Quiet Diplomacy

Why South Africa refuses to take tough action against its neighbour, Zimbabwe

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 02 July 2007

This is the first in a series of articles focussing on the rarely explained reasons behind South Africa's reluctance to take tough action against Zimbabwe, a country the United States Secretary of State Condolezza Rice once described as "an outpost of tyranny".

The finished work will be included in one comprehensive essay, titled "QUIET DIPLOCAY: Why South Africa Refuses to Take Tough Action Against Zimbabwe". This article focuses on "The role of the colonial master", which will form part of a chapter in the finished work.

South Africa and Zimbabwe are bound not only physically by borders. The two Southern African countries are bound also by a common colonial history, a common struggle for independence and freedom from colonial Britain and, quite significantly, by the fact that whatever difficulties that face one affect the other.

The story of the two countries, penned down in great but not absolute detail in this book, is much more complex than what many analysts and critics seem to believe. Even more complex are the turning points at each of the two countries’ paths to independence, freedom and democracy.

South Africa gained its independence from Britain on 31 May 1961. Zimbabwe gained independence from the same colonial master almost twenty years later, on 18 April 1980. However, South Africa’s earlier independence was more of a blow to the majority black population that a victory. Confirmation of this is contained in the fact that the new democratic South Africa does not celebrate independance day.

Whilst the end of British rule in Zimbabwe marked the beginning of self-governance and the emergence of freedom, with Robert Mugabe elected as the first indigenous leader, the end of Britain’s colonial administration in South Africa signalled no positive change for the country’s black majority population.