Zimbabwe: diplomacy makes way for propaganda

Britain’s arrogance in dealing with the Zimbabwe problem points to one thing: Mugabe’s rivals have abandoned diplomacy in favour of propaganda

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 11 October 2007

After failing to resolve tensions with their fiercest African rival – Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe – through diplomatic means, the British and United States governments have resorted to an aggressive propaganda campaign.

According to Peter Mavuma, a British-based Zimbabwean journalist, “[The Western media] have a single-minded preoccupation with demonising Zimbabwe and propping up the opposition, especially Morgan Tsvangirai [the leader of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC)], well above his station.” (1)

In the latest episode, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has threatened to boycott the forthcoming European Union-Africa Summit if Mugabe attends, arguing that Mugabe’s presence at the summit will divert attention from important agenda items.

By starting the controversy over who may attend and who may not, Brown himself has already diverted attention from important matters to be discussed at the summit. So he wanted to be the first one to divert attention from the work of the EU-Africa summit?

Various observes around the world may differ on the approach needed in solving the political crisis and economic meltdown in Zimbabwe, but one aspect appreciated by both sides is that something needs to be done to return Zimbabwe to normality.

It’s just strange how senior British politicians want to discuss the Zimbabwean situation without their Zimbabwean counterparts. This amounts to gossip diplomacy, intended mainly to cause mistrust amongst African leaders.

According to media reports, Brown’s government would be comfortable with a Zimbabwean delegation as long as it excludes President Mugabe. So that Brown can talk down to the Zimbabweans?

Once described by South African political commentator Patrick Lawrence as a “wily and increasingly unpredictable octogenarian president,” (3) Mugabe’s refusal to submit to external and internal pressure has irked his rivals, most notably the British, Americans and Australians.

Talk of “targeted sanctions” against top Zimbabwean officials is misleading. How targeted are the sanctions when international companies are encouraged to disinvest from Zimbabwe, when the United States has adopted a law (Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act) that legalises external meddling in the affairs of a sovereign state?

In June, United States ambassador to Zimbabwe, Christopher Dell, predicted that Zimbabwe’s inflation rate would reach 1.5 million % by the end of year 2007. (2) At the time of Dell’s prediction, non-official figures put Zimbabwe’s inflation rate at around 10 000%. How that figure would jump to 1.5 million % within six months remains a mystery!

In another misleading development, British ambassador to South Africa, Paul Boateng, was recently on the SABC current affairs programme, Interface, emphasising his government’s supposed commitment to an “African solution” to the problems in Zimbabwe. Yet the current diplomatic stand-offs are not started by Africans, not even the economic sanctions!

This “African solutions” gospel is meant primarily to stupefy the African community. Practically, Africa’s former colonial masters want to keep remote-controlling the continent. They even want to determine who is fit to rule which part of Africa and who is not. Surely that should be left to us Africans?

If Britain and her fellow western allies believe that Mugabe is the problem in Zimbabwe, why does it seem unwise to have Mugabe in attendance at forums such as the EU-Africa summit? Why prioritise a propaganda campaign in the media whilst the subject of the campaign, Mugabe, is available for talks on a face-to-face level?

References:

1. Mavunga, Peter. “Media hype more Western froth and bubble,” New African, Zimbabwe Special Issue, Summer 2007, page 66.
2. Dell, Christopher. “US predicts regime change in Zimbabwe as hyperinflation destroys the economy,” The Guardian, 22 June 2007.
3. Lawrence, Patrick. “Mugabe risks more than displacement in a coup,” Zimbabwe Independent opinion section, 29 June 2007.