Prophets of doom are battling to swallow their words as President Thabo Mbeki’s diplomatic efforts in Zimbabwe appear to be vindicated.
Mbeki has maintained that a people-centred approach stemming from dialogue between Zanu-PF and the MDC is the only hope of a lasting solution to the political and economic meltdown in that country.
Since Mbeki forced Mugabe to allow international observers into Zimbabwe during the elections in 2000 and 2002, Mbeki’s position of influence in that country has soared and his efforts received more prominence than the solutions championed by the Western powers.
The critical difference between the Mbeki way and the George Bush/Tony Blair approach is that Western powers are more interested in demonising Mugabe as another failed African leader, lending credence to Western beliefs that Africans were better off with colonial masters in control.
Pretoria, on the other hand, cannot afford to play semantics about the Zimbabwean situation as it stands to inherit the ills of the Mugabe regime.
Already, the economic melt down in that country is affecting the South African economy and the country will soon need to grapple with the reality of thousands of Zimbabweans believed to be economic refugees who are already streaming into our country.
Critics of the Mbeki government — driven by emotion rather than reason — are merely calling on the state to play into the hands of populists.
The headline-grabbing hard-talk strategy propagated by both Britain and the United States and lauded by the media was never a realistic option.
These superpowers aided by the media seek to shift the blame for the ills of Zimbabwe from the colonisers who reneged on their promises to foot the bill for the land redistribution to Mbeki.
Now Mbeki is being discredited as swimming in the sewer with Mugabe and his band of hooligans within Zanu-PF.
Mbeki critics assume that Pretoria’s refusal to vilify Mugabe publicly when Zimbabwean police brutally assaulted MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai meant Mbeki was embracing Mugabe.
They assumed Mbeki and the ANC were ashamed of being seen to be criticising a comrade and being used as a conduit of Western propaganda in Zimbabwe and the African continent.
They were wrong.
Mbeki is forever on the phone to both Tsvangirai and Mugabe drumming the message that it is incumbent upon them to find a peaceful solution to the problems besetting that country and to lead subsequent international efforts to rebuild that country.
Foreign Affairs spokesperson Ronnie Mamoepa argues: “The fact that we do not publicly condemn the situation does not mean we are not making a difference in Zimbabwe.
“We are, in fact, doing more to change the political situation in Zimbabwe than any of those who are being praised for standing on roof tops with loudspeakers and condemning the government of Zimbabwe.”
Even Tsvangirai acknowledges that Western powers have dealt themselves out of any efforts to find a lasting solution in Zimbabwe.
Mbeki, on the other hand, brought Mugabe to dialogue with Tsvangarai, whose arrogance and refusal to recognise Mugabe as the elected head of state should be blamed for further antagonising Mugabe and most importantly delaying the talks.
Advocates of regime change are failing themselves in believing Mbeki would allow himself to be a conduit of their beliefs and worse an agent of regime change in Zimbabwe.
Mbeki’s so-called quiet diplomacy is, in fact, the same strategy adopted by Pretoria in all conflict-resolution efforts in war-torn countries including Haiti, the DRC and Burundi, where it brokered peace deals.
Mamoepa argues: “Wherever we have been invited to intervened in Africa and the world, we have called all the antagonists to dialogue.
“Any imposed solution in Zimbabwe will not advance the cause of the people of that country and will not be sustainable.”
The same strategy is, in fact, the very same approach used by the ANC in negotiating a peaceful solution to end the reign of terror of the apartheid regime.
In the same way as talks between Zanu-PF and MDC are taking a long time to reach a solution, talks between the ANC and the Nats took years before compromises were reached.
Like a broken record, Mamoepa preaches to deaf ears that: “In the same in which we ended apartheid and brought an end to violence and brutality inflicted by surrogates of the apartheid government, the advent of democracy in Zimbabwe will bring an end to detention, torture and brutality.
“We are therefore saying all forces must come to dialogue to pave a way forward.
“This is exporting our home grown solution which is held internationally as a miracle in peaceful conflict resolution.”
True, Zimbabweans have come to a fork on their road and what they do now — not what foreigners do for them — will determine their future.
No foreign solution or imposed democratisation process will end Mugabe’s reign of terror.
One is shocked that the agents of regime change in Iraq where American efforts have gone pear-shaped still insist on regime change in Zimbabwe.
It is indeed mindboggling where Mbeki’s critics get the theory that the president, one of the world’s leading campaigners against regime change and militaristic solutions, would allow himself to be an agent of regime change.
It is a fact that South Africa is now close to brokering a peace deal in Zimbabwe, but doomsayers will neither swallow their words nor give credit to Mbeki for averting a crisis.
This entry was posted
on Friday, August 24th, 2007 at 12:59 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.
26 Responses to “Zim: Quiet diplomacy is the only way!”
A well written piece, but completely unsubstantiated.
Where is your evidence for all these great things that are happening? You make broad claims the likes of which I’ve never heard before, but fail to back anything up with hard fact.
Statements like “he is constantly on the phone” sorting everything out… just where did you hear that exactly?
Don’t you think that given the criticism of Mbeki, he would be trying at least to placate the nay-sayer by offering some SHRED of evidence that things are getting better?
And yet… silence from Mbeki. Hero’s welcome for Mugabe from the SADC. Zimbabweans suffer. Ad infinitum…
For how many years has “quiet diplomacy” failed miserably? And for how much longer until you admit that it will never work? How many people must die and suffer?
Read the following blog post for a more enlightened view on the Zimbabwe crisis:
My emotions are with capdog. I mean for god’s sake, somebody, anybody, do something.
My head sadly, and tremendously so, sees this as stupid and immutably idiotic.
Mbeki is right. Zimbabwe at this stage is going to have to fix this themselves, just as South Africa did, by and large. As the africanpath link points out, apartheid is aive in Zim, but being honest now, can anyone remember the shock/elation of hearing that the Nats were speaking to the ANC?
One thing we can do is closely examine and nail the pirates, within and without, who are long embedded in our societies and governments and economies and who now profit from and foster the current debacle. For this we do not need populist pronouncements of the kind expressed by capdog and other clownish idiots like GW Bush or Tony Blair, and also held in my, and possibly every other idiot’s, heart, but close legal analysis as in a World Court.
It is the establishment of judicial independance and procedures and evidence and precedent and close argument that is going to have to suffice.The rabid foaming at the mouth that splashes in the opinion pages and blogs is not the answer.
We must believe in the word as fundamental not as froth. Institutions have to be set up and empowered and Zimbabwe shows this is extremely urgent.
It is not frothing at the mouth to report in detail on the excesses, greed and barbarism that are resulting in unbearable suffering for the Zimbabwean people. People, that is, who are of no importance to Robert Mugabe. The story of the collapse of a nation is the story of those who pay the full price for it. Southern African leaders are not going to condemn Mugabe, indeed most seem to admire him. If SA wanted a solution, it could simply cut off the electricity. The thugocracy wouidn’t last a month.
While there is validity in what you say, what anybody says for that matter, spend more time frothing at the greed of the capitalist West (USA and England with puppy Ausy on the leash)and the consequent long term, unbearable suffering of millions and I will credit your perspective.
Right now it seems an open and shut case that Western greed and Christianity has been heavily invlolved in the demise of Africa (particularly in SA), the excesses in China under Mao, the cowboys and crooks of the wars in India, SA, Korea, and Vietnam; is driving the current duplicity as regards Taiwan and is now idiotically driving the current debacle in central Asia.
And of course it is always such as Mugabe’s fault.
You sound exactly like those who point fingers at the madness of taxis on SA roads while driving the racist subtext of African inability and ignoring the clear proof of blame that history will attach to ‘our’ Western culture that purposefully destroyed the culture and denied the humanity of Africans, North American Indians, Australian “Aborigines”, (all Non Europeans), killed millions upon millions in the 20th century, used atom bombs and endlessly mutates new forms of colonisation and slavery to keep itself fat while pointing fingers of blame at anyone they can oppress enough to make them believe it themselves.
My concern with quiet diplomacy is that by the time we’re done being diplomatically quiet,there will be nothing left for us.Just a smouldering ruins;an ugly charred land.Anyway,I don’t know what really motivates or drives President Mbeki’s stay mum policy — statemanship,plain cowardice or selfishness?In that respect I sympathise with Capdog as a hurting person I think.But the question always remains.Are we will willing to plunge our country over the precipice — war and anarchy — with the hope that we will be able to rebuild Zimbabwe afterwards.Lets think really carefully.Do we want Zimbabwe to break down into zones led by warlords like in Somalia or Iraq.And are we sure there is going to be any intervention by Western powers and SADC to stabilise things and give post war reconstruction Aid?.Look at Iraq — how far can we trust outsiders?Maybe I am a bit of a pacifist but I think we should wait till after the elections and pray that President Mugabe and the powers that be in Zimbabwe would have worked out a deal that leaves everyone happy or just a bare minimum casualties.I don’t belief people should die for political reasons.Have you ever seen how the Americans hold their election campaigns in pomp and fanfare?Everyone is happy and the best candidate wins.How I wish all that for Zimbabwe too.So to start with a free and fair election based on an even ground is the best thing for Zimbabwe,I think.How I dont know to be honest.Then we vote the winning guy out or in every 5 years in a free system based on CHOICE.In other words,I personally think that the tipping point has not yet come.We have so much to lose.As for the old man — he is still in charge.He is old enough and seasoned enough to work out an exit strategy for himself out of all this.I will not even venture to second guess his strategy cause I wld be out of depth.I know this whole message probably sounds contradictory and diluted but I insist,we have so much to lose if we force for change through some form of revolution or struggle.This is just me agonizing over my beautiful Zimbabwe.Why not wait for the next elections and hope that our political leadership wld have worked out a package that leaves all parties happy.Thats where I give Thabo Mbeki credit ie in so far as he is providing a platform for the parties to talk in complete confidentiality and good faith.Meanwhile’lets all continue to pray for Zimbabwe.
Midafo you are well read,I think and I am in absolute agreement in so far as you talk about strengthening democratic institutions and maintainng separation of powers where our pillars of state are concerned.I would also venture as far as advocate Capitalism,with only 2-7% government intervention;Markets always have a way of correcting or adjusting themselves to smooth out descrepancies.Its a beautiful system — thats why Mr Bush talks of the transforming power of freedom.Markets always have a way of reaching equilibrium if we allow demand and supply to work.Thabo Mbeki and Tito Mboweni and all the governors of Zimbabwe,as well as Finance Ministers understand that quite well — but our Principal player in the Zimbabwe question,Robert Mugabe has chosen to overlook that for the time being.The markets have rejected him overwhelmingly,I think and pity he would rather save himself and not 15 million other pple.
This blog is interesting. Hans Blix you speak reasonably, passionately and convincingly for non-intervention, especially military intervention, but approvingly quote GW Bush who is the most silly, blithe, greedy and infamous interventionist in the history of the world with the greatest forces of destruction ever created at his assiduous beck and call.
In this way you reflect my own astonished long-term confusion in the face of what appears to be the steady gravitation of Western culture and Christianity into idiocy.
Your approval of the idea of the “Free” market is in this way, understandably but incorrectly, the approval of propaganda, which the Americans, through their Judiciary, right to the level of their Academia regard not as the weapon of war it truly is but an element of Diplomacy, amounting to the injunction “Believe me while I lie (or I will kill you)”. We only have to assess America’s current ludicrous assertion that “War is Peace (in the long term)” to see the validity of this statement.
Be prepared to disbelieve almost everything within the past few centuries that the Western world has accepted and propogated about the history of the world. Anyone who does is simply bending over to the greatest penile fraud of all time; a broomstick touted as a means to bind the family and propagate the species which demands entry to an infertile hole to inseminate crap.
The philosophical terminology for the current situation we find ourselves in is “Reductio ad Absurdum”, which asserts we have become an absurdity, a joke, albeit a disasterously cruel, destructive and astonishingly stupid one of self contradiction.
What has happened to us that well meaning people like capdog can write as he does? He, like me and you, needs to discerningly look ourself in the mirror
I am still trying to understand where exactly you stand MidaFO in terms of your political views and at one point I was tempted to recommend a reputable psychiatrist to help download some of the excess info you currently have in your live memomy file into an archive file — with all due respect sir — because your brain will simply ‘crash’,unless your hard drive handle this much varied data.
On a more serious note,Bush cannot be ’silly’ or ‘blithe’ as you suggest otherwise he would not be the President of America nor would he have been a governor of Arkansas.Neither would he have been able to secure such extensive interests in the Oil industry.Bush is a republican and he stands for a party which represents big business in the US and abroad.Him,Chenney and Rumsfeld.They represent the American Dream so to speak and have strong family ties or backgrounds.My argument therefore,is that their track record as Americans is enough evidence on its own that you cannot just simply dismiss these guys and the system of Global governess they have systematically evolved and are continously evolving.They justifiably should have a say in world affairs — Zimbabwe inclusive.You cannot blame the Americans for being clever hey.Nor can you just wave them off just like that.So to respond to you its not ‘bending over to a penile fraud’ as you suggest but accepting the harsh reality of politics.One question though,is how do you account for the growth of China into super power status?They followed market reforms recommended by International lending bodies and freed up their hguge domestic market to a larger extent.They have strong sectors with private interests active in those sectors.They have USD reserves running into the trillions now thanks to market reforms.South Africa can finish off Zimbabwe were they to put sanctions but in terms of our eventual recovery we will need international assistance,an open economy,MORE FREEDOM OF CHOICE and an expanding class of private entrepreneurs and a respect for global norms of correct governance,free societies and market based policy reforms.
What stands out clearly is where the Zim regime has succeeded and the opposition has failed, is in understanding Zimbabweans. The Zim situation is both similar and dissimilar to our own in as far as there exists a perception among the majority, that they are ruled by victors of a freedom fight (emphasis on the word perception). And then ironically, here lies the difference as well. In the case of Zimbabwe, Mugabe having actually fought a military battle, the popular loyalty will in all likelihood outlive grassroots loyalty for the ANC, regardless of inflation rates and the like. The suffering that people face on the ground, is seldom measurable by any theoretical index, the likes of which usually have significance only to the stock brokers and their ilk. If change is to be made in any direction, and if agents wish to influence that change, it would seem the best way to do that is via a respectful route of dialogue, such as Mbeki’s diplomacy. The problem remains that some of the agents in the game are not interested in diplomacy. Neither are they keen on the election route. They are what we used to call, “howlers”. Their strength lies in being irresponsible, forming alliances with the very agents that have caused the problems the people are facing. They are attention seekers, who when they get attention, use that as a stick once again. The stick being called abuse or repression. The MDC should learn that if a child burns himself playing with fire, the burns cannot be blamed on the oil barons. I ma not supporting violent repression, only pointing to a stark reality that we in Azania should be very much aware of. A populace facing poverty and hardship, easily finds a target for it’s frustration. To get involved, and not get burned, one has to first earn credibility.
What is interesting about both America and Zimbabwe is that, despite the many differences, both countries illustrate the essentially human characteristic of stupidity. No matter how favoured, well educated, wealthy or even wise a man is, he is and will always be what the Greeks called idiot and can behave as badly or worse than either Bushco or Mugabe albeit mostly on a smaller stage.
So can I and so have I. So can and have you-reading-this.
When we do we have to stop. If we don’t we become evil. If so it is tragic, as in a Shakespearean play. Hopefully there will be some who keep their heads and can clean the stage of all the blood when the idiots die. Fortunately there usually are sensible people who can. It takes time and, at least as Mbeki clearly understands, we have to wait out the two ‘leaders’ strutting the stage now in Zim. and America.
Tell you a paradox: both despite and because of America’s track record Bushco (and most Westerners who criticise Mugabe) easily gets the dunce’s cap over Mugabe.
Ah well, us Westerners: we always come first. Amazing how it never embarrasses us, hey capdog?
How not to understand Zim
David Sanders, Ben Cousins and David Moore
M7G 29 August 2007 11:59
“The current reporting on Zim-babwe is not only superficial but also misleading. It also limits any discourse about the lessons for South Africa’s evolution that Zimbabwe’s experience provides.”
Phsew!! I read it! After this nuance who can have the time to worry about Zim! It is my head that bothers me! I cannot understand this article. It seriously reads like a Bushco equivocation.
It says Zim is a complicated situation and you can view it from many vantages and, if truly dispassionate, may even be able to come first again without specifying the finish line.
?
Really?
Well Well!
Somebody help me!
Somebody tell me what has gone wrong!
Put your serious heads on the block Sanders, Cousins and Moore. It is likely that the article has been butchered by some sub wary of the number of characters in the list of authors and the needs for the adverts and mindful of space and costs but this here is a blog and although you will hopefully be cruelly exposed if you blather, you do have space for elegant assertions.
Rise to the occasion or at least hang your hair down so others can climb the tower too.
Seriously (again), and in the honest spirit of capdog, please! The limit you (and I now) refer to kills.
MidaFo, first you have to help me understand your own writing. is this the writing before the subs get a hold of it? either i am a total idiot or you are writing “between the lines, not in the news”. is there some way you can figure out how to let us in to your blog/and or figure out how to give us a direct URL link to the aticle you are referring to. you are doing it in the closet i take it?
Most media coverage of Zimbabwe unthinkingly repeats and reinforces a Western and neoliberal perception of the history and causes of that country’s political and economic crisis.
The dominant view is that “socialism” explains Zimbabwe’s economic collapse and political repression. The version perpetrated by Robert Mugabe, on the other hand, and uncritically reproduced by many pan-Africanists, is that he is waging a noble and just struggle against Britain and its proxies, white farmers and the MDC.
Both these analyses are simplistic, superficial and ahistorical.
Let us first consider political repression. This is not a new development — in fact, it has been a pattern in Mugabe’s rise to power and the evolution of Zanu-PF.
In the mid-1970s, before Mugabe went to Mozambique to join the struggle, a new political and military force arose — the Zimbabwe Peoples Army. Zipa, whose leaders identified themselves as socialists, had attempted to unite soldiers from both Zanu and the Zimbab-wean African People’s Union. Early in 1977, Mugabe persuaded Frelimo to arrest and imprison the Zipa leaders. Hundreds of their supporters in the camps were tortured and killed; the rest were warned that Zanu’s axe would descend on dissenters’ necks. In 1978, more “dissident” Zanu-PF cadres were tortured and imprisoned.
This history is not widely known. What is widely known is the notorious assault by Zanu-PF’s 5th Brigade on Zapu cadres and ordinary residents of Matabeleland from 1982 to 1987, which resulted in an estimated 20 000 deaths. But the British and American governments turned a blind eye to these events, supporting a fledgling government that remained in their sphere of influence — anti-Soviet and ambivalent in its support of the ANC.
The beginning of Zimbabwe’s economic meltdown is usually ascribed in the media to farm invasions ordered by Mugabe in February 2000, after losing a referendum on his attempt to revise the Constitution. This led to a sharp decline in (mainly) foreign exchange-earning export crops. (It is important to note that, since independence, Zimbabwe’s economy has remained capitalist.)
To blame the farm invasions for the economic crisis, however, is to ignore the consequences of the 1991-96 structural adjustment programme, which led to increased unemployment, social stresses, government corruption and a growing parasitic middle class.
While the economic and food crisis is usually attributed to the occupation of white commercial farms, the key role of Zimbabwe’s small-scale farmers is generally ignored. After 1980 the proportion of both total and marketed national maize output contributed by small-scale farmers rose from under 10% to over 60%. Since independence smallholders have produced most groundnuts and sorghum, and almost all vegetables sold in local markets. By 2000 smallholders were producing over 80% of the total cotton crop and most burley tobacco.
Meanwhile, large-scale commercial farmers, with increasing numbers being black, retained their dominant position in export-generating flue-cured tobacco, dairying and specialised crops, and switched from maize to intensive horticulture. Some ranchers moved into wildlife. These subsectors all demand high levels of capital investment.
Replacing white commercial farmers with the beneficiaries of “fast-track” land reform has not in itself been the main cause of declining food supplies since 2000. Declining agricultural output since 2000 is partly due to the effects of the economic crisis, together with factors such as drought and inadequate government support to land reform beneficiaries. Rising unemployment has hurt smallholder farmers, since wages from family members in town are used to purchase agricultural inputs.
This is not to deny that the “fast-track” has been violent, corrupt, destructive of farm infrastructure and poorly supported by government agricultural services. It has led to massive displacement of farm workers, causing untold hardship and contributing to joblessness. It has also resulted in falling export levels, resulting in an acute shortage of foreign exchange needed to purchase fuel and raw materials.
The current reporting on Zim-babwe is not only superficial but also misleading. It also limits any discourse about the lessons for South Africa’s evolution that Zim-babwe’s experience provides.
Most South African commentators suggest that, in light of their “analysis”, socialism has failed in Zimbabwe. On the contrary, it has never been tried.
David Sanders is director of the School of Public Health, and Ben Cousins is director of the Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, both at the University of the Western Cape. David Moore teaches politics at the University of KwaZulu-Natal
Well now the azanian,
I read it again and it makes sense; admirably in fact.
I must have been asleep first time.
You must be a sub.
The solution to the problems afflicting Zimbabwe lies with the Zimbabweans themselves. Calls for South Africans and President Thabo Mbeki to intervene are misplaced. Zimbabweans themselves need to have the courage of their conviotions and confront the Mugabe regime if it needs be within the constitutional space provided
Soth Africans ought to know what it means to live under repression. Or have they forgotten already! The key to the Zimbabwean tragedy lies in all key players, Mbeki included appreciating that bad governance and selfish leadership are at the root of Africa’s problems. A new generation of leaders, who are no longer prepared to hide behind the blanket of Slavery and Colonialism and Neo-colonialism is overdue. Compassionate leaders like Mandela are not there. The people of Zimbabwe, the same people who bore the brunt of the liberation struggle , are truly suffering. No amount of Pan -African or anti-colonial pontification should be used to justify such hardship. Those who remain unmoved by the real suffering of the Zimbabwean people should not raise false hope that they are concerned and are doing something about it.
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
Zukile Majova is Head of News for YFM 99.2. He is a former Mail & Guardian Investigative Reporter. He writes politics for Sowetan Newspaper. Contact him via Facebook, Twitter, zukile@yfm.co.za, 011 280 0300 and 071 681 0192
I am battling to understand why the ANC top brass was "particularly offended" by ANC Youth League president Julius Malema's comparison of President Ja...
Having established itself as the de facto leader and dictator to the ruling ANC-led tripartite alliance, Cosatu is battling to come to terms with the ...
Any university student has a sad story to tell about the death of student politics, the inefficiency of modern day SRCs and the general mediocrity of ...
INEVITABLY, the decision by the ANC’s national executive committee to recall former president Thabo Mbeki was always going to be controversial. But ...
One Friday night, not long ago, I wondered why the youth of GP were dancing.
What are they cheerful about in the midst of the countless ills besettin...
Loading ...
A well written piece, but completely unsubstantiated.
Where is your evidence for all these great things that are happening? You make broad claims the likes of which I’ve never heard before, but fail to back anything up with hard fact.
Statements like “he is constantly on the phone” sorting everything out… just where did you hear that exactly?
Don’t you think that given the criticism of Mbeki, he would be trying at least to placate the nay-sayer by offering some SHRED of evidence that things are getting better?
And yet… silence from Mbeki. Hero’s welcome for Mugabe from the SADC. Zimbabweans suffer. Ad infinitum…
For how many years has “quiet diplomacy” failed miserably? And for how much longer until you admit that it will never work? How many people must die and suffer?
Read the following blog post for a more enlightened view on the Zimbabwe crisis:
http://www.africanpath.com/p_blogEntry.cfm?blogEntryID=2148
(Report abuse)