Can this go on?
I’m hoping against hope that the latest attack on Morgan Tsvangirai will be the straw that breaks the back of Thabo Mbeki’s proverbial quiet diplomacy camel. It’s simply inexplicable that after fighting so hard for human rights in this country, our government applies a head in the sand approach to some of the worst human rights offences Southern Africa has seen.
I used to give Thabo the benefit of the doubt on his quiet diplomacy policies, but things have simply got out of hand. With the first attacks on Tsvangirai two or three years ago, our government should have realised that a new approach was needed, rather than dogmatically sticking to their incumbent policies. All South Africa looks like now is a disinterested “I’m OK Jack” kind of neighbour, with little interest in the suffering of Zim’s peoples, whilst we build up the largest economic powerhouse in Africa.
I’m sure it’s not as cold or simplistic as that, but that is the deserved perception in much of Africa, and the world. Those that enjoyed Mugabe’s “sticking it to the West” attitude have surely hopped off that soapbox under the steady weight of human suffering, absolute poverty and hopelessness that is the current Zimbabwe.
Come on Thabo. Stand up and make us proud again.
posted by Jonty at Tuesday, March 13, 2007
3 Comments:
Politics can never be governed by perceptions. There is a common saying nowadays; 'Perception is reality'. If we accept that saying as a truism, then at all times our political actions, prinicples and activities will have to be governed by what the reality is perceived to be about. That will be the same as being populist and playing to the gallery. This is a very dangerous practice. Since all that will occur is that we will say the correct things with the vigour and empathy without doing much.
I disagree whether the government's policy on Zimbabwe has been incorrect. Further, there is no such thing as quiet diplomacy. Every statement of the SA government on Zimbabwe has condemned actions of the Zimbabwean government which has bordered on oppression. But it has always urged the Zimbabwean government to get around the negotiations table with the MDC. In this regard the government and the ANC has met with members of Zanu-PF and the MDC to fashion out a transitional process. However, each and every time there has been progress, unfortunately this progress has been thwarted by both Mugabe and Tsangarai. Like with Tsangarai stating that he will not sit around the table and does not regard Mugabe as the President of Zimbabwe. And Mugabe replying that he will not sit around a table with Tsangarai unless Tsangarai recognises himself (i.e. Mugabe) as the President of Zimbabwe. And that has stalled the process each and every time.
Tsangarai refusing to accomodate a process which will demand a compromise from MDC and Zanu-PF resulted in the divisions in MDC.
There is no doubt that Tsangarai is a leader in Zimbabwe, but he is not the most popular leader in the country, and the MDC does not hold the majority support in the country. It is urban-based with the overwhelming majority of its support found within urban centres like Harare. The Presidential elections that took place legitimately elected Mugabe and that must be accepted.
On another level though, it is imperative that government and the ANC issues the necessary opprobrium at the actions directed at Tsangarai and all those involved in peaceful assembly.
More than that will border on a foreign policy that seeks to play a big brother role. And if we are to embark on foreign policy as a big brother we must be ready to take on all the unitended consequences of such a foreign policy. Such a role may have short-term success but will result in SA losing its moral stanidng in the world and undermine the regional, continental and global multilateral bodies we belong to.
It is easy to be symbolic and play to perceptions when you do not really care whether issues are resolved or not, as long as you are not blamed. SA must NEVER fall into that trap, and maintain its principled stance, remain consistent in its respect for multilateral bodies like SADC; the AU; and the UN, and refuse to bow to pressure to say things it does not believe in.
12:28 PM
Anonymous, you forget to mention that Zanu-PF have not accepted that the MDC has won the majority vote for the Harare council. A recent report highlighted that the national Zany-PF government succeeded in removing the MDC local govt of Harare within months of the local govt elections, something that the ANC was thus far unable to do in Cape Town. As such, there has been no effective governance in Harare for the last few years.
IMO not one of the parties trust the other parties. And the only way to build/restore trust if for them to start communicating. I agree that SA should not become the Africa's big brother, but we should "force" both sides to start talking to each other about the future of Zimbabwe.
4:53 PM
Anonymous,
Thanks for the comments. I was similar to you in position that quiet diplomacy could achieve change, especially when SA delegations were meeting Zanu-PF and MDC representatives, and when we refused loans to Mugabe unless he met certain criteria. However, I simply cannot support our policies now, whilst the policy is clearly having no effect and whilst it seems it is tantamount to doing nothing.
I haven't heard "every statement of the SA government has condemned actions of the Zimbabwean government" - all I hear is that "Zimbabwe must deal with its own problems". Can you imagine if the world said that the the non-white population of our country during apartheid? If I've missed those statements, please point me in the right direction and I'd be much happier.
In terms of Tsvangirai, I am not trying to make the point that he is a sacred cow of any sort or that his personal safety should bring SA running. It's yet another symbolic rule of oppression by Mugabe that, and to me its largely irrelevant if he is the most popular or not, any attack on a 'major' opposition player is another clear attack by Mugabe on the very base of democracy and another refusal of Mugabe as to any semblance of Zimbabwe being able to "sort out its own problems" through it own people.
What I'm hoping for, is that the local and national outcry that has come from his beating will bring a more direct approach from our government. Starting with more condemnation (that I can see reported in the media) and greater efforts to mediate change in the country, more vocally if necessary.
This could be backed by more international assistance in terms of monitors, smart sanctions that target Mugabe and his cronies (luxury import boycotts, financial limitations etc) and other efforts. I don't think it's possible to look at Zimbabwe as a vacuum that operates independently of South Africa. What happens there has strong socio-economic impacts on our country, and that's before taking cognisance of the gross human violations taking place there.
In my opinion, we shouldn't have the luxury of allowing these violations to take place on our borders given our history, because we are worried about big brother connotations. Can the consequences be any worse than they are?
5:17 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home