When Robert Mugabe and his henchmen were terrorising ordinary Zimbabweans and the opposition in a desperate quest to subvert the democratic process and further strengthen his stranglehold on power, it made perfect sense that there were growing outcries to isolate him. Any continuing attempts to antagonise Mugabe are nonsensical and counterproductive because President Mbeki has secured an agreement between both warring parties to find a lasting negotiated settlement. As a result there is renewed optimism in the streets of cities and villages in Zimbabwe. Ordinary Zimbabweans are hopeful that at last they will be extricated from this nightmare of tyranny that they have been subjected to for more than two decades.
As South Africa hosts a meeting of the SADC, President of Botswana Ian Khama has taken a decision to boycott this meeting in protest against the presence of Robert Mugabe there. Botswana has previously taken a principled position to not recognise the presidency of Robert Mugabe after the election of March 29 2008 and the subsequent farcical run-off. But when Morgan Tsvangirai and Robert Mugabe are close to finalising a deal that sees a transitional government established, with the aim of fresh democratic elections being held, the hostile attitude of Ian Khama appears to be inappropriate.
If indeed Botswana’s position on Zimbabwe was a principle and moral issue, then what is its foreign minister going to do at the SADC meeting? It has become predictable that Gordon Brown and George Bush would want to be seen to be standing for freedom, and they would sustain their saber-rattling in order to appear resolute and unflinching, in spite of the fact that such position does nothing to yield any favourable results in Zimbabwe.
It is therefore mind-boggling to see Ian Khama maintain an antagonistic stance against Robert Mugabe as though Botswana does not share a border with Zimbabwe. Common sense would suggest that Khama should support initiatives by SADC, of which Botswana is a member, to find a solution to the Zimbabwean problem and halt the influx of illegal Zimbabwean immigrants to his country.
It may perhaps be appropriate to examine what could be motivating Ian Khama to remain stubborn when the political landscape in Zimbabwe is shifting. Botswana has very close and historic ties with Britain and we can not be certain of the influence that 10 Downing Street still exerts in its former protectorate. Europe is Botswana’s largest trading partner; over 70% of export trade is directed to Europe. It would not be surprising if Botswana was acting to protect its own economic interests and not to offend the position taken by Britain. After all, it is bad manners to bite the hand that feeds you.
Where does the US fit in to all this? In 1980, Botswana entered into a training agreement with US military — a commitment that it has sustained over the years. To date the development of the Botswana military has been sustained primarily through contributions from the US.
Botswana had also recently expressed interest in hosting Africa Command (Africom), when the rest of the SADC countries were hostile to the idea of the US establishing military bases on their soil (the source of contention between Bin Laden and the US). Not only did Botswana express its interest, it went further and signed in 2003, under controversial circumstances, the so-called Status-of-Force Agreement (SOFA), a non-surrender pact defining the legal standing of US soldiers stationed abroad.
The US demanded that a country volunteering to host Africom sign this SOFA to bind itself not to surrender US soldiers to international tribunals. Again in this instance other SADC countries told Washington to bugger off and predictably the US withdrew military aid to these countries.
Maintaining the military support received from the US is important to Botswana and Ian Khama, as a former army commander. Botswana, with a population of a mere 1.8 million, does not have sufficient men in boots to defend itself in case of a military threat. It would appear that Khama does not want to be seen to be showing the Bush Administration a middle finger.
It may after all be a strategic rather than a principled position by Khama to boycott the SADC meeting, confident in the knowledge that a solution will definitely be found; while appeasing his masters and maintaining continued military support, as well as sustaining Botswana’s economic relationship with Europe.
This entry was posted
on Saturday, August 16th, 2008 at 12:56 am 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.
102 Responses to “The nonsensical boycott of the SADC meeting by Botswana”
This is an appallingly low grade article. How is it possible that Diakanyo can read a simple situation so badly wrong, or is he trying play the spin-doctor? Did he even bother to read the Botswana Foreign Ministry statement? Or does this writer engage pen before operating brain?
Mugabe stole this election. he stole at least one and probably to more previosuly.He is not the legitimate leader of Zimbabwe. He is a fraud, and a conspiator in mass murder and torture.
I applaud and admire the stand taken by Botswana. If you thgink it is hollow, then that is your opinion. For many it is a sign of hope in a region that is associated with political and moral ineptitude.
As for your conspiracy theory as to why, who knows? I would suggest if Botswana is making sensible political decisions, recognising the importantance of key politically and trade alliances, in the interest of its future, rather than the ‘Mamela’ style politics we must endure, then that is a further feather in its’ political cap.
Maybe if Zimbabwe had shown a little more foresight it would be in this mess.
At least there is one African leader who supports the people of Zimbabwe by showing his disgust. Botswana is a true friend. Zambia aside, I cannot say much for the rest. How do they sleep at night as they ignore Mugabe’s blatant and murderous behavior?
All that Botswana has requested is that the region acknowledge that there is no elected “Head of State” according to SADC principles, that all parties be acknowledged as political party leaders and be treated equally. Botswana have said if Zimbabweans who are contesting the legitimacy of Mugabe based on the same SADC principles aknowledge Robert Mugabe as a legitimate Head of State then they will do so. But at the moment the dispute is on.
It is telling that Tsvangirai has been astute enough not to act otherwise. Going to Mugabe or ZANU PF’s Heroes Acre where the honour is stained by the fact that heroes are chosen by Mugabe and ZANU PF such that many deserving illustrious sons and daughters of the land have not only been denied the honour of National Hero status but have been rubbished, would have sent the wrong signal and spun into something else by the state papers.
Really nothing has changed for Botwsana to do otherwise. Respect and analyse Botswana’s position that it has believed its observer mission to zimbabwe and not treated it like some disaster tourism escapade. Is that too much to ask? Sentlentse it is naive arrogance and insulting to call other people puppets as you have called Tsvangirai. It would be wonderful if you researched the formation of the Movement For Democratic Change, the history of land reform, the previous drafts of land reform legislation, past Hansard copies on land reform.
You say a solution will undoubtedly be found. Really? Have you been watching and listening to the State owned media. It is all clear that Mugabe is not acting in the spirit of negotiation or negotiating in good faith. Sentlense you seem to forget that the conflict is around the rape of democracy which occurred particularly after the March election culminating in the tragic events of 27 June. Already an imaginary GNU where your hero Robert Mugabe would even a ceremonial President would still be a transgression of democracy and freedom that you would not wish on your own country.
Sentlentse we the Zimbabweans do not have a legitimately elected Head Of State. Botswana for its smallness and less concretized landscape is a functioning country that has got its pride and rarely breaks its own rules even if it means executing South African criminals. I would be surprised if it started going back on its word today.
Mugabe will change when the remedy of turning a warlord into a shopkeeper is found by those who have put their lifework into studying regime change. Until then countries like Botswana will be needed.
You seem to have forgotten old chap that Morgan’s party won more votes than ZANU-PF.
Therefore he should be representing Zimbabwe, not Bobby boy!
Botswana is right to boycott the SADC which has become something of a joke amongst the international community.
If they had any moral scruples, they would arrest Bobby and hand him over to be tried internationally for crimes against humanity.
Instead they applaud him.
In so doing, the mantle of guilt for the genocide, murder, rape and robbery of Mugabe’s ZANUPF falls equally on all their shoulders.
Ian must stay stubborn. Having Mugabe as a neighbour must have given him enough reason to maintain that position. Besides, these talks are taking place when Morgan T’s passport is temporarily confiscated while he on his way to these talks. Mugabe is simply NOT to be trusted. That only one brave neighbour has taken this stubborn position blows my mind. Surely Mugabe deserved the same treatment Ian Smith received from his neighbours, in which case Khama’s stand is hardly anything!!!!
Foreign policy is driven the country’s (strategic) interests. Friendship or principled considerations are normally secondary to interest considerations. I suppose Botswana is acting rationally according to their self interest. It may be that Botswana values their relationship with the US. South Africa also has its own bilateral agreements with US and EU separate from SADC structures.
Being the member of SADC does not preclude one country to delegate its foreign policy to SADC. Nor is it a sign of betrayal. It is about time that SADC demonstrates that Mugabe cannot trample on the SADC guidelines for elections and expect to be welcomed into SADC summits with open arms.
I am happy with Botswana’s boycott. At the same time I also understand that SA cannot boycott its SADC summit as host and mediator in the Zimbabwe situation. I would conclude that Mbeki’s effort are successful until when I see a signed agreement. Nor can I criticise other forms of efforts to apply pressure on Zimbabwe to resolve its issues because we cannot objective say which approach has yielded and outcome yet.
In South Africa all forms of struggles were employed (diplomacy, armed struggle, sanctions and negotiations) simultaneously until a settlement was reached.
Sentletse’s profile aptly sums it when it says “Master of None”. An inquisitive mind with dead grey matters around it is dangerous as we see in this piece.
You know, Sentletse sir, can I call you that, as your name implies, you think a lot and are over analytical. You have made quiet some convincing arguments, and your points seem well researched.
Your findings might be true, but frankly I dont see anything nonsensical about what President Khama is doing, from what you have said it looks like he has nothing but his countries best interests at heart, I mean like you said, there is only a mere 1.8 million of us, a population less than that of Soweto alone. So what would we do should all the Zimbabweans in Botswana who by the way nowadays look like there are more of them than the locals decide that they are going to take over our country? I mean It might be years in the past but Batswana still remember that Zimbabwean Militias nearly alienated them back in the days when we “didnt have the US support”. so if the US and Britain are not going to help us when that happens who will, South Africa? please, how long has the mediation efforts been going on, I mean to be honest with you Botswana and Batswana as well as ordinary Zimbabweans have lost hope and trust in the SADC. At least South Africans can look out for themselves, they can take to the streets and burn people alive when they dont like them anymore, Batswana can’t, thats how important human life is to Batswana, from what you said the president is doing nothing nonsensical but just trying to preserve the peace and tranquility as well as human life in his country.
Maybe I should ask you this, what is it that the SADC countries (Presidents) owe to the great Mugabe, so much that he can carry deciding who lives and who dies and not be held accountable, or at least be notified that its not ok. I like the fact that you acknowledge the fact that Mugabe terrorized people. who said what, nobody, every body was hiding behind silent diplomacy, By the way Khama was just a vice President then, he couldnt have said anything. well now he is the president and he will stand for what is right, what Batswana think is right. not what SADC countries and Mugabe think whats right. Better late than never. Still I see nothing nonsensical about that, isnt it that the elected leaders represent the people’s interests, unlike Mugabe who you and the rest of the SADC countries want us to believe he is representing Zimbabwean interests.
Khama Is not stubborn, and no political landscape is shifting. we are hoping it is shifting simply because Mugabe has agreed to see Tsvangirai, how long have they been talking. I will believe there is a “shift” when I hear that a sensitive deal is concluded, right now we will just remain optimistic and hopeful that President Ian Khama’s “stubbornness” influences other SADC presidents to come to their senses, maybe even influence Mugabe’s mindset positively, until then I dont see a shift. Someone has to do something, clearly the mediation efforts have failed and I hope this talks bear fruit as I am beginning to lose hope all over again, they seem to be dragging on when they were supposed to take two weeks. now that nonsense.
Sir Diakanyo, I think you have not had an encounter with a number of starved ordinary Zimbabwean, you see in Botswana, we have low fences and not high walls around our compounds. we assume the good in everyone overpowers the bad. Its nonsense when a hungry beaten up Zimbabwean knocks on you window at 4 am just to ask for a piece job, just so that he can live to see the next day. its even more nonsensical when hunger overpowers the good in that poor Zimbabwean and he ends up up breaking into your house and you find him eating your food before he makes away with the rest of your staff.
To President Khama, its nonsense when his country spends money taking home hundreds of Zimbabweans every week only for them to come back the following week. when the money could be used to the perishing nation due to Aids which by the way is not helped by the Zimbabwean prostitutes. I think it only makes for him to attack the snake at the head, dont you?
Besides the Brits and the Americans, its this things people like me and you are quick to dismiss as small that Khama is trying to work against. it might not be a politically correct approach to you and maybe to SADC, but its what works for him and his country, its not nonsensical.
Reading the comments so far, you got to admit it, you stepped right into that one did you not Mr Diakanyo? A bit of the old african cow pat under the foot there?
The way Africa is going so far, I am not surprised. All principles of fairness and human morality are being thrown out the window in the interests of “the greater good” Ian Khama makes a stand against this and is immediately branded a puppet of the neo colonialists. Why am I not surprised?
Certainly emotional outbursts will not change the situation in Zimbabwe. The fact is, Bush and Blair, now Brown, have made all sorts of noises that only served to embolden Mugabe over the years. To resolve the situation in Zimbabwe it requires the SADC to be rational and realistic. Antagonising Mugabe was not going to achieve anything meaninguful.
Zimbabwe is an agenda item at the SADC meeting, it is logical that the leaders of the region engage directly with both Mugabe and Tsvangirai; and it important that they support the negotiation process and assist in whatever way they can that a deal is finalised. It is important that both Mugabe and Tsvangirai are talking directly and appear committed to finding a lasting solution.
It is natural that some Zimbabweans will praise Ian Khama’s stance; as they of course will derive some pleasure from any illusion of pressure being applied to Mugabe. The truth of the matter is, Khama’s stance will have no impact in what Mugabe does or intend doing. It is simply a gesture of empty heroics by Khama.
Thank you Amos, the writter seems not have an idea what he is saying. He actually does not understand politics of Zim and why Botwana is boycotting Zim, pity, he should try to re-read the news. Bob, is not yet the presedent of Zim and there is no deal signed yet, till then, Botwana keepit up. Zimbabwean son.
If you are a family man, which are your first interests, your family or your neighbours’s family? The answer is always the same for everyone; your family comes first. I dont blame Ian Khama for standing up for what he believes is right and for looking after his family first.
The fact that Botswana survived in the 70s & 80s when it was surrounded by hostile regimes is a miracle & it might just happen that the era is coming back again & with 1.8 million people what is Botswana going to do with Zimbabwe under Mugabe on the other side & SA under Zuma on the other side?
Military & Economic partnership is the only way we can survive all this…So please leave Ian Khama do what he thinks its right for his own country.
Ian Khama of Botswana is not attending but has sent one of his ministers to be present. Tanzania and Zambia are attending but ALSO not recognising Zimbabwe. I think the democrats have lost faith in Mbeki. Of couse the fellow dictators are cheering him on to save some power for Mugabe, will of the people or not.
You would do well to reply to some people who put some effort into engaging with you Senletse. Blogs are not monologues in case you haven’t noticed the “Leave a reply” section.
I admire Botswana and their people, in fact, they are probably the most successful country in Africa. Our leader can learn from the gesture. You are basically defending Mugabe and in effect, Thabo Mbeki. Shame on you.
You must be delusional if you think a negotiated settlement is just around the corner in Zimbabwe. And by the way, what is your opinion about Cosatu demonstrating outside the venue? Would you say that was also “empty heroics”?
Mugabe can be “emboldened” by yet another bout of constipation for which he will blame the very Britain who has rejected him. Perhaps it was the HP Sauce? The Bovril?
Who cares what spins Mugabe’s wheels? He’s clearly lost his mind a long time ago. Should one just smilingly humour a dangerous lunatic rather than remove him from society to the sanctuary of a padded cell and a diet of thin gruel with nothing for him to choke on?
Regrettably Sentletse you show a remarkable lack of political awareness and none about the importance of ethical conduct. Ian Khama shows why Botswana is the most succesful nation on this continent. If you think freedom, democracy and economic growth are close in Zimbabwe and therefore we should welcome Mugabe then I suggest you do more travelling to Zimbabwe and Botswana (if indeed you’ve ever been to those countries and your article suggests you’ve never been beyond SAs borders) and other countries of the world. Try more reading and consult with the individuals of other nations. Principled positions are a measure of greatness. Intellectual flabbiness is a symptom of laziness or corruption.
Khama’s stance may not have an impact on Mugabe - although as a wealthy neighbour Zimbabwe relies heavily on Botswana for trade and work for its people so your assertion is incorrect - but it certainly shows the world that there are some in Africa who aren’t morally bereft - we need more examples of principled positions coming from this continent. But then again perhaps you would not understand why Mugabe is a prime candidate for charges from the International Criminal Court?
Diakanyo still does not get it. What is there to negotiate? All that is needed is to set up a transitional authority to run the country until fresh internationally monitored and supervised elections can be held. The people who govern Zimbabwe must be elected by the people of Zimbabwe and not be those who cut a deal with each other and by so doing rubbish democracy. It is understandable that one such as Diakanyo does not understand or subscribe to democracy but it is pretty shocking that Mbeki does not seem to care either.
The M & G this week lists the 13 so called “agreements”. Will someone out there please tell me how any of the 3 Ms (Mbeki, Mugabe, Morgan) are going to guarentee that the rest of the world observes these two:
1 Lift all sanctions against Zimbabwe
2 UK must accept primary responibility to pay compansation for expropriated land
Must the UK pay for the land twice? Why should they? They already had bought 30% of the farmland before 2000.
“As a result there is renewed optimism in the streets of cities and villages in Zimbabwe.”
Personal opinion? A cursory glance at the Herald Online? A chat with the growing number of people queuing outside Home Affairs in Langa? Might very well be true but I’m interested in who spoke for the villagers and how many villagers were interviewed for the research.
With the absolutely amazing vilification of Khama and his ‘ties’ with Downing Street I’m surprised you didn’t just call him out about his ancestry as well. You’re only a step away; why not just call it?
At the end of the day, he’s not standing alone on this one but neither is Mugabe, as we can clearly see. The negotiated settlement does not appear to have been agreed upon and so it is not untoward of a political leader whose country is also suffering in this situation to continue to apply the pressure that a majority of his countrymen may very well be backing him in applying.
What South Africa’s role is in this and the role which the majority of the SA population want SA to play and that of Botswana’s government might be completely different, not least because Khama is not a party or mediator but does indirectly have an interest.
If you have been following the meeting at Sandton, you’d know that there is pressure on all parties to seal a deal this evening (17 Aug).
CHARLENE,
I don’t think anyone is that naive to think that the economic situation in Zimbabwe would be solved overnight; but what is certain is that a deal between Mugabe, Mutambara and Tsvangirai is a first step towards ending the political and economic crisis in Zimbabwe. Is Khama taking an “principled” position against these ends? To say he does not attend because Botswana does not recognise Mugabe as President, is a bit short-sighted.
If you had done your homework before making wild pronouncements, you’d know that Zimbabwe has not ratified the ICC’s statute, and therefore ICC has no jurisdiction over any Zimbabwean citizens. Mugabe can only be prosecuted by the ICC if the UNSC passes a resolution to that effect; or if the new Tsvangirai government accept the Court’s jurisdiction. Both instances are highly unlikely, as any UNSC resoution is likely to be blocked by China and Russia; and such resolution if passed would set a precendent to bring non-sigantories, such as the US, before the ICC. This is what the US has resisted for many years and is likely to continue doing so.
I do not think Mugabe would be stupid enough to sign a deal that does not grant him immunity from prosecution.
Sentletse, your position/perspective in your writings gives the impression your are on a pay-roll - ‘you are just doing your job’. But I dont think this is the case. What looks more like it is, a picture of someone who is desperately trying to get into a ‘pay-roll’. Carefull NTLETSE, you might ruine your name and even potential career as a writer (because there appears some semblance of talent in some of your hotch-potch writings).
But your path to being a writer of note is severely compromised by your fanaticism. Check how diehard fans of Chiefs or Pirates sometimes behave after a loss, that’s what I mean by fanaticism. Anger (uncritical loyalty) and nothing else drives their unconstructive behaviour.
Your attack of Botswana is driven by bitterness at how this country’s position exposes the subversion of justice and absence of moral integrity in the ‘negotiation’ process. The inner person in you (conscience), as a writer, should tell you that being overly pleased with such proceedings is tantamount to ingnoring the will and the plight of Zimbabweans. Their will was expressed in the March elections. Their plight, insperable from their will, was and still is, ‘help us get rid of the monster that is Mugabe!’
Botswana is simply sensitive to this plight and is doing its bit to restate it, in case SADC has suddenly forgotten it. The essence of Botswana’s position, Ntletse, is diversity. The latter gives us hope that SADC is not a useless monolith or a cult.Now, if we all agree Zimbabwe cannot continue as she has been, we should at same time agree that she needs (drastic) transformation. Diversity is indespensable to transoformation MR DIAKANYO! and this is what Botswana is introducing in the dynamics of the Zim situation. For your own good (and scholarship) MR DIAKANYO, read the Complexity Theory to fully appreciate the essense of the position Botswana has taken… Your conspiracy theories aside, do you think Mugabe is the legitimate leader of Zimbabwe? Honest answer (based on facts) required. No cheap philosphies!
- hans
My dear brother,we do not care if mugabbage has ratified international laws or not.He is a dictator and must be taken as so.we, zimbabweans are going to deal with him whether south africa’s tambo wants it or not.it is the actions of ian that is forcing mugabbage to sit down and talk not tambo’ bottom licking.these negotiations have been taking place since 2002 and nothing has come out of them.where did you get the information that a deal is imminent?these boycotting and sanctions worked with your south africa and why do you think it will not work with zimbabwe.shame on you brother.
No deal was signed. SADC has appointed a troika of Angola, Swaziland and Tanzania to assist Zim. Mbeki exposed - he never wanted democracy for Zim. Angola and Swaziland are DICTATORSHIPS. Read Lara Pawson’s article in this weeks M & G “Electing to Survive: the repressive climate in Angola casts a shadow on the coming elections.”
And I think the International Court operates outside the Security Council. I am not sure the veto applies - otherwise how did they get out a warrent for Sudan’s leader?
Why does there have to be a deal? Why not just respect the wishes of the people of Zimbabwe through a vote? Of course a new MDC government will accept the jurisdiction of the ICC.
Its so funny how people are so ready to shoot down an argument before really thinking about it because it goes against what we are suposed to believe. Am getting tired of all these people who reaqlly want the Zimbabwe talks to fail because beki is involved. If i may ask if any one other than Mbeki was negotiator will people be so hysterical? I have been saying from the begining Mugabe was a monster he has never changed and all the people who helped him in the 80s and paintede him as the best thing to come out of Africa are culpable too. I dont blame him by blaming the West because in my book they where with him when he was at his best. Beating up a few MDC supporters does not equal what this dude did in the 80s so to me i dont see what the big deal is right now for the same people who where kissing his a*se turn around and pretend he just turned bad in the late 90s. The MDC is just as bad as Mugabe been following them since the their formation even voted for them more than once attend rallies and all that believed they where the people to lift us out of the hole we found ourselves in but right now i am convinced they aree just power hungry thats all. This has nothing to do with making sure the country is run properly. This document their busy arguing over resembles the same contitution the MDC campaigned against in 2000 and all of us bomboclaats believed what we where told that it will give Mugabe more power and i keep on asking myself what more power can Mugabe get than he had in 2000. By the way MDC did not win the presidential elections, they got into the game knowing the rules that if they dont get a majority they go for round 2 and they chose not to go for round 2 after spending so much time campaigning knowing that they wont take part. It was a strategyu that has worked for both Mugabe and MDC because right now there is no outright winner so which means what ever happens power has to be shared and they just have to accept that and move on. Mugabe is an equal partner whether we like it or not so the sooner people accept it the better it is for Zimbabwe and trust me this has nothing to do with Mbeki. ….. rant over!
Just in now: Tsvangarai stands his ground; No deal with ZANU PF! There are now only a few men braced against the onslaught of the African retrogression.
For Khama to say he doesn’t recognise Mugabe as a valid and democratically-elected leader isn’t “short-sighted”. It’s looking reality squarely in the eye.
Mugabe is NOT the democratically-elected leader of Zimbabwe. He is a usurper. A tenacious, insane parasite.
It’s time the rest of the SADC and, especially the effete lame duck seeing out the dying days of his inglorious reign in South Africa, to come to terms with this reality and snap out of their denial and hopeless pretence.
I almost thought this was Zanu PF owned Herald news!! Are you sure this did not come from George Charamba/ Bright Matonga (ZANU PF spokespersons)?
I have always thought that it’s only ZANU PF, who believe that anyone in Africa who stands for principles is under the UK and US influence!
Why on earth would you and the almighty deal maker be convinced there is a deal so close since 2000? What is it that you know that everyone else including Zimbabweans don’t know? I have heard from TM that these guys are so close to a deal since then.
Ian Khama has taken a principled stance, that must be applauded. Why should he, a democratically elected president share a stage with table with a murderer of repute. A man who has stolen elections and a military head of a junta!! In case you have been trying to analyse, with no time to familiarise yourself with Zim affairs, Mad Bob lost an election in March 2008!
And the break through deal that is so close, what does it entail? Tswangirai being appointed by Bob!! Seriously great negotiators should know this is nonsensical.
How you concluded that my disagreement with Khama’s position is an attack on him, buffles me.
MAWOKO,
I don’t recall anyone campaigning for isolation of South Africa during the CODESA negotiations. Khama’s boycott of the SADC summit should not be seen in the same light.
If indeed Khama was determined to take a tougher stand against Mugabe, he should have attended the summit and told him to his face what he and his country, Botswana, think of him. That would have been more praiseworthy than sulking back home.
VINCE,
Remember the ANC too walked out of the CODESA negotiations; and there was concern that an agreement may not be reached. Look at where we are now. Tsvangirai and Mugabe have no alternative but to find common ground for the sake of all Zimbabweans. Tsvangirai ought to be mindful that all this is not about him but the people of Zimbabwe. He often appears to forget that.
I give up! If this is what TM and other SADC Heads think, We are in deep trouble. We may need a very different form of democracy, I mean changing the whole lot.
Senletse, there is going to be no deal as long as Mugabe has no power. We all know that will never happen and therefor there will be no deal. Maybe Morgan simply enjoys the publicity and nice hotels SADC is paying for.
Either way, the fact is that Africa is becoming a place where the people’s wishes are worth nothing and negotiated settlements with Dictators are the norm. When will South Africa head for a settlement?
Cmpaigning for South Africa’s exclusion from the CODESA negotiations? What on earth are you talking about? Who else was there at the Codesa negotiations other than South Africans?
The people of Zimbabwe have spoken. They voted Mugabe out. He has no constituency any more. He’s just an unwelcome guest at someone else’s party now and good on Khama for making this truth known.
For President Khama to stay away from SADC because of Mugabe may even mean that Khama is not man enough to face this man (Mugabe),and tell him to back off. What a leader!
I am glad you are noting one thing that is an intriguing pattern of those who are attacking your views (which you also allude to in your comment section):
1. That most commentators that have responded so far are consumed by, and probably still recovering from, the frustration over the fact that the United Nations Security Council failed to adopt a resolution to implement sanctions on Zimbabwe (hearty thanks to the heroic act of Russia and China, both whom, by the way, were dismissed as motivated by ulterior motives when they vetoed the UNSC resolution - yet we are now told that Botswana’s Ian Khama’s boycott has no ulterior motives). It really can’t get any more interesting than that, or can it? Quite how Russia and China’s vetoing of a UNSC resolution on sanctions be deemed unprincipled and motivated by disregard of the ordinary people of Zimbabwe, when Khama’s boycott of the summit that seeks to discuss ways of finding a solution to Zimbabwe’s problems is deemed principled, will always be mind boggling indeed. Never underestimate people’s frustration, Sentlentse (one moron here can’t even distinguish between [Oliver] Tambo and Thabo Mbeki - just goes to show that this frustration runs much deeper than you would have otherwise imagined.
2) There seems also to be despair from many of those who had hoped to get their land back (in the unlikely event that the chubby-faced Tsvangirai got to the State House). As noted in the reports of the 13 points that have already been agreed to by Tsvangirai (the puppet of Britain and the US), one such point (of compensation for the land repossessed) implies that those who have lost their land will not get it back. Quite how Tsvangirai - with all the hopes he carried for the dispossessed - managed to agree on this one, must still be astonishing to those who had hoped to get back their land. Does it surprise any rational person, then, that the SADC summit that focuses on, inter alia, Zimbabwean negotiations (which Botswana misguidedly boycotted over the weekend) is already dismissed as a sham and Khama swiftly elevated to a knight? Methinks not.
All that we can hope for is that there will be those within the MDC who’d see through their puppet leader (Tsvangirai) for who he really is, and begin to knock some sense on his head: that he can shout and throw tantrums all he wants, but at the end of the day the Zimbabweans need him to be centrally involved in the process.
There are those who charge that Mugabe cannot be trusted with the negotiations and his commitments to striking a deal with the other Zimbabwean parties. My question is: can the chubby-faced Tsvangirai be trusted? You will recall that it was the same Tsvangirai who made headlines in calling for Mbeki to recuse himself from the mediation process (which we can now assume to have been a call foisted upon him by the puppet masters in 10 Downing Street and Washington), yet it is the same Tsvangirai who now receives invitation to the negotiation table by the very Mbeki he had publicly repudiated. Can this man (Tsvangirai) really be trusted? He goes to bed having said one thing, and then wakes up saying another thing altogether the following day. Even Arthur Mutambara (leader of the other MDC splinter faction) has also made it known that Tsvangirai has three-times reneged on the undertaking he had made regarding some important aspects of the negotiations. As expected, Mutambara has already been accused, by some, as being collusive with ZANU-PF. Mark my words, Tsvangirai will soon be on the list of those accused of collaborating with ZANU-PF (the moment he starts engaging with the points of discussion and negotiations without being distracted by the underhand in South Africa, Britain and the US - whose sole aim is to dictate what the MDC should do in Zimbabwe). I would indeed advise the chubby-faced Tsvangirai to savour the moment that he is seen, temporarily, as the saviour and darling of the West. For, the time will certainly come when those who will have grown tired of his leadership in the MDC (and when they no longer regard him as representing their interests in Zimbabwe), will begin dishing some dirt on, for instance, the manner in which some of the donations to the MDC have been handled. And when that time comes, Tsvangirai will be a person non grata in the West. Does this scenario sound any familiar?
This is probably your worst blog. Your reasoning is mind-boggling and you carry on your role as Thabo Mbeki’s praise singer!!! When you get into that mode, those are always your weakest blogs.
I am astounded by your choice of words. Let me quote you:
Any continuing attempts to antagonise Mugabe are nonsensical and counterproductive because President Mbeki has secured an agreement between both warring parties to find a lasting negotiated settlement.
Unquote.
Come now. Mugabe is being antagonised???? Mbeki has secured a lasting negotiated settlement??? What have you been smoking, my brother? You are making this up as you go along? Where did you get this from? When was the deal struck?
I don’t know whether there is a more inappropriate reading of a siutation then when you say:
Quote:
Europe is Botswana’s largest trading partner; over 70% of export trade is directed to Europe. It would not be surprising if Botswana was acting to protect its own economic interests and not to offend the position taken by Britain.
Unquote.
Isn’t SA in almost exactly the same position? With Europe being what it is, pray tell, which country in the world is NOT is precisely the same position with regards to Europe? Another thing, isn’t Europe a lot softer on Mugabe than Britain? Doesn’t Mugabe travel there often even with all bans on him? Isn’t it just recently after the 29 March election that the EU is considering more substantial sanctions against Mugabe?
Your analysis of the Zimbabwean situation leaves alot to be desired!!! You are disgracing yourself. Stop immediately doing this to yourself. This is just a misguided blog that tells a huge lie about your intelligence.
As a Mostwana i find your article distasteful. As many have pointed out, do some reaserch before ranting and raving about nothing in particular.
The government of Botswana doesn’t recognise Mugabe as the legitimate leader of Zimbabwe and we have never made a secret of that. As witnessed this past weekend, the summit was all about Zimbabwe and frankly we are tired of attending summits to discuss the Zim situation when we all know that nothing will come out of the discussions.
The signing of any agreement is as near today as it was 10 years ago! As long as SADC especially Mbeki continue to treat Mugabe with kids gloves, the negotiations will not bear fruit.
Its all about applying pressure and keeping that pressure on, especially at crucial times. During the time of CODESA, rolling mass action did not stop and this kept the pressure on the government to ’seal the deal’ as you put it.
Recognition of Mugabe at this time removes that pressure at a time when resolute pressure is most needed. This makes the stand of Botswana laudible, regardless of their foreign policy gains and especially as they represent one of the precious few countries on our continent that actually have some respect in the international community.
Oh, and I didn’t hear ANC cadres complaining this loudly about the interfering of colonial powers in South African matters when it was their country that hung in the balance…
It took about three years after Mandela was released and political parties unbanned for the ANC to agree for the world to life santions against SA. Why, so as to keep pressure on the National Govt to negotiate in good faith? The same principal applies to Comrade Bob, he has shown zero good faith so the whole of SADC should ‘keep santions’ on him to keep his negotiations in line
Actually the ANC withdrew from Codesa ONCE and tried the “armed struggle”mythical option in Ciskei, fell flat on their faces, and were forced back to the negotiating table. De Klerk was the one who kept control of the situation, AND the army, AND the police. You don’t have to believe me - read the biographies of Mac Marahjah and Cyril Ramaphosa.
By the way Dikakanyo means thoughts and this site is an appropriate site for you and me Sentlentse. We are merely engaging our minds on various issues and may not necessarily be right.
Let me be frank with you my dear brother, you have to accept that your article did generate some interesting thoughts but was way of the mark. Ian Seretse Khama is not an inteligent or educated guy but he has principles. The same can not be said of SADC and worse still for Thabo Mbeki. What Ian is doing is defending the principles of Botswana and SADC.
It is unfortunate that you have chosen to vilify his stance on the basis of his British and American connections. What was the conclusion of the SADC election monitoring team? Who were they representing? If SADC could terminate Madagascars membership because Mr Ravanomala decided to install himself as president after elections were rigged in favor of his opponent, why can’t they do the same if one rigs elections in his favor. Is it a SADC principle to rig elections.
As for the talks, any inteligent being (you included) will know that the MOU was signed by Mugabe and Mbeki to woodwink the SADC. Khama saw through this and will only support genuine negotiations. The only genuine negotiation is when Mugabe recognises that there was no election in Zimbabwe on June 27 and he is neither president of Zimbabwe or member of SADC.
Sentlentse
Do not bother about people who are bent on ensuring that the status quo is maintained. One participant tries to make a comaparative analysis of western influence during the aparhteid era, supporting the ANC which is a lame input in my view.
The political landscape has changed and so are the balance of forces internationally. ANC accepted assistance from whichever quarters as part of the no-alligned movement. It is also the ANC that would tell these countries who their true friends were during times of difficulty.
Presently the whole of Africa is virtually free and another terrain of struggle for economic freedom is being waged as part of the NDR. If I am right the NDR must ascertain that the riches of Africa are enjoyed by those who owe their allegiance to Africa. Such a struggle has proved to be more difficult and frought with problems; more dangerous than the fight for attainment of political freedom. African leaders who show resilience in ensuring that this is achieved are demonised and given all types of names. No newspaper articles will ever sing praises to them nor will they ever be promoted by western sponsored formations.
There will be an attempt to rubbish their legacy and most imporatnt of all mediocre leaders will be celebrated in an attempt to distract Africans from the main purpose of having attained political freedom. It is important that Africans who are aware of these forces that are at play continue to remind people of their nefarious intentions. Mineral rich Africa has been a victim to these manouvers for too long and Africans need to wake up to these realities.
‘Sentletse Diakanyo has a keen interest in everything else that is beyond the realm of his expertise’
your honesty is disarming, but please sir, go back to primary school and pay attention during grammar lessons. that has to be the underlying problem to your inability to grasp anything.
congratulations to mail and guardian for this eternal joke of a blogger. only the joke is beginning to wear thin.
be merciful and send him to a place where he might quietly learn before he loudly experiments.
Unlike our undicisive lame duck president and SADC leaders (not deserving the title), at least Khama can take a stand in defence of democracy. This has catapulted him higher in respect and reputation than all the SADC leaders as far as democracy is concerned.
The other important point is that he is principled and does not follow blindly. One day MDC will rule Zimbabwe and I wonder what all the Mbeki worshiping SADC leaders are going to do then. Ironically it was Zimbabwe, Botswana and SA who provided the military forces to save Lesotho’s democracy no so long ago and today that nation enjoys a thriving democracy.
My advise to Sentletse is to aoid worshiping Mbeki in public as it erodes the little respect he seems to have achieved in his blogs.
To all people attacking Sentletse, this is the problem with people. This man is writing what he knows and presenting, facts as they are. He is not writing to entertain or presenting a propaganda position. Africa seems to attack anything that takes a position which is not uniform, or follow the flow of the current. Mugabe is the current person being bashed by everyone, so if you dont join that bandwagon, you get labelled a sympathiser or a Mugabe crony. Who really knows Tsvangirai? After living in the US for twenty years, I know anyone who is loved by the western media is either being propped up or is a favourite to the western countries because there is a benefit for them. For example Musharaff came into power through a coup in 1999, yet he had overthrown a democratical elected President out of office. So a Obama is the favourite to win the election, the media is playing the race card. We dont need to use such methods or systems to exploit one another. We need to tolerate one another’s view, opinions, ideas, political positions, colour, business interests and our indifferences. If we fail to do that it means that we will continue to attack one another over patty things. Neither Tsvangirai, Mutambara or Mugabe have the complete mandate to rule by themselves, as if Tsvangirai was President,the election body would have declared it. To be saying Mugabe does not have constituency to rule, we should know that his constituency is not in the US, EU, Australia or New Zealand, but its all in Zimbabwe. This is where the problem lies, as the EU have already declared that they will only recognise a Government that is led by Tsvangirai, so why bother with election, negotiations because the election results are determined not be the voters, but by those who think that they alone have the last saying. Its sad to understand how governments work and which constituency should be addressed. Botswana currently is enjoying growth, but it might be short lived as most of the companies which are bringing such development are Zimbabwean companies. So to be hate a group of people, yet love their money and development will come to hurt the Tswanas. Lets look at the big picture instead of the snapshot. The development in Botswana has nothing to do with inside controlls, but its an indirect, a default, a benefit of what is happening in Zimbabwe, so that should be taken into account.
Mugabe’s problem is that he refused to kiss up, as he is simply saying that An African President should be given the same respect as any other President anywhere in the world. The Western Presidents are supposed to be worshipped, listened to, and give advise and the most educated. This is why they are having problems with the highly educated Zanu-Pf Government, as they will read everything and question any detail which is not correct and the Western Presidents dont like that. Mutambara is a Professor, but the media just call him Arthur Mutambara, if it was an opposition leader overseas, they everyone would be knowing that their politicans are highly qualified, the same applies to Obama, he is a Professor, but we hear always that he is not experienced. McCain is experienced because he was once held a POW and that he fought a War, so that shows you how things work.
Thuthukani Mkhize on August 18th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Just a comment. why are you so hostile to Botswana? It seems Botswana having a spine and standing up for what it beleives is right is suddenly wrong.
About Botswana hosting the US Africa Command Center, what is wrong with that? As the Third World, we want the West to give us money and their armaments but don’t want their airbases? Perhaps if this base was here, international intervention in Zimbabwe would have resolved this crisis long ago!
[…] Mbeki intends to go to Harare later this week and continue his efforts. I found the observations of Sentletse Diakanyo interesting: It may perhaps be appropriate to examine what could be motivating Ian Khama to remain […]
The most important aspect of this article is the military links between Botswana and the USA. It seems so many respondents are blinded by Western propaganda as to not see or even try to discuss anything about Zimbabwe without repeating the accusations of Mugabe being a dictator. The fact that Botswana is threatening regional stability by bringing the most aggressive army in the world since Hitler into Southern Africa is of serious concern to us all. This is a nuclear armed aggressor who has started or fuelled most conflicts in the world since World War II.
Wake up people and stop going on about Mugabe when the world’s leading war-mongers are being invited into our region by Botswana. This to me is a bigger story than Mugabe or Zimbabwe.
The issue of Botswana being closely connected to the west militarily is not justified. 1980 was a long time ago and after being offered a little cash they took a side in a tense period of the cold war when almost everyone around them was pro east.
Some 30 or so years later we are living in a different world order, that country must re-think its trust. They must trust us to protect them and should no longer be stop and take a look. Gabarone, look around you, every one else has an a brother in arms at least next door. Its no wonder our military expenditures are half of yours. Because as brothers together we are strong. With your strength we would be stronger and you too would be stronger and safer.
I hate the new SADC. I miss the old SADDC! When did the old principles of solidarity give way to economics and power struggles?
These were the principles that have kept our lands peaceful. For centuries our blood has mingled across borders. Now we are xenophobic and insult each other with threats of visa requirements.
When in trouble abroad we should be able to look to each others foreign missions for help or protection.
Someone says what’s wrong with AFRICOM? It is designed to fragment an already fragmenting region. We have built ours around our own policies. It might have come at a cost, but AFRICOM is simply a new face of what has brought misery is the DRC, Haiti, Afghanistan and wherever else the US has set foot. If you havent noticed, its only when our region’s full potential of oil, gas and uranium (what Washington calls the good stuff) was fully grasped that they said “Hey! We need something stronger than politics and trade agreements to keep that stuff out of China”.
Let the votes be the ultimate decider for democracy! Not rigging, not intimidating, not imposing oneself, not running a one horse race and definitely not through spin doctored deals.
People forget that we nigotiated from the apartheid system to democracy not from democracy to another democracy as is the case in Zim or Kenya. There was already a democracy no matter how tainted, and the people’s vote is and should be the ultimate decider not spin doctored deals or so called negotiated settlements.
Viva to an X on a ballot paper. What happened in Zim will never be allowed to happen in SA. Let us judge Zim’s crises from that angle.
Khama must stick to his guns and the followers will soon follow. History has shown that true leaders lead and those leaders who stoop to follow other leaders as SADC leaders are blindly following a dying horse (Mbeki), they end up loosing their positions like Blair and Edwards.
Dikakanyo
What makes you think Ian Sesetse Khama is not educated or intelligent? If he follows family tradition he will be both - and would have been educated at Cambridge University.
Botswana is the country with the highest percentage growth in Southern Africa, NOT South Africa.
I think what he is doing is watching total meltdown of both democracy and the economy in Zim, anticipating the same in SA under Zuma, and protecting his own country from the obvious fallout there will be when we collapse under Zuma, by getting strong democratic allies.
Thuthuani
If you really think that neither Mugabe or Morgan have a clear mandate - you have not got all the facts. The voters roll was ancient. New voters were never registered. Dead people voted. Postal votes were not allowed (against the SADC rules to do that, by the way). Massive intimidation took place before the election. Mugabe only allowed food to his supporters. There was no free media. Morgan was vilified on TV and in the government Herald as a puppet, and not allowed to canvass. Despite all this rigging - Morgan got more than Mugabe. Moeletsi Mbeki says that it is estimated that no-one under 36 in Zimbabwe supports Mugabe.
I estimate the real vote, allowing for postal votes and true registration, was 5 million for Morgan and 1 million for Mugabe.
The guesture made by Ian Khama shows his lack of understanding of world real-politik. By his own reasoning, going forward, he should not attend any AU meeting, UN meetings or such like. The standard that he wants to apply to Zimbabwe is not met in most countries across Africa and beyond including Angola, DRC, Uganda, Libya, Algeria, UK (where they have an unelected head of state), Swaziland, Lesotho, Kenya, Egypt etc etc.
Ian Khama knows exactly what he is doing. He already has refugees from Zim. After Zuma he might get an influx from SA. No African state will assist him if SA goes into meltdown like Zim- he has to look for democratic allies outside Africa.
Now here are the facts, Botswana has one the fastest growing economies in Africa, it has been politically stable for the past 44 years(no wars or any of that nonsense Africans insist on carrying out), has been expemplary in dealing with the HIV/AIDS epidemic, offers free education up to tertiary level, near free health services the list goes on.
You can go on about real politics but when a government delivers to its people i’d gladly say feck off to real politics!
The events of the past few months echo those of nearly 30 years ago, when Zimbabwe was a rebellious British colony called Rhodesia. In April 1979, three million blacks (64% of the native population) voted in the country’s first multiracial election in hopes of putting an end to its brutal civil war between the white-led government and black liberation groups. After five days of balloting, the black Methodist bishop Abel Muzorewa was duly elected prime minister of the newfangled Zimbabwe-Rhodesia.
Under the plan agreed to by the white government and moderate black leaders, whites would get 28 out of 100 parliamentary seats and retain control over some government agencies for 10 years. This was hardly a perfect compromise, but Zimbabwe-Rhodesia’s “internal settlement” offered the best opportunity to end white supremacy and establish multiracial democracy.
Mugabe, the Chinese-funded, Marxist-Leninist guerilla leader, threatened to kill anyone who participated in that election. Militias led by him and Joshua Nkomo of the Zimbabwe African People’s Union killed 10 people. While he claimed that the “internal settlement” was a “bourgeois” swindle, Mugabe really wanted to rule the country by force.
In solidarity with Mugabe and Nkomo, the administration of President Jimmy Carter refused to send election observers. Two weeks after Mr. Muzorewa was elected, the Senate overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling for the administration to lift sanctions on Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, which President Carter ignored.
Today, the world is once again allowing Mugabe to get away with murder. After Zimbabwe’s most recent electoral sham, there was the requisite outcry from the “international community.” But when Great Britain and the U.S. tried to push relatively tame sanctions through the U.N. Security Council last month, the measure was vetoed by Russia and China.
As for Mr. Mbeki’s proposed “power-sharing” scheme, we’ve read this story before. Not long after taking power nearly 30 years ago, Mugabe jailed Mr. Muzorewa on trumped up charges of treason. In 1984, he deployed North Korean-trained troops to kill 20,000 members of his erstwhile comrade Nkomo’s minority Ndbele tribe. Four years later he shut down Nkomo’s ZAPU and transformed Zimbabwe into a one-party state.
We can’t let this kind of thing happen again. The West must continue to make any future nonhumanitarian aid to Zimbabwe contingent upon the recognition of the March election, the end of Mugabe’s control over the government and military, and the full restoration of the rule of law and human rights. The U.S. can bypass Mr. Mbeki and work with true allies of Zimbabwean democracy like Botswana and Zambia to help end Mugabe’s rule. Mr. Bush should officially welcome Mr. Tsvanigirai in a Rose Garden ceremony as the duly elected president of Zimbabwe, and recognize his MDC as a government in exile.
Mugabe and his generals have no interest in “sharing” power, never mind giving it up. Any agreement that gives significant political control to Mugabe would betray all the Zimbabweans who risked their lives for democracy.
“Sentletse continue to worship Mbeki in public you will be celebrated by Africans not only in SA but in the whole African continent for years to come.”
This sounds like Pahad giving advise to Mbeki to me. Dreams and disillusions! 9.5 months to go for the lot and I will still be here to remind you. Once Mbeki goes, Mugabe’s unwavering support and protection will go with him.
I had the priviledge of listening to Moeletsi Mbeki’s presentation at Nedbank today and I am sure Sentletse you will agree with me that you are worshiping the wrong Mbeki.
For those who are not in the know this is President (at least for now) Mbeki’s younger brother who is a political analyist.
Sometimes I think you are merely playing devil’s arithmatic with your uncanny support for Sentletse, however it is not the reason I chose to write in this morning.
The poeple of SADC in its member countries are shockingly watching as their elected leaders (well some)openly gamble with democratic principles in Zimbabwe. On the other hand the Zambians and the Batswana are fully behind their leadership for standing against the rot that is creeping in of subotaging the will of the people in Zimbabwe. The main principle of democracy is “majority rules”, and that brings to the fore the following questions:Did Mugabe attain a majority in the March elections? Did Morgan attain this during those elections? We all know the answer to this in terms of democratic pricniples. Now during the currently stalled and spin-doctered negotiations there are those of us who expect the guy wo clearly gained a majority vote no matter how inadequate in terms of their constitution which is also constantly violated to bow down to the looser of those elections. The question is how does he then address those who elected him in the government of the So called national unity?
True leaders are those who simplify their vision and implement it from the people’s perspective not the kind of leaders who go to great legths to elevate themselves as the most intellectually capable of all citizens of their nations. I have never had to decode mandela’s speeches and have never heard him theorise about critical issues. “AIDS has killed more globally than all the greatest wars combined” This is how leaders speak when they address critical issues so as to make them visible and clear to their people in order for necessary action to follow.There is nothing scientific about Khama’s position and trust me I am certsain that it reflects that of the people of Botswana.
LOOK FIVE TO TEN YEARS FROM NOW ABOUT MBEKI. THAT IS HOW YOU JUDGE LEADERS. THE WESTERN SPONSORED ASSAULT ON MBEKI CANNOT BE JUDGED NOW. TIME WILL TELL. THOSE WHO ARE AWARE OF WHAT IS HAPPENING WILL BE AROUND GOD WILLING. AND WILL WATCH WITH GLEE WHEN THE TRUTH CANNOT BE HIDDEN ANY LONGER.
It is quite possible that XNM and Sentletse are one of the same people. The use of “sock-puppets” is not unusual on the internet.
How can a sane man promise that in the future (5-10 years) people will look favourably upon the performance of Mbeki? Sure Mbeki would be judged a better leader than say Idi Amin but I doubt (and this is merely my opinion) that he will even rate a positive mention in history.
Is there anyone out there who can post any positive action by this man? I acknowledge his role in bring peace to the DRC (but state that that urgency was probably driven by the need to stabilize the situation there so that the Mbeki connections and Mugabe’s cronies could exploit the natural resources of the DRC for personal gain).
The March 29 elections were almosr certainly not free or fair, so given that Tsvangerai still got 50% of the vote, despite MUGABE rigging them, gerrymandering, using phantom voters, stationing policeman at polling stations and making the armed forces vote prior to the arrival of monitors and write their service numbers on the back of their voting papers, would only strengthen Tsvangerai’s position as the choice of the majority, Not so?
It is beyond question, to all serious observers, that the overwhelming wishes of the Zimbabwean people was for Tsvangerai to be their leader.
Sentletse the elections of the 29 March 2008 were obviously rigged, however they are the only ones where all parties participated and whose partliamentary results were officially published by ZEC within accpetable time. Also it was officially announced by the very ZEC after four weeks that Morgan’s MDC had gained more votes than Mugabe’s Zanu PF and collectively the opposition had managed to widen vote or support gap. This is contrary to the 27 June 2008 one horse race that was openly discredited by both AU and SADC observers.
Now with that said, it is correct for Khama and the late Mwanawasa to take a stand against this violation of SADC and AU’s regulations. Someone has to take a stand and since the rest of this club’s leaders are not prepared to do so those two have. As for our president, it is really beyond logic that he has been allowed to continue to mediate post Polokwane when he lost confidence of his very organisation and largely his nation.
He has managed to make an impresion to some academics who seemingly lack independent perspective of African issues. He appears to claim to be the gatekeeper of the new African vision, but I wonder if he is not promoting his personal vision. Besides all his known theories he has failed dismally to demonstrate a true understanding of African masses and issues. Mandela has beyond doubt connected with these masses through clear and simple but tangible vision that is not driven by unsubstantiated theories. Mandela talks the language of the people and that has elevated him to be the symbol of humanity and certainly not only academics. Maybe Mbeki should have at least danced the dance of the people as it appears to work for Zuma however questionable his personality. As long as you connect with the people you will always make it as a leader of a nation - example Hamas no matter how also questionable got elected as they ere seen to represent the view of the Palestinian people.
It is people who put people in power and it is them who remove them from that power. GET IT?
Lebo, you are wasting your time with this man. He will just play cat and mouse with you to prevent getting cornered and having to take responsibility for his immature rant over the Botswana position. He will probably even be able to justify the abduction, rape, torture, murder etc of MDC supporters. You know something they had been used as puppets of the neo-colonial lackeys and deserved what they got.
PLEASE read chapter 43 of George Bizos’ autobiography when Mugabe tried to destroy Morgan in a “treason trial” and Bizos at the age of over 70, took on his defense. EVERYTHING in in that chapter of that book! The whole meltdown of Zim started then.
The election was rigged by the state, ergo it was rigged in Mugabe’s favour, ergo whilst we don’t know the exact numbers we can with absolute confidence assume that Mugabe got less than was declared and Tsvangerai got more.
You would think from your comments that Tsvangerai was just as guilty of rigging the election as Mugabe….. a somewhat unlikely scenario since he could hardly hold a political rally without ending up in hospital, much less rig a nationwide election.
If after rigging it was equal, then before rigging Tsvangerai would have been the run away leader!!!!
You really are making yourself look very very stupid with your persistent illogical arguments on this subject.
It is amazing that people like Amos claim that Sentletse is the same person as I. I can also claim that Lebo, Lebohang and Amos are the same as it is possible on internet.
There is going to come a time when the emperor will be exposed that he is actually wearing no clothes at all. He is naked. The general public will see through paddling of untruths, insinuations and innuendos. It may even be earlier than the five years I am refering to. I am being generous.
WATCH THIS SPACE I WRITE AGAIN.
Regarding Botswana’s stance on Zimbwabwe it is clear to people who have an understanding of global political interactions that Khama may be playing his own chess game that will ensure economic and political stability for his country. Whether the position taken by Botswana will result in escaping checkmate within SADC regional politics and Africa remains to be seen. The political landscape has changed and the struggle for ownership of Africa’s natural resources by Africans needs to be taken to a new level. It is one thing when Africans themselves promote a situation wherein a leader who has signed a blank cheque for the take over of his country’s resources must be given power with no checks and balances. It is another to promote a settlement that takes into consideration the voices of all Zimbwabweans as there was no direct winner in the March 29 elections.
The decision by African leaders to keep Africa’s riches within Africa is a noble one as I prefer that to riches being siphoned out of the continent to enrich outsiders.
Personally, being a Botswana citizen, I find it very awkward for our president to doubt the legitimacy of Robert Mugabe!
1. Our president landed his position unlawfully, as he was not elected by anybody else but was unilaterally given the presidency by Mogae.
2. When members of parliament were threatening not to endorse him as the vice president/ president in waiting, Mogae then arm twisted Mp’s by threatening to call for elections, and because each MP personally finances their campaigns-none could entertain the thought of going against the choice made for them by the president.
3. when Professor Kenneth Good tried to expose this undemocratic presidential succession, he was declared a prohibited immigrant before he could present his paper.
4. And i challenge anybody to tell us why up to now we, in Botswana, are being denied the choice of directly electing a president? why our government up to now refuse to detach the Independent Electoral Commission from the office of the president? why our goverment refuses to fund political parties? If these questions are not addressed…even Khama’s presidency lacks legitimacy as he was not even elected to lead his ruling party, but just inherited the presidency of the country and the ruling party simply by being liked by Festus Mogae!
I am saying that under specific circumstances people will always choose a leader who best represents their wishes/ views. If things had been allowed to follow their normal process within the ANC, we could have been sitting with a different president. I is due to perceived heriosm (having stood up to stop Mbeki’s third term bit) and a bit of sympathy however debatable that has lead to Zuma’s election and invariably Mbeki’s demise.
Logic tells me that you have to be popular to get a majority vote in any election or polls. Elections are always held under specific environment with specific prevailing political, social or economic circumstances, and it is those who are good at analysing those factors and are able to focus to the positive perseptions or perspectives of the potential electorate that always make it.
SA only has to beneficiate its chrome ore to ferrochrome to earn at fortune, but is still exporting vast amounts of the ore to China, without benification, making 10% of the profit it could make. So how does that keep the profits in Africa?
Bilal
Your president is the leader of the main party - rather like the British prime minister system. Personally I think Africa would have been better to follow this example than the American 2 term system. It would have prevented a lot of problems in Africa.
Well it appears that the traction is more visible on the MDC’s own driven efforts to establish democracy than on the SADC mediation side. Thanks to ill advised Mugabe for attemting to sabotage the democratic process which beckfired.
Look at the results of the vote for the speaker of parliament and tell me if they are not close to the results of the 29 March 2008 election Sentletse.
The people have spoken and God willing they will continue to speak. The more Mugabe continue with his circus the more humiliation he will have to endure. You will see there is going to be a frantic action from Mbeki led SADC to try to sabotage this achievement as usual.
Khama and those who wish Zimbabwean people a bright future should stick to their position and MDC should do so too. The so called Negotiated deal would prempted and prevented this good development.
Mugabe cannot kill and maim people and get away with it!!!
That is exactly the point - we should be selling ferrocrome to China, not chrome ore, on which we make about 10% of the profit we could make! India was advised to do that at the same time that SA was so advised. India did it immediately - we did not!
I think that most Batswana are behind their president on this issue, whether or not they agree with automatic succession.
Our biggest trading partner, by far, is South Africa, not Europe.
@Sentletse
Apart fro NZS and Thuthukani Mkhize, you appear to have no support for your position. NZS seems to think Mbeki will redeem himself when the history books are written, but offers no evidence to counter the overwhelmingly poor image that TM has gained in recent years.
Which SADC leaders could be described as democratically elected? The discomfort with Botswana stems in part from their illegitimacy and fear of being subjected to the democratic process.
Ian Khama will stand for election in 2009 and he will be elected with an overwhelming majority. That is our tradition and we are proud of it.
Although we don’t often get heard mouthing it, we are at times quite ashamed of our fellow SADC member states and their leaders. If you think that is unacceptable, I remain open to argument and am still to be convinced that our stance is anything but heroic.
Lyndall
Tanzania maybe, but it remains to be seen what stance the new Zambian leader will take. The cleptocratic republic of Angola is feigning an election soon, ho hum!
Alan in Botswana
You say Ian Khama will stand for elections in 2009, my question is:is it him or the party that he belongs to? As far as i know, presidents in Botswana are not elected. In Botswana the law is such that the party that wins a majority in parliament can nominate its leader as the president of the country.
But the problem is that with the ruling party, the general members are not given an opportunity to elect who leads their party, the practice is that the president chooses, unilaterally, a vice president, who will succeed him when he retires or leaves office. the vice president does not even have to be a senior member of the central committee (NEC) of the ruling party as the current vice president is. The retirement of the president is always timed not to fall in a year the ruling party goes for its congress,it is timed to fall not on a year that the national elections are held.The timing is such that it will be impossible for anybody to challenge the incumbent. Ian Khama was never elected to lead the ruling party…and be sure that he wont be challenged in the next ten years. Readers should remember that Festus Mogae once threatened to dissolve parliament if his choice of Ian Khama as the vice president is not endorsed by parliament…why did he think MPs would disagree with his choice…because Khama is not as popular or supported as we are made to believe, but has never been subjected to any credible challenge.Even when he contested the chairmanship of the ruling party, Mogae had ordered all MPs and cabinet ministers to attend all his rallies.
Ian Khama forced a candidate who wanted to challenge his brother to look for a different constituency and you say he is any democratic?
Sentletse Diakanyo
When Botswana’s President is invited or attends the funeral of Mwanawasa and Mugabe attends the same funeral as the President of Zimbabwe, does it mean that Botswana has changed its stand-i thought Ian Khama had vowed not to attend any forum where Mugabe is attending in his capacity as the President of Zimbabwe?
Or, funerals are an exception…i wish to know what you think on this.
You are both right. Botswana has a splintering opposition that prides itself on breaking apart just before general elections.(Not unlike Angola) Our system is not perfect and many of us wish to get rid of automatic succession as soon as possible. But, having said that, we are the least corrupt, most democratic, economically sound nation within SADC and possibly on the continent. Ian Khama is a shoo-in as was his brother in Serowe, but all things being equal (which of course they are not), the people of Botswana will give him and his party, their overwhelming support at election time.
Ian Khama has been endearing himself to ordinary people by making himself widely accessible at Kgotla meetings and village camp outs. He has a commoners touch and seeks to understand better what his people expect of him. I wish him well.
Alan in Botswana on September 3rd, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Bilal
South Africans don’t elect their president either. Actually the most stable countries of the world have a prime minister system, where the ruling party elects the head of government.
In the over 50 countries of the Commonwealth, over 40 still have Queen Elizabeth as Head of State, and Presidents or Prime Ministers as head of government, usually the head of the ruling party.
I don’t understand why the American system of 2 term presidencies was forced on Africa in the first place. It is a damn stupid system.
Lyndall
I thought ANC elected JZ as its president at Polokwane. My gripe, Ian Khama was never elected, but chosen or hand picked by Festus Mogae.
The difference between the system used by ANC and the ruling party in Botswana is that the President of the ANC is elected by his party but in Botswana one becomes the President of the country then automatically the president of the ruling party, and it is strange that this arrangement only applies to the ruling party. The constitution of the BDP[Botswana Democratic Party] clearly states that when it is in power its President is not elected at party level but is the state president. This arrangement is very undemocratic!
Khama landed this position of presidency because Mogae liked him, not BDP members!
Maybe the reason Botswana is doing so well, and Lesotho and Swzailand so badly, is that the Khamas were always democrats - and also only have had one wife for 4 generations! The people matter more than the Chief!
Lyndall - Yes, and the fact that we are mineral rich and relatively honest. Our mineral income has been well managed and for the most part honestly accounted for. Our infrastructure is second to none in Africa and our crime rates are small compared with others in the region.
Bilal - Despite the imperfections in the automatic succession route, we have always had a good president and a good government. I long for the day when a credible opposition presents itself as a viable alternative to the BD Unfortunately in my lifetime that has never happened. Nonetheless, I will continue to vote for the opposition in the hope of giving it strength.
Alan in Botswana on September 5th, 2008 at 8:15 am
Alan in Botswana
I always vote for the opposition - just to strenghten democracy. However I might just vote for the main party if I was in Botswana, just because they have done so well - in such a small, landlocked, and not very rich, country.
Landlocked yes. But small and not very rich? Same size as France or Texas and one of the highest per capita ratio’s of foreign reserves in the world, comparable to the likes of Saudi Arabia. 24 months of import coverage, compared to Zimbabwe 45 minutes, Zambia 2 days, America 2 months.
Lyndall Beddy & Alan
Please lack of ability to manage Foreign Reserves is the reason why Botswana has such a huge amount in Foreign Reserves while many(a third) Batswana wallow in poverty. Or you want to tell me that America-bein the world’s super economy were not wise to keep an import cover of two months?
Any company/or country that keeps so much cash just shows lack of investment creativity…as cash is never a good investment as shown by the huge fall in foreign reserves during the Sep 11. Cash is too volatile.
Bilal
Much of what you say is true. Too many people live in poverty in Botswana.
However, I think your argument about cash being too volatile does not ring true. If you had invested a million Pula into virtually any stock market in the world one year ago; today it would be worth considerably less. If you had put that same million Pula into an interest earning account, you would be much better off. The fact that we have not spent all of our foreign reserves sets us apart from other failed African states. When times get really tough, we will have enough reserves to cushion the effects of recession.
I would be interested to hear what you suggest the government do with the reserves to help alleviate poverty, that they aren’t already doing.
Thanks Lyndall,
Now a little lesson. A singular person from Botswana is referred to as a Motswana. The plural of this is Batswana, and the main language is Setswana.
Bilal: Come on, you don’t seriously want us to copy America’s fiscal policies do you? We would have bankrupt long ago and the poor would be considerably worse off than they are now.
Alan in Botswana on September 12th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Leave a Reply
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
Sentletse Diakanyo has a keen interest in everything else that is beyond the realm of his expertise; from world politics, history, economics, philosophy, to motor-racing. He is inquisitive about everything and a master of none. He writes what likes, without fear or favour.
Views expressed here are his, and his alone, and do not represent any other organisation or person(s).
On February 2 1990 ,the last president of the repressive nationalist regime FW de Klerk stood before parliament and made this important and long overd...
The Lothario from Inkandla is reported to have struck again! This time he has "allegedly" -- in his friend's backyard -- seduced a relatively young la...
Climate change has been a topical issue over the last few years. It has enjoyed overwhelming prominence not because it is an uncommon occurrence but b...
December 16 is Day of Reconciliation for South Africans. A day that signifies a bloody moment in the history of Afrikaners, Zulus and all of us as a n...
The Scramble for Africa which began in the 1880s has been largely blamed for disrupting and eroding the cultural practices and traditions of Africans....
Loading ...
This is an appallingly low grade article. How is it possible that Diakanyo can read a simple situation so badly wrong, or is he trying play the spin-doctor? Did he even bother to read the Botswana Foreign Ministry statement? Or does this writer engage pen before operating brain?
(Report abuse)