Zimbabwe another African crisis, another headline

July 1, 2008
Geoffrey Nyarota

WHENEVER the Zimbabwe crisis takes a turn for the worse as happened over the weekend or whenever the political leadership of Africa gathers for yet another palaver on a crisis that has so far defied resolution there is a predictable cascade of exhortations from the Western world.

Once the Western powers, the non-governmental organisations and the human rights groups get to know about an imminent summit they always rush to proffer advice to the African heads of government; to prescribe the most appropriate course of action for the Africans to adopt. As the African Union leaders flew to Sharma El Sheik in Egypt over the weekend there was a gush of the usual pronouncements.

For instance, Human Rights Watch, which has offices in South Africa, called on the AU to suspend Zimbabwe from its ranks and to press for the deployment of peacekeepers to stop the violence.

The soundness of the admonition of Human Rights Watch and the western leaders is, of course, beyond reproach; their good intentions unquestionable. Paradoxically, despite the sound advice, each conference degenerates into another talk-shop where no binding resolutions are adopted. Predictably President Robert Mugabe emerges from each summit smiling, having strengthened his image in the eyes of his African peers and having secured another stay of execution and bought more time both for himself and for his unpopular regime.

Inevitably the sense of frustration in opposition circles deepens. This has become the pattern, the cycle of events where the Zimbabwe crisis is concerned. That this particular strategy of the West has been as much of a failure as has been the performance of South African President Thabo Mbeki does not seem to occur to anyone.

Back in 2005 I crafted a contribution on the Zimbabwe crisis which appeared on the pages of the Zimbabwe Standard on January 16. Even then Mbeki’s “quiet diplomacy” was, in my humble opinion already a failure and I sought to explain why Mbeki’s intervention in Zimbabwe might not have met with success.

The last two paragraphs of the article read: ”Mbeki’s cautious approach and his failure to display more decisiveness and exert more force in putting pressure to bear on Mugabe, a failure which has had the effect of casting a shadow on his presidency, has in all probability, been influenced by a fear of being perceived to be prescribing a Western-sponsored solution to an African problem.”

“Meanwhile, Zimbabweans could very well discover that they may have placed too much faith in Mr Mbeki’s ability to resolve their country’s political crisis.”

While Mbeki’s policy of “quiet diplomacy” has gradually been phased out of the political lexicon of southern Africa, with the South African President now fighting a losing battle to maintain his largely battered and tattered credibility, I believe the West also needs to engage in a process of intensive introspection with regard to its approach to the problem that has bedeviled us, Zimbabweans for a decade now.

I have long lost faith in the ability of many of Africa’s politicians to champion the interests or the welfare of the majority of the continent’s people. With regard o their dealings with their Zimbabwean counterpart some of them are incredible gullible.

Whatever the known weaknesses of the African leaders, it appears they resent any suggestion that they can be led by the nose in moments of crisis. It appears the West could be unwittingly undermining the prospects of progress in Zimbabwe by creating such imagery. They are always keen to rush, with almost indecent haste, to prescribe courses of action for the Africans to follow. Once the West adopts the frontline role that they seem to cherish, it appears that African leaders then become reluctant to adopt the prescribed course of action, whatever its merits.

They cleared have no wish to project an image of themselves as being chaperoned from the West.

A new generation of progressive leaders - Levy Mwanawasa, Seretse Ian Khama, Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete and Raila Odinga, to mention a few – has emerged on the African continent. They cannot be blamed if they sometimes hold back merely because they do not want to undermine their own credibility by creating an impression that they regurgitate pronouncements from London and Washington.

The West must give them the benefit of the doubt. If the West gave them the opportunity I believe the Africans would spontaneously condemn state-sponsored violence and electoral fraud such as last Friday’s in Zimbabwe with the same robustness as David Miliband and Condoleeza Rice. But while the Africans are still polishing up their statements, Miliband and Rice, speaking from London and Washington, respectively, always beat them to the microphone. Because they do not wish to appear as if they are echoing their proverbial master’s voice, they refrain from commenting on the same issue.

Just before I wrote my article in 2005 the highly respected Richard Goldstone, a retired South African Constitutional Court Justice who became an international war crimes prosecutor, had commented at a tangent on this phenomenon when he said that, “unfortunately, Western criticism of state-sponsored violence and torture is seen as an anti-African campaign”.

Unfortunately, many of his peers find Mugabe persuasive on this theme. Mwanawasa, one of Mugabe’s harshest critics, threatened to boycott the Lisbon Summit last December if the Zimbabwe President was not invited, as urged by British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.
It is this kind of syndrome which has, to a considerable extent, undermined the credibility of Morgan Tsvangirai’s Movement for Democratic Change in the eyes of African Heads of State, despite its commendable credentials and popular following in Zimbabwe. The party suffers from a Mugabe fuelled perception that it is chaperoned from London.

The MDC has failed dismally to present a robust rebuttal of this hackneyed accusation from Mugabe and Zanu-PF. They must quickly do something about this, both in the interests of the MDC and of the general wellbeing of the population of Zimbabwe at large.

Perceptive Zimbabweans feel the pain when their beautiful and once prosperous country is reduced to just another African crisis in Western capitals or just another Mugabe headline in the Western media.

The United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon said on June 22 that he had consulted with various leaders, including those of the African Union and the Southern African Development Community (SADC). He said the United Nations was prepared to work urgently with SADC and the African Union to help resolve Zimbabwe’s political impasse.

The majority of Zimbabweans, peace-loving, law abiding and hard-working people, pray that he follows up on this undertaking to avert further bloodshed in their country.

July 1, 2008 -- Few options for Tsvangirai (8)
July 1, 2008 -- No public criticism for Mugabe at AU summit (0)
June 28, 2008 -- Please, rescue the people of Zimbabwe (9)

Geoffrey Nyarota · Filed Under Nyarota Blog, Opinion & Analysis Headliner

Print This Article

Email This Article

Comments

4 Responses to “Zimbabwe another African crisis, another headline”

Kilo on July 1st, 2008 10:07 am

While i admire Mr. Nyarota’s usual pointed and candid analysis of the current situation in Zimbabwe, i believe he has probably got it wrong this time. The fact that the West “rushes” to comment and offer “advice” is because in most cases the African leaders do not or can not do so for whatever reasons. The saying goes that those that live in glass houses should not be the first to throw stones. Thus the West moves in to fill a gap in leadership. It is better for those who are able and willing to comment to do so rather than wait for no comment or action at all. If it were that African Leaders do not want to parrot a Western line of thought, why not take action in the way that they think is best for the resolution of Zim. They just oppose the West for the sake of it. Now we see hope in Africa in the form of new leaders that Mr. Nyarota mentions and as i see it because of thier track record they are not ashamed to take well-meaning advice even if it comes from the West. What is surprising is that the majority of African leaders do not want to be seen to be following the West on political issues but are ready to beg for donations and hand-outs from the very West. It is amazing!
TANETA WEDUWE on July 1st, 2008 3:33 pm

Let us please be real we all need the west for money and development. The most prosperous countries in Africa all have ties with the west. In South Africa who is paying for the development? Ghana? We people in the Diaspora are now taking care of relatives in Zimbabwe. Whose money?? If it’s African money what are we doing in the UK and not in oil rich Nigeria?

This is Mugabe’s theory to discredit MDC but he himself came to power in Lancaster the British gave him power. He was their man for 20 yrs He turned against them for turning against him.

The West know very well what’s going on but dont want to give real help. If Zimbabwe was a former French colony France would have solved this in a day! Britain where are you? Would it be different if Zimbabwe had oil? Britain should please stop just talking and start acting. People are dying in Zimbabwe if, not from violence from hunger.
Panafrican on July 1st, 2008 5:16 pm

“Meanwhile, Zimbabweans could very well discover that they may have placed too much faith in Mr Mbeki’s ability to resolve their country’s political crisis’”

I think this should read, Tsvangirai has placed to much faith on the West to solve the crisis. Mbeki was never really meant to solve the crisis, he was supposed to make sure that Mugabe remains in power in defiance of the regime change agenda of the west-that was his solution. It will be very inappropriate to blame Mbeki on this issue, with regards to the MDC leadership failure to find a concrete stratagem to oust Mugabe. MDC thinks that it can parachute to power. Diplomatically they have been a failure and will continue to do so as long as they follow the “intellectual midget Tsvangirai”. Surely, how can we expect Tsvangirai to outsmart Mugabe, the Mugabe that has outsmarted both his international and African detractors. As it is, never mind that he won the election, he has managed to secure another term, while Tsvangirai is languishing in the Dutch embassy.
Bonyongo on July 1st, 2008 7:01 pm

African leaders have too much on their hands. They cannot attack Mugabe without attacking themselves in the process. Mugabe will challenge them and say ‘let he who has not sinned cast the first stone’. And we all know none of them can do that, save maybe for Mbeki. But then Mbeki is a softie and definitely and no match for Mugabe’s sly tongue which will sting him faster than he can say ‘I condemn Mugabe’