By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 20 August 2007
This is the second 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 "Resistance to act in favour of 'regime change’ ", which will form part of a chapter in the finished work.
The question critics won't answer
One of the troubles with the political crisis and economic meltdown in Zimbabwe is that those who want punitive action to be taken against President Robert Mugabe’s regime refuse to answer the simple question: where did Zimbabwe go wrong? Was the turning point the controversial 2002 presidential elections, or was it the equally controversial land reform programme?
The heads of states of the Southern African countries, under the banner of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), do not seem to think that the problems in Zimbabwean were caused by either the 2002 elections or the land reform programme, and this is confirmed by the decisions they take in their regular meetings.
Just recently, in Lusaka, Zambia, the SADC heads of state and government not only refused to condemn Mugabe as demanded by critics, but they went further to call for more cooperation with the Harare regime, with a view to forger stronger economic cooperation and closer political ties.
SADC and its refusal to condemn Mugabe
President Thabo Mbeki, who was appointed as the mediator between the ruling Zanu-PF and opposition Movement for Democratic Cgange (MDC), presented a confidential report to the heads of states in the Lusaka meeting. He then told the media afterwards that the leaders accepted the report, which, as Mbeki said, will be forwarded to finance ministers in the region so that they can devise means of contributing to the rebuilding of the Zimbabwean economy.
At their earlier meeting in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, in March, the same heads of state again defied their critics, saying the much talked-about 2002 elections were “free, fair and democratic”, adding, on the controversial land reform programme, that Britain must “honour its compensation obligations”.
Clearly, SADC is not convinced that the mounting pressure to punish Mugabe and his regime are worth heeding. In fact (and rightly so), SADC leaders are doing the opposite of what some pressure groups, some international organisations and certain Western countries want them to do in Zimbabwe. They are helping Zimbabwe instead of punishing it.
Human rights abuses and hypocrisy
The allegations of “human rights abuses” levelled against Zimbabwe do not warrant the amount of pressure that Mugabe’s regime is put under. This is because there are countries here in Africa and elsewhere in the world whose human rights records are far worse than those reported in Zimbabwe.
For example, the Human Rights Watch’s World Report 2007 observes: “Ruthlessly repressive governments impose enormous cruelty on their people in North Korea, Burma, and Turkmenistan. Closed dictatorships persist in Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. China is slipping backwards. Russia and Egypt are cracking down on nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and Peru and Venezuela are considering similar steps. Iran and Ethiopia are silencing dissident voices. Uzbekistan is crushing dissent with new vigor while refusing to allow independent investigation of its May 2005 massacre in its eastern city of Andijan”.
Like other critics of the Harare regime, the same report by the Human Rights Watch is not clear on where Zimbabwe went wrong. Instead, the organisation says of Mugabe’s country: “In Zimbabwe, President Robert Mugabe would rather drive his country to ruin than tolerate a political opposition”.
Is the problem in Zimbabwe really Mugabe’s alleged intolerance of the opposition? If yes, and if intolerance of opposition is enough justification of regime change, then the first regimes to be changed are those in which opposition parties not allowed to exist. We have a plenty of such regimes in Africa and elsewhere in the world.
Another one of South Africa’s neighbours, Swaziland, has been harassing and banning opposition parties for a very long time. In Sudan, President Omar el-Bashir had banned opposition parties for as long as it took his country to experience a long, deadly civil war. In Libya, there is still no opposition. In both the Sudanese and the Libyan cases, the international community prioritised negotiations. What, we must ask, prompts the high levels of impatience when it comes to Zimbabwe?
The real answer to the question
Though Africa’s critics will not say it, the situation in Zimbabwe is caused by the West’s refusal to have Zimbabwe’s land in black hands. Those pushing for regime change want to maintain Zimbabwe’s economy in the hands of the white minority. They want Zimbabwe to be like South Africa, where 80% of land is in the hands of the white minority, where only four percent of land has been given back to black people since 1994.
If the rigging of elections was enough reason why a regime should be pushed out of office, Nigeria will not be having Umaru Yar’Adua as its new president. After all, Yar’Adua’s election was marred by allegations of vote-rigging, with the European Union observer mission reporting that over 200 people have died due to election-related violence and that “minimum standards for democratic elections were not met".
You won’t hear this coming out of the mouths of those demanding “urgent reform” in Zimbabwe, but the struggle in our northern neighbour is the struggle for economic liberation. The harsh treatment against Zimbabwe, in the hands of the so-called international community, sends a message to younger democracies such as South Africa: “Interfere with the wealth of the white minority and face the music”. And, of course: “We [the West] are never without excuses to change a regime”.
- An edited copy of this article appeared in the City Press newspaper of 09 September 2007 under the headline, “World must play fair with Zim”.
- Another edited copy of this article appeared in the October 2007 edition of the New African magazine.
No comments:
Post a Comment