Quiet Diplomacy (Part II)

The one question Zimbabwe's critics are reluctant to answer

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.

How about a state-run newspaper in South Africa?

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 16 August 2007

This may sound like the suggestion of someone living in and supporting an authoritarian regime, but, on a serious note, is it not time that the South African government considers introducing its own newspaper? I suggest this for two serious reasons. And, before you could read this article in full, you do not qualify to comment on the suggestion made.

1. Many good stories to tell, limited and skeptical platform to tell them

The first reason behind my suggestion for a state-run (not state-controlled) newspaper is that the new South African government, in its 13 years in office, has made great strides that have gone unnoticed because there is a limited platform through which such strides can be communicated to the people. In instances where this limited platform is utilised, the level of skepticism overwhelms the good news.

The same government, in the same period of time it has been in office, has also failed to do better in many critical areas, particularly in lowering the numbers of the unemployed, improving the standard and quality of education in public schools and distributing land equitably amongst racial groups. Where these shortcomings were observed, the privately-owned media has failed to provide thought-provoking analysis and useful recommendations.

People who are educated and experienced enough to provide the high level of intellectual debate we need are not given the platform to do so. Much of the newspaper spaces are occupied by lazy, half-baked columnists who do not read enough. They make incoherent and reactionary comments on the state of our young nation. The less said about our mostly junior, equally half-baked and lazy journalists, the better.

For all its sins, the ruling African National Congress (ANC) was correct in its 2005 series, The Sociology of Public Discourse in South Africa, when it stated: “The challenge intellectually to define the future of our country has been and will remain as demanding and bruising as has been the continuing challenge practically to change South Africa into a democratic, non-racial, non-sexist and prosperous homeland for all our people”.

Our media practitioners, particularly journalists and their editors (however denial they can be), also face the same “demanding and bruising” challenge to change our country. Unfortunately, many of them never admit that they need as much transformation as the rest of the society they live in. Worse still, they seem to have added the word “transformation” to the category of vulgar words. They want transformation almost everywhere, except in the mythical Tenth Province they live in.

2. The privately-owned media are not development-oriented

Secondly, I would like to use as an example the joint efforts of the Department of Education and some media houses in the education recovery plan following the recent public sector strike.
The introduction of the very useful “Study Mate” supplement to help learners catch-up with their studies is one classic example of how newspapers can contribute to the development of our country. Unfortunately, many of the privately-owned newspapers lack initiative and are in a bad habit of waiting for government to come up with ideas on nation-building partnerships.

The private newspaper industry is dominated by people who are good at pointing out the bad and the ugly in government, but do not ask them what they are doing to further develop the country they also live in (hence their mythical Tenth Province). Many of our newspaper editors are excellent finger-pointers.

Under normal circumstances, our jounalists won't go, for example, to the poverty-stricken Sekhukhune District Municipality in the Limpopo Province unless they are following the Preisdent on an imbizo. Our journalists pretend to be innovative and investigative, but, in reality, they are mostly scandal-mongering, narrow-focussed and just shoddy in their reporting.

I know that the ANC has pronounced itself on the issue of a state-owned newspaper before, saying that they want to leave the space open for independent voices. That's fine when you have media personnel who provide food for thought and see themselves as part of the society they write about. We do not have such media here in South Africa, which is why I believe government must again lead the way, just as it leads journalists into areas of our country they would ordinarily not go to.

We need a state-run newspaper to challenge stereotypes and provide a different, fresh perspective -- a newspaper with learned commentators, a paper that will be written mostly by the doers as opposed to the privately-owned newspapers that are written by the talkers. We need a state-owned newspaper to keep our lazy journalists and their half-baked columnist colleagues on their toes.

To Khutsong residents: You're not more South African

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 13 August 2007

Grade 12 pupils in Khutsong were this past weekend taken to a camp in Taung, in the North West Povince, where they are expected to catch-up on their school work, following months of school boycott.

All the drama follows uprisings in their township related to government’s decision to place their area under the administration of the North West Provincial Government.

The ugly situation in Khustong, which is attributed to the demarcation saga, is very sad if one considers the damage the dispute has brought not only to public property, but also to the future of learners in that area.

Those responsible for the chaos are setting a dangerous precedent, encouraging the use of force and disruptions to the smooth running of the country. Clearly, the people are being misled, and the misleader/s is/are getting away with murder.

What kind of a country are we living in, where children are denied access to education because the people of the area in which they live are embroiled in a conflict with government on demarcation issues? This is pure lawlessness. It is really disgusting.

How special are the people of Khutsong when it comes to service delivery? Whoever is responsible for the chaos (all in the name of “service delivery”) must know that all of South Africa ’s people, from Cape Town to Musina, have the same needs as they. They are not more South African than the rest of us.

In the municipality where I come from, the Greater Sekhukhune District Municipality in the Limpopo Province , people are in dire need of the very basic of services, ranging from clean water, electricity, tarred roads to schools. Most parts of Khutosng have all of that, but look what they are doing? It is shameful.

Not so long ago, black people were out on the streets, fighting for equal rights, amongst them the right to education. Today, 13 short years down the line, the same black people are out on the streets, preventing their own children from attending school. How quickly things change!

The prevention of learners from attending school is totally unbecoming in a country where the number of educated black people with post-graduate qualifications is still unacceptably low, where pass rate amongst Grade 12 learners went down last year.

Former President Nelson Mandela once described education as “the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world”. Clearly, the people responsible for the chaos in Khutsong do not share the same view.

It is one thing to blame government for lack of proper consultation. It is quite another thing to make young children bear the high cost of such blame game and disagreements.

Because of the showdown between the so-called concerned residents and government, taxpayers' money is now being used to transport and accommodate children far away from the parental supervision they still need.

Imagine the sort of environment the learners have been moved to. Imagine adolescents staying in a camp far away from their parents. Instead of producing the good academic results they have been relocated to produce at the end of the year, some learners will produce positive pregnancy tests. All this because they have been forced out of their area by the very adults they are supposed to learn from.

All those responsible for preventing Khutsong learners from going to shcool must not only be ashamed of themselves, but they must also be held accountable for their highly disruptive behaviour. Shame on them.

Why question Africa's contribution to development?

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 06 August 2007

In his book, “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa”, Walter Rodney says: “In order to understand present economic conditions in Africa, one needs to know why it is that Africa has realised so little of its natural potential, and one also needs to know why so much of its present wealth goes to non-Africans who reside for the most part outside of the continent”.

Rodney continues thus: “When the ‘experts’ from capitalist countries do not give a racist explanation [of why Africa remains underdeveloped despite its wealth of natural resources], they nevertheless confuse the issue by giving as causes of underdevelopment the things which really are consequences. For example, they would argue that Africa is in a state of backwardness as a result of lacking skilled personnel to develop”.

In essence, Rodney decries the over-simplification of Africa’s underdevelopment – the very deficiency Janine Grobler succumbs to in his response to my letter, “Picture Africa without the West’s interference” (The Star, 06 August 2007).

Grobler’s argument that “the West would like to leave Africa to its own devices, simply because it costs them too much and nothing seems to change” would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious and so often repeated without denunciation.

Far from costing the West too much, Africa has always been the engine behind the West’s development. Through the slave trade, Africans have shed tears and blood to lift Europe and North America out of poverty and underdevelopment.

It is one thing to think, as Grobler does, that Africa is a burden to the West and the rest of the world. It is quite another thing to imagine the West without the slave trade, Africa ’s oil and mineral resources.

Europeans obtained much of their wealth from Africa without paying a cent. Rodney puts it aptly when he says: “When citizens of Europe own the land and the mines of Africa , this is the most direct way of sucking the African continent”.

It is one thing to imagine Africa without Westerners, but what about the West without Africans? Think about it. Think about the cheap labour that Europe enjoyed through the slave trade. Think about the looting of resources and the raping of Africa ’s women. All at no cost to Europe !

Today we Africans are expected to rise to the heights to which Europe and other parts of the world have risen. But, can we invade Europe and loot its natural resources, enslave her people, all at no cost to us? Can we own land in Europe and have Europeans camping in shacks out of the cities in their own countries?

We Africans have neither the capacity nor the will to develop at the expense of the West. We may be ridiculed for failing to emerge out of undemocratic governance, corruption and power-hunger, but these are just symptoms of the greater imperialist project to which we have been subjected for many decades.

Blaming the West for our underdevelopment may not help us, but when loyalists of the Western empire continue blame us for slow progress or sheer backwardness without any reference to historic facts, we must refuse to bow our heads in shame.

The several civil wars still going on in some parts of Africa (such as Dafur in Sudan and Mogadishu in Somalia) are not wars for war’s sake. After all, there is no fun in killing each other. Our wars have a long history, and this is the same history that we are urged not to refer to in analysing our continent.

There is no question or doubt about the many positive contributions that Europe and North America made to Africa, and so should be no question about the positive contributions that Africa made (and continues to make) to Europe and North America .

The West might have “pumped billions into the [African] continent, written off debt, saved the masses from starving” as Grobler argues, but what about Africa ’s contributions to the West? Why all the silence about Africa ’s immeasurable contributions to the West and the rest of the world.

We may be having despots, civil wars and corruption in Africa but, again, what about the West? Look at the recent or current ugliest wars in the world and ask yourself who was involved. Look at Irag , Afghanistan , Lebanon , Israel and Palestine . Is Africa involved or responsible?

In as much as we Africans have problems, the West has its own. And there are some problems that we can solve without lectures from the West, in as much as there are many problems the West can solve without Africa .

One of those problems we Africans can solve is the Zimbabwean problem. We can’t allow ourselves to be pushed around, to be shouted at on the urgency of “regime change”.

Response to Alister Sparks' article on Mugabe

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 26 July 2007

In his article, “Imagine if Madiba turned evil” (Opinion & Analysis, 26 July 2007), Alister Sparks says he is amazed that “so many Africans, including South Africans, continue to admire Robert Mugabe”.

Well, I hope that, after reading this letter, he and many like him will no longer be amazed. I hope this letter clarifies the so-called “admiration” for Mugabe and that such clarification leads to sober, future debates on Zimbabwe .

First of all, the growing opposition for the West’s involvement in Third World countries should not be confused with support for those who are in disagreement with the West.

Simply put, those who oppose Britain and the United States ’ punitive actions against Zimbabwe mustn’t be thought to be Mugabe loyalists.

The most contentious issue about Zimbabwe at the moment shouldn’t be whether or not there are severe problems in Zimbabwe . That is too obvious. The question is: who, between Africa and the West, should be trusted with bringing the situation back to normality?

And my take is that a Western solution to the problems in Zimbabwe will not benefit the people of Zimbabwe . It has been said on many occasions by various analysts that Britain and the US ’s foreign policies are dictated by their powerful corporations.

We as Africans must continue to oppose any business solution to the political problems in Zimbabwe , and that must not be confused with support for any dictatorship. The problems our continent faces are bigger than individual leaders, no matter how powerful they may be thought to be.

Secondly, we must ask (and answer soberly) where Zimbabwe went wrong. Were the controversies that marred the 2002 presidential elections the scapegoats for a regime change in Zimbabwe ?

Is the problem rooted in the land reform programme and, if yes, does the seizure of land belonging to a few (not even a hundred) white farmers warrant the onslaught we have seen unleashed against Zimbabwe, a country of no less than 12 million people?

With regard to the 2002 elections, the recent SADC Extra-Ordinary Summit of the Heads of State and Government, held in Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania, in March, noted that “free, fair and democratic presidential election were held in 2002 in Zimbabwe”.

On the land issue, the Summit “reaffirmed its solidarity with the government and people of Zimbabwe ” and further “reiterated the appeal to Britain to honour its compensation obligations with regards to land reform made at the Lancaster House”.

So, the message should be clear to Sparks , the West and everyone else: the Western countries, whose cupboards are so full of skeletons, cannot be trusted to bring a solution to the problems in Zimbabwe . You only need to look at where they have tried their regime-change menu to agree that they shouldn’t be trusted.

As for Sparks ’ conclusion that the elite “will start feeling the pinch – and they will turn against [Mugabe]” because of the collapsing economy there, well, that is a symptom of a well orchestrated regime-change.

The elite-vs-government scenario follows logic (if no remedy is found soon) and should not be seen as an intellectual argument.

An edited copy of this letter was published in The Star newsaper on 01 August 2007 under the headline, "West can't be entrusted with solving Zim crisis". The edited copy is accessible on http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3961373

Book Review: Eats, shoots and leaves

Book: Eats, Shoots and Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation
Author: Lynne Truss
ISBN: 1-86197-612-7
Reviewer: Madibeng Kgwete

Posted on 24 July 2007

On the same day that I got Lynne Truss’ book, Eats, shoots and leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation, as a present, a former schoolmate e-mailed me and several others the resolutions of the South African Communist Party’s [SACP’s] 12th National Congress.

On the first page of the resolutions was a sentence I found to be objectionable. In bold, capital letters, the sentence read: “COMMUNISTS TO THE FRONT FOR A BETTER SOCIALIST WORLD”.

I found the sentence vague, so I replied to the sender, thanking him for the information before I put it to him that: “Truthfully speaking, there is no ‘Socialist World’”.

As I paged through the book, with particular attention to the chapter that emphases the importance of using commas when writing sentences, I realised that, had the writer of the SACP statement put a comma between the words “better” and “socialist”, the meaning would have been different.

The sentence would have read: “COMMUNISTS TO THE FRONT FOR A BETTER, SOCIALIST WORLD”. A “better socialist world” is a completely different thing from a “better, socialist world” – and I believe the SACP meant the latter in their bold statement.

You firstly need to have a “socialist world” if you want to build a better one. Which is why I found the “better socialist statement” vague because, in reality, there is no socialist world at the moment.

Let’s say, for example, that we have two people: one wants to build “a better socialist world” whilst another wants to build a “better, communist world”.

These two people will have two different objectives. The former already lives in a socialist world and wants to improve it. The latter wants to build a world that is better and that is socialist.

Had the writer of the SACP resolutions heeded the many calls made in the book about punctuations and how necessary they are, I would not have had the argument with my schoolmate who, knowing very well that I like reading, sent me the SACP resolutions.

The economic costs of African unity

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 11 July 2007

Those who support the immediate formation of a union government for the entire African continent argue that their position is premised on the view that political unity is a prerequisite for economic developlemnt – that there cannot be any economic development if political unity is not forged.

Those arguing in favour of this view may well be labelled Nkrumahists, for it was the former Ghanaian leader who famously said: “Seek ye first political wisdom, and all else shall follow”.

On the other hand, there are those arguing that Africa must firstly strengthen its regional institutions, such as the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the East Community of West African States (ECOWAS).

Delivering a speech at a Ghanaian university after he was honoured with a doctorate, President Thabo Mbeki said those arguing for the immediate formation of a United States of Africa are failing to realise that you cannot start building with a roof – that the key to Africa’s political unity is in the viability of its regional institutions.

A variety of political arguments have been exhausted, but very few have calculated the monetary costs of merging African states under one union government to enable faster cross-border trade.

In 2002, when South Africa’s population was still standing at around 43.6million citizens, there were, for example, nine African states the combination of whose populations was slightly above a half of South Africa’s population; and the combination of their economies could not even account to a quarter of South Africa’s economy.

These countries are Burundi, Comoros, Gambia, Lesotho, Mauritius, Rwanda, Togo, Seychelles and Swaziland.

The combination of the populations of Gambia (01, 455 842) Comoros (614, 382) and Mauritius (01, 200 206) was slightly higher than the population of the South African city Johannesburg (03 000 000).

In 2002, South Africa’s GDP was worth about US$255 155, which is 836 times more than the GDP of the West African country of Guinea Bissau. If the country experienced an annual growth rate of say 06% in its GDP, it would take it 139 years to be where South Africa was in 2002.

Some countries in Africa are so poor that a single rich US$ billionaire can run them using his own money.

Sources:

(1) Wikipedia; List of African countries by population density.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_countries_by_population_density

(2) Wikipedia; List of African countries by GDP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_countries_by_GDP