South Africa

To my readers in the United States: Happy 4th of July!

To my readers in South Africa and anywhere else on the globe: Happy Friday!

In the last dozen years I believe I have spent more American Independence Day holidays outside of the United States than within it, with most of those spent here in South Africa. Being abroad usually provides an interesting perspective on one’s own country. I consider myself to be patriotic in the most important and perhaps least jingoistic sense in that I love my country but I see its flaws. I honestly have no idea what people mean when they say that the United States is the “best country in the world.” I guess I do not dispute the assertion at its essence, but I have no idea what “best” means, and why those who make the assertion do as much with such totality. The best at what? The best by what measurement? Is patriotism simply the willingness to rank arbitrarily one’s country by some sort of flow chart or Olympic medal chart? I will grant that the United States is the most powerful nation on earth militarily, politically, economically, and culturally. And as a result I think it can be argued, and I would, that the United States is the most important nation on earth. But nation-states not being reducable to one’s favorite sports team or top-five pop bands, I see neither utility nor meaning in the “best country in the world” mania that strikes my most jingoistic countrymen and women.

At the same time, it is always telling to see what others think of one’s own country. I have found the supposed anti-Americanism that is supposedly pervading the world to be vastky overstated. I am certain there are places where that sentiment is strong, such as in much of the Middle East and in certain quarters in Europe, say. But on the whole what I find, especially once I convince the listener that I am not an agent of my state and that I do not represent American policy (even if I may defend elements of it or the larger framework within which that policy operates) I will have engaging, if occasionally lively, conversations.

The fiasco in Iraq has not done the US any favors abroad, nor has the arrogance our current administration has put forth in presenting the American face to the world. But at the same time most people in South Africa and elsewhere understand that our administrations are temporal where the American state is not. And so what I hear most often are questions about the current campaign for the presidency, and whether Obama can win, and if McCain is a Bush clone.

It is my experience that the rest of the world is very much interested in the United States and its role in world affairs and looks at America with a combination of awe and fear and respect and admiration and concern and envy. This may be impossible to quantify, but it is a lot more interesting, and telling, than simple assertions that America is “hated” or loved.

[Crossposted at the FPA Africa Blog and at dcat.]

Michael Gerson has a blistering column in today’s Washington Post about the crisis in Zimbabwe and what he sees as South Africa’s enabling of Robert Mugabe’s despotism. There is little new in Gerson’s column for those who have been following the crisis for a while, but perhaps voices like his will lead to more pressure from the American government on Thabo Mbeki, whose last year in office has been characterized by myriad failures real and perceived.

At the Council on Foreign Relations Andrew Meldrum, a Nieman fellow at Harvard University and former Zimbabwe correspondent for the Guardian, discusses (via podcast) the Zimbabwe crisis and South Africa’s role in it.

A number of civil society groups concerned with Zimbabwe’s welfare and operating under the banner of the Institute for a Democratic Alternative in Zimbabwe have slammed the Southern African Development Community and Thabo Mbeki for their lack of resolve on the Zimbabwe question. In a damning quotation Wellington Chibebe of the Zimbabwean Congress of Trade Unions asserts, ”For the SADC to have mandated President Mbeki to continue with the (facilitation) exercise, that is the joke of the year.”

The ongoing Zimbabwe arms shipment fiasco has not seen Thabo Mbeki at his best. At The Mail & Guardian Richard Calland argues that Mbeki’s handling of the Zimbabwe crisis has further damaged a reputation that already was on a downward spiral. But he further believes that human rights problems at home undercut South Africa’s ability to function effectively abroad. It’s an interesting, if arguably overstated, argument.

Despite rampant inflation, increasing violence, an opposition apparently on the run, mounting outside pressure, and, if British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is the be believed, a stolen election, Thabo Mbeki continues with his untenable belief that all is going to be fine in Zimbabwe. The latest sign of complacency is South Africa’s willingness to allow a ship believed to be carrying arms shipments from China to pass through ports in Durban.

I have tried to present a reasoned argument about the dilemmas South Africa faces as a regional superpower, emphasizing that it is easy to overstate exactly what South Africa might be able to do with regard to Zimbabwe. But these days it is hard to do anything but shake one’s head over Mbeki’s fecklessness in dealing with Robert Mugabe who, while a liberation hero long ago, has long since ceased being even remotely heroic and whose perfidy is destroying his country. The contrast with Jacob Zuma on this issue is especially stark. Mbeki’s “silent diplomacy” has turned out to be no diplomacy at all, or worse, ruinous diplomacy for both Zimbabweans and for South Africa’s credibility as a regional power broker. 

[Crossposted at the FPA Africa Blog.]

[Zapiro, Mail & Guardian, 4 April 2008]

One clear division between Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma (and as stark as the political and personal conflicts are between the two men and their supporters, when it comes to policies and platforms most people could not stake out clear and categorical differences between them) comes on the Zimbabwe issue. Thabo Mbeki has been content to embrace “silent diplomacy” that many would be excused for mistaking for complacency and even acquiescence to Robert Mugabe’s dictatorship even if at times it has been unclear precisely what Mbeki could have done in recent years to force change in Zimbabwe. Jacob Zuma, on the other hand, has been rhetorically more aggressive in pushing for regime change across the Limpopo.

Recent events have thrown the differences between the two men into sharp relief. Almost certainly knowing that Zuma represents a desire for change, Morgan Tsvangirai, who has been traveling through South Africa to cultivate support, met with Zuma on Monday, though details of the meeting are scarce as the participants have remained mum. In contrast, opposition parties in South Africa have slammed Mbeki for remarks that most have seen as being fecklessly tepid if not tacitly supportive of Mugabe.

Hopefully by the time Zuma takes office Mugabe will be long gone from the Presidency of Zimbabwe. But if Mugabe manages to hold on for another term, however illegitimate, at least in this one arena the differences between Mbeki and Zuma are clear. 

[Crossposted from a much longer post on the Zimbabwe situation at the FPA Africa Blog.] 

While South Africa maintains its wary silence on the elections, the ANC has issued a predictable and unexceptional statement asking Zimbabweans of all parties to respect the results, however they turn out. One hopes this boilerplate does not ask Zimbabweans to respect any results just because the government announces them however. By playing so close to the vest it is tough to determine precisely where the government and the ruling party stand. Finally, Desmond Tutu has weighed in, praising Mugabe’s legacy in a perhaps transparent attempt to soften Tutu’s request for Mugabe to step down peacefully.

The Thabo Mbeki-Jacob Zuma divide in the party has mainly revealed political, ideological, and personal fissures within the African national Congress. But one area in which Zuma could significantly undermine Mbeki (and in the process do serious harm to the country) could be in the area of foreign policy. Zuma’s recent trip to Angola clearly sent contradictory signals as to South African policy in that country. Zuma is head of the ANC. But whether he is the chosen one or not (and one would think that Zuma would try to avoid showing quite so much hubris given the hurdles he faces) he is not currently head of state and he has no portfolio with regard to foreign policy. Even if Zuma wants better relations with Angola, such junkets serve Zuma, and not South Africa.

South Africans, like people the world over, are beginning to take a great deal of interest in the primary campaigns taking place in the United States. According to a story on NPR (Click on the link to hear the full report.):

South Africans have been consumed with crippling nationwide power outages and other issues closer to home, such as a much-condemned racial incident involving four white students and some black university employees. But when asked about the U.S. presidential race, the name they seem most familiar with is that of Barack Obama.

This brief report does not portray the election, or South African views of it, with a great deal of depth. It is a man-on-the-street series of brief interviews. Nnetheless, it is probably not a bit surprising that South Africans a) Do not have much regard for the Republicans, and b) Support Obama in light of his African roots. However, Bill Clinton was a popular figure in many parts of the continent, and one wonders if that does not redound to Hillary’s benefit. In the end, South Africans will almost certainly be rooting from afar for whoever wins the Democratic nomination.