify strongly and proudly. So indoctrinated are you about the success of the struggle that you conveniently forget the massive input to the liberation movement by the Soviet Union, Cuba and the current SADC countries in terms of weapons, funding, training, accommodation and even ideological indoctrination in Moscow to fine tune those revolutionary skills. You conveniently forget that it proved impossible to mount that offensive on the apartheid regime from within SA and that the ANC was forced to do so from bases in friendly neighbouring countries with HQ in Zambia. Where did JZ get his M’shini Wami? Russia supplied it. Kalashnikov designed it.
Cubans and Russians operated the great machines of war in Angola , the Migs, the Hinds, The T50 series tanks that gave the armed struggle any kind of chance or credence in the dark days of the 80’s. Upon the fall of the wall, you minimise the impact that Europe and the US funding, pressure and support had on the final negotiated solution. South Africans were able to stand up and fight because they had massive support. You took it with both hands from both sides of the ideological divide, shamelessly even from former oppressors and now deny this same type of support to Zimbabweans in the same situation? “Liberate yourselves” is your Marie Antoinette style solution? ‘Get off your backsides’ is your strategy?
The struggle in South Africa was also far more clear-cut. White against black. Neatly packaged into areas with blacks having no vote and no rights. Zimbabweans have no such clarity. You have the vote but it could be lethal to use it. Your neighbour might be ZanuPF he might be MDC. The enemy is within. It is far more dangerous to meet and discuss political action there than it ever was here, even with the police informants we had running around.
That is why there are constant parallels drawn to Nazi Germany. It is a dictatorship run by a maniac. He has already decimated and cowed the population of Ndebele in Matebeleland with the 5th brigade who operated much like the SS but without the restraint. He has full control of the state apparatus, the media and his propaganda machine is in full swing. He surrounds himself with sycophants who dare not challenge him for fear of their lives. He demands rallies and flag waving. He holds his fist aloft and has children in Hitler-Jugend style youth brigades soaking up his twisted bullshit during their formative years. He defies the world and abducts and murders the opposition.
Do you remember what it took to dislodge that maniac? It took a world prepared to stand up to fascism and dictatorship and fight a war on a massive scale. Chamberlain tried quiet diplomacy and his legacy is only slightly better than Mbeki’s.
The only discernable difference between Mugabe and Hitler is a massive gap in capability. Hitler transformed Germany and took control of Europe and Northern Africa in a few years. Mugabe has destroyed his country and sits under an umbrella threatening proper countries in amusing little speeches. Those countries could crush him by pushing one button but chose not to because he is a joke and a threat to nobody but his own poor, long-suffering people.
So in summary, South Africans needed massive external assistance in order to get to where we are. A combination of international pressure and funding, sanctions, military action, industrial action and the end of the cold war resulted in NAT’s negotiating with the ANC. If that’s what it took here then why do you deny this to Zimbabwe in their hour of need? If you deny them this help, what is your alternative solution? Do nothing and let them sort it out? Quiet diplomacy anyone?
South Africa has blocked the world at every attempt to help Zim as they helped us. That is hypocrisy stained with racism, befouled with cronyism that should make the reasonable man sick to his stomach.
South Africa blocking every attempt to help Zim does indeed make me sick to my stomach.
And let’s not forget that South Africa and the SADC have helped to make Tsvangarai almost powerless. They have turned deaf ears on all his requests for help, they have ignored his request that Mbeki remove himself as the mediator, they have refused to let him go back to Zimbabwe because his travel documents have expired.
Does Sentletse Diakanyo really think that a civil war in Zimbabwe will be less messy that military intervention from the SADC?
It is both disgraceful and deeply shaming that the ANC are turning their backs on the Zimbabweans.
As Tutu said:
“And I have to say that I am deeply, deeply distressed that we should be found not on the side of the ones who are suffering. I certainly am ashamed of what they’ve done in the United Nations.
“For the world to say ‘no, we are waiting for South Africa’s membership of the Security Council to lapse and then we can take action’.”
The archbishop said the situation was an “awful indictment” to a country that had a “proud record of a struggle against a vicious system”.
He said: “We should have been the ones who for a very long time occupied the moral high ground. I’m afraid we have betrayed our legacy.”
It makes me ashamed to be South African - black or white.
GRANT, you seem to forget that before there was such overwhelming support for the ANC from outside; already there had been systematic campaigns to undermine the repressive Nats regime. There was a Defiance Campaing mounted in the 50s; the Sharpville march and acts of sabotage in the 60s; the youth uprising of the 70s and the resistance of the 80s. All these events happened within the country; the oppressed did not sit back and turned their other chick to their oppressor. They fought!
The ultimate collapse of apartheid was a culmination of continued pressure from both inside and outside. The Russians and the Cubans fighting our war against apartheid, but were helping us do it for ourselves. At no point did the Russians and Cubans threatened military invasion of the country.
I’m not sure what’s the obssession with this so-called “quiet diplomacy”. Diplomacy by its nature does not demand grandstanding and theatricals.
The Americans perhaps shared your views about dealing with the bigger mess in Iraq and not thinking about the consequences of their mindless action. 5 years later American troops are dropping one by one; Iraqis are dying on a daily basis. Iraq is in an even bigger mess than it were during Saddam’s rule.
Let Zimbabweans do it for themselves; and the rest of us will assist them where needed. The cowboy attitude certainly won’t help the situation.
Practical interventions that are acceptable to the political leadership of Zimbabwe are best for Zimbabwe. Bringing the United Nations into the picture is akin to allowing the US Senate and Congress to decide Zimbabwe’s fate.
It is no secret the US virtually controls the United Nations. Sometimes, when frustrated by China and Russia (you have got love Vladimir Putin), the US circumvents the Security Council – as it did to invade Iraq illegally – by obtaining a very-hard-to-understand and obscure UN mandates.
The illegal UN-mandated Iraq invasion brings to question both the credibility and relevance of the UN.
Even the non-political organs of the United Nations are severely compromised by political allegiances and pressures.
Come to think of it, the United Nations is nothing more than a US/EU front for imperialist aggression and abuse: an external political front for hawkish, nationalist administrations in Washington, London and Rome and other European capitals.
The UN should be restructured or dissolved. Most people would agree.
Besides, the United Nations’ peacekeeping work must be mandated by the host country. So, why does Zimbabwe deserve special attention for help it has not sought?
The mistake most western leaders have made is to personalize the issue. They should engage President Robert Mugabe rather than pontificate endlessly; something which the undistinguished United Nations chief Ban Kii Moon has failed to do.
Engagement is the catchphrase.
With a little commitment, and engagement, the so-called crisis in Zimbabwe would be history.
But, with United Nations (bolstered by American support) silent in the face of social, economic and political transgressions by the Israeli government and army in Gaza and the West Bank, who on earth would seriously want to trust the United Nations?
It all sound very honourable Grant but its not going to happen.
Sentletse’s view of these peacekeeping forces is the same as mine. Pretty pathetic to say the least.
The black people of this country did get off their backsides and fight apartheid but they were reasonably well organised and had major support from organisations abroad. Something the Zimbabweans do not have so I cannot see how they are going to mobilise against Zanu PF.
Pressure has to be applied from outside Zimbabwe and preferably by the African leaders. If it comes from any other source it will become a racial matter. That is the reflex mechanism that kicks in as soon as there is non black participation in solving any African crisis.
anton kleinschmidt on December 24th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
There is a simple doctrine for military intervention - save the lives of 5 million who will die of disease and starvation over the next 8 months!
SA could not do this alone, but we could bring inj some “non-aligned” nations such as India or Korea.
And the west does have a right to comment - they are human beings like the rest of us.
Are we willing to have 5 million lives on our conscience? Or are we brave enough to tell our government that their policy is based on lies and deception, and is morally repugnant?
For me, you go to the heart of the matter except that I would disagree that all SA had to do was stop supporting Zanu-PF and take a stronger stance.
All the (feeble) pressure of the last few days has achieved is to smoke out the true Mugabe: he never intended to give up or share power and, when pressed, has now said so, even to the extent of mocking fellow African leaders as not ‘brave’ enough to invade.
It is inconceivable that Mbeki - whatever one thinks of him - did not know the man he was dealing with, and this would have been a factor in his sticking to diplomacy through thick and thin. There was no other course.
‘Nay, leave Bob alone, he is killing more black folk than us settlers ever did. Give him more time so that the land becomes vacant for us to re-settle’ - to quote an ex Rhodesian friend of mine who is only slightly racist.
Sentletse - The fact that the MDC exists, contests elections and hold rallies while they are systematically victimised, beaten, abducted, tortured and killed from the lowly MDC member to Tvangirai himself would seem to indicate to me that they have gotten off their backsides in line with your stringent criteria. That is their protest and they miraculously won the election, all by themselves, neatly right off their backsides. Then Mugabe stole it back and started killing people.
What should they do now? Fight ZanuPF in a civil war with no support from the outside world? That seems to be the only option left open to them and quite frankly it is strategically a way worse option for those in Zim and way worse for SADC countries who will be swamped with refugees. Bad idea.
In conclusion and in agreement with many who have posted regarding the fact that this action may be justified but will not happen - I agree. Sadly our current government is neither strategically adept nor do they have the moral clarity of vision to see beyond their own struggle success and recognise tyranny in another colour, right next door.
You sound just like Malema telling the Zim youth to go back to their country and fight for themselves. Just like the SA children who fled SA after 1976 to the ANC camps did I don’t suppose! They sat around in camps for decades without fighting or going back to SA. The largest force that ever infiltated was 150 people - and they were caught within a week. Both the arrogance and the lack of knowledge of people like you and Malema take my breath away.
And there was no peacekeeping force in Rwanda deployed at the time of the genocide - just the remnants of a small reduced force for the protection of certain diplomatic embassies.
What is the point in having SADC and AU rules if they are not enforced? And why did we spend R50 billion on arms for peacekeeping in Africa if we won’t use them?
The ANc have decimated the strongest and most professional fighting force “of which I was a conciencious objector” and served another country. If SA with or without additional support were to invade Zimbabwe, we would come a poor second.
Zimbabwe is a yardstick as to the collapse of SA the ANC have achieved in 14 years.
Paul - I contend that the ANC have neither the will nor the capability to effect regime change in Zimbabwe. Much like other areas such as crime and health care, they prefer to take a reactive instead of a proactive stance. The real reason behind this comes from the incentives placed on those who govern and the personal reasons for which they govern and the ease with which they get voted in to govern again. A viable opposition with contrasting policy might put pressure on those in charge to act, simply in order to keep their jobs with those lucrative little contracts that are always floating about. There is no such pressure (unless COPE can crack it) and as such, Zimbabwe along with all the other pressing issues facing our country limp along at a rate determined solely by the mood of the person mandated to make decisions. Should the 2009 elections be fought out properly and the current crop fears losing their jobs, perhaps we might see some earnest debates and real action.
Until then I am in total agreement. We will see more quiet diplomacy because it is just dead easy to do between 9 and 5. In essence then, it is the democratic immaturity of the South African voter that keeps voting the ANC into power and accepts the shocking levels of governance that has ensured the current Zimbabwean-SA diplomatic farce. Were that voter to start demanding more and voting for change, the pressure to govern effectively would rise quickly. Lets hope we get to see it soon.
Well, here we go again. Have we not learned the lessons of recent history? Saddam Hussein was an autocrat and the U.S. authorities assured us that Iraqis would greet the invading troops with sweets and flowers. Somehow, things did not work out that way. Despite my own criticisms of the ANC government, I am heartened that they have not been sufficiently foolish to rise to the bait and commit an act that would backfire for decades to come.
And where would it end? If we are to follow the rationale of this article, I think we could also justify the invasion of Swaziland, Gabon, Central African Republic, Eritrea, Ethiopia-and this is a partial list.
I am also heartened by the fact that David Coltart of the MDC has just published a piece in the ‘Washington Post’ urging acceptance of the Mbeki-brokered concord with ZANU-PF: I would urge readers to heed his words.
In my opinion, it sounds like the desperate pleading of a desperate man in a desperate situation with only one hope left. He knows that the world will not enforce the results of the election his party has won. His are not wise words but the words of someone who has no options left. There are no positives in the agreement for power sharing unless the terms are fully enforced. Mugabe has shown time and again that he does what he likes and not what is required of him. Why would this ‘agreement’ be any different.
The one thing his article does describe is the inability of Zimbabweans to mount their own offensive (Sentletse et al, please take note). As per my original analysis, Zimbabweans are out of options, have no friends worth anything and are now completely at the mercy of this maniac with cholera, AIDS and the police and military killing at will.
In some respects, David Coltart has realised the same thing that this article outlines. Only via SADC demanding compliance with the power sharing deal will anything happen. The difference between he and I is that he possibly believes that the power sharing will work and that a small office with a SADC official in it will be enough to ensure this compliance. I think power sharing will not work and that an armed peacekeeping force will be required to enforce the election result. He is possibly being somewhat realistic to mildly hopeful while I am tending towards idealistic and demanding the impossible from the shirking slug that is SADC even though it is clearly the only solution that would actually work.
On what premise is your regime change and/or military invasion based on?
Because to carelessly assume everyone in Zimbabwe or outside of it supports the MDC, or its policies, is not only naïve, but remarkably insensitive to the security and stability of Zimbabwe.
For if it isn’t, cast an eye at Guinea, Rwanda, DRC, Uganda, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan even, and you’ll discover how military-backed manoeuvres are often counter-revolutionary to peace and stability.
And, what of those, like me, who support Zanu-PF?
To be sure, there’s everyone reason to believe those in the invade-Zimbabwe camp, are either neo-imperialists or African atheists, who want to make it abundantly clear that post-liberation African leaders should acquiesce to western or like-minded demands.
(COPE seems to have joined this camp rather early.)
Close to half of the electorate voted for Zanu-PF and Robert Mugabe in the March 2008 elections. So, in your esteemed opinion, do you think, this half, would sit back helplessly if a so-called United Nations peace-keeping force were to literally stroll into Zimbabwe?
Fat chance!
ZANU PF still has plenty of support.
So would the peace and stability you desire across the Limpopo endure if unsolicited military intervention occurs?
Of course it would not. Take a look at Uganda, DRC and Rwanda. These three governments all accuse each other of sponsoring rebel groups to fight illegal wars in their respective countries.
If COPE were to win an election (when pigs fly, that is) the scenario noted above would come to haunt SADC (including South Africa).
Then, the real spectre of the Zimbabwe ‘situation’ affecting South Africa would come to life.
Senteletse, you need to stop your daft knee jerk lashing out every time a white South African like Grant criticizes a so called liberator like Mugabe. Why does such criticism drive you into apoplexy when you are now supposed to be equal, or you would deny white South Africans the same rights of expression their forefathers denied you? I thought being a sufferer of discrimination, you should be the last person to practise it?
Mugabe is a dictator, a buffoon and an embarrassment to all humanity white or black and he should be removed, by force if need be, and that is not a debatable issue. In fact, Mugabe should be captured and taken to the Hague for prosecution and then hanged, and claims that this would be a shame to Africans is utter nonsense. Mugabe does not represent right thinking Africans and he should pay the price as a lesson to all those other “Presidents” who have thrived on impunity and in the process made millions suffer.
It is even more embarrassing and such a crying shame that the Senior people in the South African Govt now propping up Mugabe have forgotten the help and assistance they received from most of Black Africa in the fight to bring down apartheid. It is now their turn and they should step up to the plate and do the right thing, otherwise, they will be having the same problem in South Africa 10 times worse down the road. Zuma already exhibits Mugabe like traits, what will happen once he is power?
This is a very well presented argument; the discussion of the strategic rationale for South Africa and SADC to act militarily now is well thought out, and quite rigorous. My first question was whether South Africa had the troops, but DGS has provided a response already. We have African Union/UN troops in Darfur, in the Eastern Congo, and soon more will be sent to Somalia. Guinea is fluid right now. The numbers in these others places are far fewer than the actual numbers needed to make a real difference. That’s the first concern.
Second, I’m not sure about the idea that the Zimbabwe army will not put up a fight, and that it is possible to secure “prior compliance” with them. If that were accurate, why they haven’t they already stepped in, given the certainty with which people seem to believe that they are ready to abandon Mugabe? That point doesn’t seem to hold.
Thirdly, the recent ICG report indicates that Mugabe has the support of Malaysia and Venezuela, and we know China to be supportive of him as well. Together with Russia and two possible vetoes, we cannot take for granted a UN Security Council backing of any military action by SADC.
Lastly, Mr Walliser, I think you are a little too dismissive, and predictably so, of the bigger historical picture that has led to where things are today. It is in vogue by pretty much everyone with a voice in the mainstream media to focus on the intensity of the now, oblivious of the build-up from the last two decades, in which Zimbabwe functioned in the neoliberal global order which facilitated, sanctioned and rewarded the manner in which Mugabe ran Zimbabwe. This problem has its roots in that history, regardless of the strong temptation to dismiss the global geopolitical atmosphere that made it possible for the problem to fester and get to where we are today.
To argue that this is a purely and locally Zimbabwean and African problem created by Africans themselves is a very fashionable thing to say today, and there’s very little patience for opposing views. But the urgency to solve the crisis right now and not have to worry about the possible ways things might not work out is to repeat mistakes we ought to have learned from by now. A better approach would be to do both: worry about immediate solutions while also being cognizant of the broader picture both historically as well as geopolitically. We know the root causes; they have not gone away because it’s been 100 years. And we know the risks of ignoring history and the current global ideological forces that are pushing certain kinds of solutions on Zimbabwe with well ochestrated agendas hoping to conceal themselves in a mantle Mugabe’s insanity readily provides.
Apart from a coiple of extreme views, Steve Sharra’s comment is 100% spot on. Could the Mail and Guardian’s editors enlighten us a little and explain to us, why the mainstream media chooses not to place the Zimbabwe situation into concise, historical context?
I agree with all you say on 24/12 @ 11.55 and have been writing much the same for years.
But at the risk of sounding as if I am arguing for the sake of it, I would except the Zim issue from what we otherwise agree.
The Zim crisis pertains (finally) not to domestic but to SA’s foreign policy. It is impossible to see any SA govt. initiating against a ‘friendly’ African state any action of a kind that would endanger regional stability: the political risks are overwhelming, especially given our military unpreparedness. (That over the last 10 years the ANC also had ideological reasons for doing nothing is too obvious to need stressing.)
Events in Zim have long since taken over from politicians and ‘policy’ and no one, near or close to the crisis, can any longer predict the outcome. As they say, events will now run their course.
For that reason, though I have the highest regard for Coltart, I also find his conclusion mistaken. Out of his own mouth Mugabe has made it clear no administration will be able to do anything, make any changes, or conduct any policy he does not agree with. In addition, no donor will lend financial support to a Mugabe-led govt. In ‘the west’ the gloves have publicly come off.
But, that apart, the insurmountable barrier to Tsvangirai joining the mockery of ‘a govt. of national unity’ is that it would make him, at the same time, both scapegoat and sell-out. The press and others urging this course on him would be the first to turn against him when he ‘failed’, and he and any remaining coherence in the opposition he has led would be destroyed.
Where does this leave SAn policy? Options, if they ever existed, are over. The rational route at this dire hour must be to act to ‘contain’ as far as possible the fall-out of the crisis: to keep our borders open and minister to the refugees we let in (we should have kept back our ZAR300m to care for them and combat cholera here first, unless we have plenty more where that came from);
to build our preparedness for any outbreak of disorder and fighting in Zim or along our borders;
and, withdrawing all further material support for his govt. and working vigorously now to isolate him diplomatically, to wait for Mugabe either to die, to be removed. or for his Zim state to disintegrate.
However terrible this conclusion sounds, all we know is things cannot go on as they are forever.
The Iraqis did welcome the invadors with cheers. What went wrong was the peace. The moronic Americans dismantled the police and the civil service and left a vacuum that they could not fill - which got filled first by criminals and then by terrorists. The ANC has done something similar to our civil service and police, for the same reason - they were white and Afrikans AND TRAINED!
Tafi
About 1 million voted for Zanu, about 1 million voted for MDC - and 4-6 million were not allowed to vote because they would have voted MDC. It has been explained many times. You say you support Zanu - are you living in Zimbabwe?
I agree with what you say, but I still have a difficulty with it.
In a democracy there is obviously no objection to you or anyone supporting Zanu-PF if you choose.
By the same token, there cannot be any objection to people supporting the MDC in a democracy, can there?
The problem more and more people have with Mugabe is that he will not accept that idea. It may be his history, an old-age lack of tolerance or, as many argue, that he is a dictator.
What is clear is that he does not believe in ‘democracy’ unless that means rule by Zanu-PF. Rule by Zanu-PF is what defines ‘democracy’ in his book and Zanu-PF alone represents an abstract collective known as ‘the people’.
Now whether you believe that has nothing to do with supporting COPE or the ANC, with America invading Iraq or any other country, the price of potatoes, the history of the universe, or any other issue.
You either believe that and are a Mugabe-type democratic or you are some other type.
Mr Sharra, much as there are historical problems that have been left to fester for too long from Zimbabwe to South Africa and Kenya, this should not be the excuse for letting our indisciplined and untrustworthy political leadership the room to maneuver and misuse the goodwill of ordinary folks who innocently elect them, a leadership that goes on to entrench themselves in office for personal aggrandizement. Personal aggrandizement is the critical motivation for the vicious leadership contests that bedevil Africa and the real cause of problems from Cape to Cairo. Corruption and greed breeds impunity, which then breeds cruelty and the utter ruthlessness exhibited by the likes of Mugabe and buffoons-in-arms like Zuma.
The idea that you can be removed by force if as a leader you do not behave responsibly, should be a powerful motivating factor in making the malevolent connivers now waiting in the wings of African political corridors to grab power to think twice, and that is why action should be taken against Mugabe yesterday, NOT tomorrow.
Please, please, please explain to me what makes you support Zanu-PF. Tell me exactly what it is that makes you think they are good for Zimbabwe. Is it the 90% unemployment they’ve achieved? Is it the Guiness Book of Records inflation figures? Is it the thousands now affected with cholera? Is it the way they’ve maintained the infrastructure? Is it the farms (with certificates of Governmental non-interest) they’ve stolen from the whites? Is it the fact that half the population is now in the Diaspora? Is it the wonderful example of a leader you have in Mugabe?
Or do you have a nice, fat bank account stashed away somewhere?
I really am interested - I have never been able to comprehend such crass stupidity, so perhaps you can explain it to me? And, at the same time, confirm whether or not you are living in Zimbabwe at the moment.
Firstly, one simply has to assume that Africa could field more troops than Zimbabwe alone should it come down to a real crisis. They are also better placed to fund it as a group of nations than a bankrupt Zimbabwe is and with international backing they should be able to outlast a Zimbabwean campaign. Whether Africa would practically commit to high troop numbers is the big question and at present I bet it is a resounding “no”.
Secondly, nobody is sure of exactly how the Zimbabwean military complex will respond but we can safely say that thus far they have not been under any kind of threat at all. Amass troops on a border and start talking invasion and the channels might open up quicker than you think. Nobody wants to be caught holding the maps in the bunker at the head of a defeated army and if that looks likely then talk they will.
Thirdly, I agree completely with this point. The way it could be handled though is to trade up with more important issues. The US could back off missile deployment in Poland for Russian co-op on Zim etc. There is always a deal to be struck and at the heart of it, Zimbabwe is not a strategic trump card to any major nation. They are an annoyance in Southern Africa and unfortunately our neighbours. That’s all.
Finally, your argument that Mugabe is somehow a victim of history and circumstance can’t be seriously entertained. Every nation and every person can claim that excuse. It is precisely when Africa finally understands that claiming victim hood makes you victims that they will begin to lift themselves up out of their mess. I dismiss the argument because it brings nothing to the table. It is a pointless claim. Had Mugabe allowed the democratic process to culminate in a change of government in Zimbabwe, there would be no crisis and no need to point to history to explain it. That decision was his alone and is an indictment on the man and his party and the herd of sycophants he keeps around him. Nothing more. Always remember, the Afrikaner had a turbulent violent history at the hands of the British with which to explain away apartheid. Nobody quite rightly entertained that explanation. Why should Zimbabwe and Mugabe be any different?
The ZANU-PF government is not perfect. Nit-picking at will over the effects of the economic crises won’t mask the fact that the crises affecting Zimbabwe were achievable - if you will - through sanctions supported by the MDC and their western benefactors.
The ideological leanings of ZANU-PF, its policies and ideals are pivotal to its historic and continued contribution to the moulding of the Zimbabwe state.
And, muck like Barack Obama said of John McCain, many people, especially those outside of Zimbabwe, those who have never been to Zimbabwe, or engaged with Zimbabweans – “just don’t get it!”
ZANU-PF’s ideological beliefs are worlds apart from the MDC’s.
Suffice it to say, ZANU-PF has core African ideals, while the MDC, it appears, is severely compromised and totally lacking in this department.
Which is why, in spite of the economic crises, ZANU-PF retains widespread support.
For it really doesn’t take a rocket scientist to discern why the EU or USA (and others) take a keen and inordinate interest in the affairs of Zimbabwe.
Tafi - these are my views and not those of the M&G.
Yes, unfortunately Zimbabwe in global strategic terms is little more than an annoyance. Russia’s re-emergence after the Soviet era is a big issue. The Middle East, crucible of the world’s geopolitical plays for oil is a big deal. The global financial crisis is a biggie.
Zimbabwe is a local issue and would be a big global joke in so many ways if it were not such a humanitarian tragedy as well. It is big deal in Zimbabwe and to a lesser extent in SADC because the world judges us by your irredeemable unethical actions. That is why the major players in the world, like the UK who repeatedly get petty insults flying at them from Harare, ignore Mugabe and waft him off like the irritating fly he actually is. You flatter yourself if you think that the world cares who lives or dies in Zimbabwe to a degree beyond fleeting interest.
“The ZANU-PF government is not perfect.” - perhaps the understatement of our short century so far. Perhaps I could ask you to illuminate us, being a staunch ZanuPF supporter yourself, at what point you would turn away from the party? What would it take? Would they have to abduct, torture and murder more people than they already do? Would they have to destroy your once thriving economy further, should that even be possible? What would it take before you stop supporting them and why? What would it take for you to understand that the West is not ruining Zimbabwe nearly as much as Mugabe is?
“ZANU-PF has core African ideals” - ZanuPF has their own political interest and future at heart. They could care less about African ideals or African people. Remember, the people who are suffering most in your Zimbabwe under your party are all Africans. If African ideals involve the support of leaders who murder their people and drive them into unsheltered, diseased starvation then Africa’s problems start to become glaringly clear.
I put it to you that Mugabe has his own agenda in place. The time for liberation of Africa from the colonial oppressor is long gone. We now need to liberate Africa from her own home grown breed of oppressor and for that to become a realty, the people of Africa need to understand that they are no longer under the colonial whip but under their own whip. Start demanding your rights and vote with your head and not your heart and we might get somewhere. Muttering on about liberation and colonialism will get you what you currently have: bad leaders who manipulate your emotions and your cultural identity.
That was the most accurate assesment of the Zim crisis I have read. Our family is there suffering and I just don’t think any Zimbabweans can take it anymore. It is sad it has had to come to invasion but it is clearly the only way out now.
Something I would like Tafi to explain to me: why did the extremely onerous sanctions rightly imposed on South Africa not have the effect of turning our country into a failed state, when the minor sanctions imposed only on Mugabe and his cronies are blamed for this in Zimbabwe?
Tafi, in his blind loyalty, believes everything that is fed to him by Mugabe - unbelievably, considering that he obviously has access to views other than those dished out by the laughable Herald.
I notice you don’t answer my other question, Tafi: are you living in Zimbabwe at the moment?
1 - “Which is why, in spite of the economic crises, ZANU-PF retains widespread support.”
2 - “For it really doesn’t take a rocket scientist to discern why the EU or USA (and others) take a keen and inordinate interest in the affairs of Zimbabwe.”
This “widespread support” is a function of blind ignorance and a consequential propensity to believe anything that comes from a politicians mouth. In any event I suspect that this support is a chimera fostered by a desperate regime
I am not a rocket scientist so please tell me why the “EU and USA (and others” take an interest in the affairs of Zimbabwe.
anton kleinschmidt on December 27th, 2008 at 6:29 am
Tafi Mhaka
You have made it clear that you believe in what I called above ‘Mugabe-type democracy’, often called also ‘African democracy’: that is, rule by one party or elite defines ‘democracy’ and - to quote your own words - the ‘ideological leanings, policy and ideals’ of the party ‘are pivotal to the moulding of the state’.
Now you say people outside Zim ‘just don’t get it’, but believe me they are not so foolish. It is just that what you call democracy they call fascism - which illustrates the point I often make that the word ‘democracy’ means different things to different people.
So let us drop talk of ‘democracy’ and look at our problems another way.
Is one-party rule (by Zanu-PF) producing anything that could be called good government in Zimbabwe? - even you, a Zanu-PF supporter, admit it is not perfect.
If it is not, how can it be improved, if everyone takes your position that the govt. cannot and should not be changed?
And though Zanu-PF still retains ‘widespread support’, perhaps we can at least agree it does not enjoy the support it did. How does the party ever accommodate the increasing number of people who do not agree with it and would like to see their govt. changed?
The only answer fascism has is to persecute and crush opposition, since it cannot by definition allow dissent and change. It is fulfilling an historical mission.
The result is an insoluble dilemma for everyone, the ruling party included.
Fascism failed in Europe and Japan last century, after the most devastating war in history, because
there was no way to change things peacefully, and it took endless suffering to do it another way.
That is part of the reason ‘the west’ muscles in all the time now. They have seen it and know where it ends.
I was not aware that close to half of the electorate voted for Zanu-PF and Robert Mugabe in the March 2008 elections, which is why, in spite of the economic crises, ZANU-PF retains widespread support.
While I too, understand that the ZANU-PF government is not perfect, (what government is?), I didn’t understand that the ideological leanings of ZANU-PF, its policies and ideals are pivotal to its historic and continued contribution to the moulding of the Zimbabwe state.
I did not fully appreciate that ZANU-PF has core African ideals, and those who support Zanu-PF believe in democracy and fairness.
It is a great relief to know that Zimbabwe is only experiencing economic difficulties caused by the global financial meltdown, and without the meddling West, the so-called crisis in Zimbabwe would be history.
I can now rest assured that our continuing financial support for ZANU-PF will discharge our moral obligation to address the humanitarian suffering brought about by the USA and EU s’ demands upon the leadership of Zimbabwe, through interference and the wanton disregard for basic diplomatic principles.
Gee, I really thought there was some sort of crisis over there, with all this talk of military invasion and stuff
You have certainly dispelled any misconceptions I might have been labouring under.
Perry Curling-Hope on December 27th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Excellent posts here people.
They are not going to help the people of Zimbabwe but they show just how different our views are and they go a long way to explaining why decisive action to a situation such a this is so difficult.
Lyndall, you are so right - there is no point in arguing with people such as Tafi, it’s just a waste of time.
What I object to, as a South African tax payer, is being expected to bail him and his failed government out, and at the same time having to listen to utter rubbish about the west and the rest of us having any motive other than that of not being able to stand by and silently watch the suffering of the Zimbabwean people.
Why oh why does the common sense, the simple, easy-to-grasp, inarguable thinking Grant Walliser doles out mean nothing to the Zanu-PF supporters, or Sentletse Diakanyo et al.? Why? What is really going on here that they mistily and dreamily miss the point? I feel a blog coming on, have to try it from a different angle.Or maybe not. Very few people really care about Zimbabwe anymore I think, in any real way. Her citizens prefer to live in SA anyway.
There are different people and different views and different loyalties in the world - that is the answer to your question.
If you do give us a blog on Zim, Rod, it would be interesting to consider a)what can be done in Zim?; b) what is the ‘right’ thing to do (if that is different)?; and c) what are the implications for policy and ‘democracy’ when there is no general agreement on what to do?
Every commentator always assumes that it is ‘obvious’ what to do about Zim. Visibly, it is not.
Now, imagine you were SA president … what would you do?
Also, Anne, it is often useful to argue points with people of different opinions, like Tafi, if only to get straight your own ideas and beliefs by understanding others’.
In this connection perhaps you’ll notice that Tafi has not replied to my last post to him.
Paul,
I agree with you that debating issues with others with different view points is be both enlightening and interesting.
But for me there are some things that are indefensible, like someone trying to justify Hitler’s extermination of the Jews. For me, Mugabe’s treatment of his own people falls into this catagory.
It’s also the concept of ‘having one’s cake and eating it’ that I object to. To demand the right to make a mess of your own country while at the same time expecting others to bail you out, and blaming everyone else for that mess is just not acceptable to me.
What seems important to understand though is that while it is impossible by now to think of any grounds on which to support Zanu-PF - democratic grounds or grounds of social justice; good governance, hope for a better future or just basic ‘efficiency’; even common humanity and mercy - yet people do support Zanu-PF.
The most frequently heard explanation is that Mugabe is ’standing up against the west’. But this flies in the face of reason itself when it is one’s own people who are suffering because of the gentleman’s ‘courage’.
Not even fear explains it, because many of Mugabe’s opponents have overcome fear of him.
So it leaves only loyalty. A bit like supporting your soccer team no matter how often it loses - but of course, horribly worse.
Paul,
You’ve put your finger on my main objection to democracy. I know it’s the best option, but I’ve always felt that democracy is a very flawed system. Because loyalty is stronger than reason, and if you get enough blind loyalists they force anyone who thinks that reason is more important, when it comes to running a country, to exist under sub standard, and in Zimbabwe’s case, criminal governments.
I had always thought that education was the key - teach people to expect more and question what goes on around them. But then I watch educated people like Michael Trapido picking apart just about every single aspect of the ANC goverment, and yet his loyalty to them is unaffected, he will apparently vote for them no matter what.
Funny that people don’t expect the same loyalty when it comes to marriage - an institution where a promise of loyalty is extracted under oath. In a country with one of the higest divorce rates in the world, it is astonishing that nothing will make our citizens see that loyalty to a government who has failed in just about every aspect is misplaced.
I lived the first half of my life under a hated Nat government, now it seems that I will be forced to live the second half under an inept and greedy one. I will never be able to be proud of what they do, and I see the possiblities of where they are going in the example of Zimbabwe.
It would be interesting to see exactly how many supporters Zanu-PF actually has. I’ve often wondered. They talk about nearly 50% voting for him, but with all the vote rigging, coersion and bribery, I wonder how many truly believe in them? I used to think the only people who did were either Mugabe and his cronies, or those who gain financially. And then we get people like Tafi and others, and my belief in humanity takes yet another knock.
Among countless others, Churchill said something along the lines that democracy is a very imperfect form of govt., but much the best when you consider the alternatives.
The view has much truth in it, but do not stop there. Ask yourself whether southern Africa at this time has ‘democracy’. ‘Democracy’ hasn’t arrived, you know, just because the ANC, or Zanu-PF, or ‘independent’ analysts, or bloggers, keep taking for granted that it has, or because we all keep using the word.
You question how much support Zanu-PF has. But a straight look at the facts shows it is irrelevant how much support Zanu-PF has. Zimbabwe is not a democracy. It is a tyranny.
Back home, the opposing view says that what SA got between 1990-4 was not ‘democracy’, but a possible first step towards it: emancipation - liberty. Just as there are different forms of ‘democracy’, so there are different stages of it, steps on a journey. Things may have far to go before SA acquires ‘democracy’ to a standard that satisfies your hopes of it.
That is the point. ‘Democracy’ isn’t a once-and-for-all gift that the ANC (or anyone else) kindly bestows on ‘the people’. It is a culture - literally, a way of life - that grows slowly out of people’s lived experience.
The vital feature of that culture is not only a moral or spiritual quality ‘the people’ develop, say, a longing for freedom, but also institutional.
The ANC has in many ways weakened the institutional structure of SA’s bright new republic, especially in recent years, when the growing split in the party made both ’sides’ panic at the prospect of losing the old certainty of power.
There is one very simple reason for this, which almost everyone even now shuns talking about. Through all the years so far, the most important institutional feature of ‘democracy’ has been missing: namely, real opposition - the chance of the people changing their govt. if they choose to. Opposition is the first blow to what all of us have most to fear - an otherwise blind loyalty.
Let us see if we are over, or st least approaching the end of, that stage. But even then, remember no one’s ever achieved ‘democracy’ in the sense of a final achievement, because ‘democracy’ is a permanent work in progress.
There is no perfect state of human affairs; only tyrannies claim to offer paradise on earth.
Thank you - you have given me some hope for the future, and I hope that Cope proves to be the opposition we need in this country. It’s not that I necessarily agree with them, for me it’s still too early to tell what sort of people their leaders are. What is important is that as far as I can tell they are making people question that blind loyalty to the ANC, which must be the first step towards a democracy? I hope it will help to develop that culture of democracy, anyway.
The weakness in the ANC leaders is manifesting in their need to impress with blue lights and huge entourages. It is worrying, because it is a clear sign of the tyranny you speak of. And it is the path to Zimbabwe.
Ditto about cholera but hardly seesa gun in private hands in Zim and crime is low. Is it that all criminals have gone to SA? South Africans can not hide behind Zimbabwe for its crime record:its been like that well before the Zim problems. I am not saying there are contributory factors but just look in the mirror you may find your problems than in Zim. I havent had a gun held to me in Zim for the 40 years I lived there but I have been twice in SA in the two years that I lived there
All comments must be approved by our editors, click here to read the editorial guidelines for comments. Please allow some time for our editors to approve your comment after posting.
profile
The human brain is made of atoms. Atoms consist primarily of empty space. It is fair to say, therefore, that my head is basically empty. That will please those of you who disagree with what I say until it dawns on you that your head is empty too.
So, based on the undeniable fact that our heads are fundamentally comprised of emptiness, is anything we think or say of any real value?
Probably not.
Remember that next time you are fuming at some point of view contrary to your own.
The recent fracas surrounding Zapiro's drawing of the Prophet Muhammad has predictably culminated in the usual death threats from irate Muslims. Both ...
Being a South African over the past few weeks has been a turbulent experience. The excitement of the looming Fifa World Cup has been tempered by a deg...
In March of 1991 after months of nationalistic propaganda and other divisive rhetoric from Slobodan Milosevic and Franjo Tudjman, a small group of Ser...
The name Zanu-PF used to be synonymous with liberation as was the ANC. It used to stand for the high ideals of fighting oppression at great cost to th...
Government, it seems, wants to control our access to porn on DSTV. Thank goodness we have them to look out for us. We are clearly not capable of makin...
Loading ...
BRAVO !!! That is saying it like it is. About time too.
(Report abuse)