South Africa

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.”

Some states confront economic calamities. Some confront political tyranny. And in some cases the latter fuels the former. Such is the case in Zimbabwe where Robert Mugabe’s dictatorship quite clearly has exacerbated the country’s dire economic straits. The country’s citizens are facing acute hunger that stems from the country virtually running out of bread because grain shortages have led to the closing of bakeries. Indicative of the precarious state of public health, Bulawayo has only two dialysis machines, and those have broken down. Zimbabwe’s parliament has panicked (and possibly allowed Mugabe’s anti-foreign rhetoric to fuel its policies) by enacting the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Bill, which mandates that Zimbabweans must own a majority of foreign-run firms. This is likely only to fuel further withdrawals from capital on the part of companies and countries whose status in Zim was precarious to begin with. And, naturally, Mugabe continues to threaten further nationalization of the economy. In spite of all of these awful tidings, it is remarkable that some Zimbabweans still hold out hope, possibly because hope is all that remains.

Whatever progress Thabo Mbeki’s moderation might have made, it clearly is not enough and is likely to have little practical effect. Perhaps this is why Senegal’s President Abdoulaye Wade on Monday announced that he plans to travel to Zimbabwe this month to meet with Mugabe to recommend multilateral mediation by African heads of state. Does Wade’s plan represent more window dressing? The creation of a new echo chamber? An empty and ultimately futile gesture? Possibly. But at this point gestures are better than silence and acquiescence. Wade’s actions may represent an attempt to tweak his occasional rival Mbeki, but if it takes a clash of egos to push action on behalf of Zimbabwe’s people, so be it.

The UN recently called for a rare summit on Africa and predictably, promises were made, agendas were set, ideas proposed. While it is good to see Africa on the global agenda in such a visible way, many Africans are rightly skeptical:

“Africa’s agenda will increasingly be defined by the African Union,” said AU chairman Alpha Oumar Konare. “We hope to move beyond words, to move beyond promises because too many promises have already been made to Africa.”

One does, however, wonder if Konare is not whistling past the graveyard. Naturally Africans should set their agenda. But so far, the AU, for example, has shown little capacity for effectiveness in Sudan. So far, SADC has proved loath to intervene in Zimbabwe. Perhaps it is still right that Africa choose to address and not to address these issues. But it seems that if the world wants to help, Africans ought to welcome that help, as long as African leaders make clear that they set the agenda and they provide the leadership and they create the structures in which Europeans, Americans and others might operate. In other words, African solutions for African problems, but with whatever help the West is willing to provide in a subordinate capacity.

Western involvement does not have to mean neocolonialism, though as Thabo Mbeki argued before the General Assembly yesterday, the very structure of that organization does favor rich nations over poor ones. Mbeki further asserted that even with their augmented status, developed nations are failing the developing world.  Perhaps the west is listening (now look who is whistling past the graveyard!) and can come to the conclusion that western help under African control might pave a new road for African relations with Europe, the United States, and elsewhere.

The Zimbabwe crisis continues apace. At this point it is not worth the time to determine whether the political crisis or the economic calamity is worse, as the two simply feed from one another. Robert Mugabe plans to live forever and rule Zimbabwe for the duration, but in case he proves to be mortal, he wants to handpick his successor, a decision to which some within the opposition seem perplexingly willing to acquiesce even as members of opposition groups assert that Zimbabwe’s crisis is the world’s worse — a bold but not absurd assertion. And in order to step down, he wants a few assurances for his protection even as he appears to be consolidating power for a long stay in Zimbabwe. Mixed signals are, after all, a hallmark of Big Man rule. (And behind it all stands Mugabe’s security forces.)

There has been progress on the political front in terms of agreement on joint presidential and parliamentary elections, but it is frankly impossible to believe that Zimbabwe’s nightmare is going to find its palliative in the form of structural changes within the context of the status quo. Cliches about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic come to mind.

There appears to be no such news of progress, dubious or not, on the economic front. Inflation continues to skyrocket at such a rate that we have no real idea within 10,000% what the rate actually stands at currently. The government is seriously threatening to take over businesses that defy controversial price controls.

The International Crisis Group has issued a report on Zimbabwe in which it asserts that Zim is moving ever closer to collapse, calls for a regional solution to the problems, and expresses its concern that most of the international approaches considered or suggested have done and are likely to do more harm than good. And yet despite ICG’s faith in SADC there are not a lot of signs that SADC wants to take on the task alone. It seems likely that this story will continue to be with us for a long time to come.

And in case you were wondering, Robert Mugabe has made it quite clear that not only is he not going into exile or anywhere else, he plans to win the country’s 2008 elections. I wonder what Thabo Mbeki and SADC think about that as Mugabe continues to outflank them at every turn.

(By the way, this seems as good a time as any for a primer on “How Not to Understand Zim.”)

Peter Kagwanja, research director and senior African fellow at South Africa’s Human Science Research Council and president of the Africa Policy Institute argues that SADC’s mediation of the crisis in Zimbabwe “must be given a chance to breathe.” But he also believes that Zimbabwe’s salvation will only come through change:

[P]olitical theatre aside, the SADC mediation should focus on securing constitutional reforms, an economic recovery plan and electoral reforms ahead of the 2008 elections. But a bit of help from the likes of Sam Nujoma and Kenneth Kaunda, who have the necessary liberation credentials to urge Mugabe to step aside and oversee a peaceful transition, could also help ease the tension.

It is easy to grow frustrated over the slow, and seemingly static, state of change in Zimbabwe. At the same time, it has long been apparent that forcing change is not viable and for all of the hand-wringing, few of the harshest critics of SADC’s (or Thabo Mbeki’s) inaction have presented realistic alternatives to accelerate  Zimbabwe’s transformation. Nonetheless, SADC’s breathing process cannot be open-ended. At some point, member nations, whether acting within SADC or individually, are going to have to take a stand.

According to the Mail & Guardian, SADC’s plan for Zimbabwe’s economic recovery is a non-starter because, well, SADC and its member nations do not have the necessary funds and the prospect of such support coming from the west in sufficient qualities is highly improbable.:

The economic rescue package for Zimbabwe, touted at the Southern African Development Community (SADC) summit in Lusaka last week, is a non-starter, economists and political commentators argued this week.

They said that at least $15-billion would be needed to restore Zimbabwe’s collapsing infrastructure and revive commercial agriculture, the mainstay of the formal economy. The region could not foot this bill and Western “development partners” would not come to the party unless Zimbabwe democratised and introduced rational economic policies.

There are two (possibly three) questions that SADC ought to be asking: Were the funds available, would the economic recovery plan be either desirable or viable? This is a crucial question because any Zimbabwe economic recovery plan that does not incorporate regime change seems to be placing a misshapen stopper in a spilling bottle. Doing so will be, at best, a temporary solution. The second question then takes two paths: If such a plan is viable or desirable, is accessing the funding truly an impossible task? If not, then what plan must SADC develop in its place?

But of late it seems that SADC is uninterested in asking what ought to be baseline questions for fear of not finding their preferred answers. Until the member nations of SADC take the questions seriously, there is little reason why we should seriously consider their answers.

Hopes were high for the two-day Southern African Development Community (SADC) Summit held last week in Lusaka. The crisis in Zimbabwe would be high on the agenda. Thabo Mbeki would present his progress report on his mediation between Robert Mugabe and his opponents. Some how, some way, the region’s leaders would broker a solution, or at least break the logjam.

Admittedly this was an optimistic outlook and few of us who observe African affairs believed that any actual solution would be forthcoming. But we did hope that stern words and perhaps hints of action to come might emerge from Lusaka. In short, we hoped for at least symbolic action.

Instead Mugabe received a hero’s welcome, which shocked and dismayed diplomats and other outside observers. So perhaps the welcome was merely an acknowledgment of Mugabe’s status as a liberation hero and one-time brother-in-arms. Perhaps it represented a last hurrah for the grizzled Zimbabwean strongman.

Not quite. Mbeki’s report was feckless and tepid, asserting that the various parties were in discussions with progress being made. To make matters worse, SADC leaders declared that the accusations aimed at Zimbabwe have been “exaggerated,” and that the country will solve its economic problems. Of course no one was able to explain how Zimbabwe would suddenly end the slow slide into chaos and economic failure that has characterized the bulk of the last decade and that has only accelerated in recent months.

I’m not certain if I have ever agreed with South Africa’s Democratic Alliance on much, but the party position, as presented by the DA’s former leader and current spokesman on foreign affairs, Tony Leon, seem an apt summation:

“The Zimbabwean President was treated to a hero’s welcome in Zambia, and the SADC executive secretary Tomaz Salamao blamed much of the economic woes in Zimbabwe on sanctions,” he said in a statement.

The “cosy attitude” displayed by SADC heads of state towards Mugabe, Leon said, was a further indication that the South African government’s approach to the Zimbabwean crisis was unhelpful and inappropriate.

“Zanu-PF’s attitude and tactics will not be changed by quiet diplomacy or a weak stance by our government,” he said.

Leon said statements made by Zimbabwe’s Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa at the opening of the summit were evidence of the contempt Zanu-PF had for mediation talks spearheaded by Mbeki.

“How many more futile attempts to coax Zanu-PF to behave in a responsible manner will it take before President Mbeki agrees to take a stronger more critical stance on the matter?” asked Leon.

What is perhaps most disappointing is that SADC, in not recognizing Zim’s problems, have made it nearly impossible to pave the way for a post-Mugabe dispensation. It is understandable, after years of ruthless European imperialism followed by an almost equally deleterious era of Cold War clientelism, for African leaders to circle the wagons and to resist being told what to do by the outside world. but to fall back on those canards in the face of the current monstrosity that is Mugabe’s regime is to abandon millions of Africans to the capricious whims of a despot. It is one thing to applaud Mugabe if behind the scenes you are working to find a way out of the mess he has created and to ensure that there will be some prospects for success after Mugabe’s fall or death. That is how high-level diplomacy works. But it is quite another to applaud Mugabe’s face and pat his back. That is how acquiescence to authoritarianism works.

The heads of state of the Southern African Development Community (SADC)  nations are meeting this week in Lusaka, Zambia. High on the agenda will be the crisis in Zimbabwe, though observers do not expect much on that front. It will be most interesting to see what, if anything, Thabo Mbeki, whom SADC charged with helping mediate the crisis in Zimbabwe, will have to say. I hope to be pleasantly surprised, but I would advise not to expect much traction to come from this week’s meetings.  

Do you remember the climactic scene from the Wizard of Oz? Dorothy, Scarecrow, the Tin Man, and the Cowardly Lion are trapped by the Wicked Witch and her Praetorian guard. The Witch taunts Scarecrow with fire, as is her wont, and then sets him alight. Dorothy reacts instinctively, grabbing a handy pail of water from the castle wall and dousing both the scarecrow but also the Wicked Witch with it. The water liquidates the Witch. For a moment it is unclear what the Witch’s henchmen will do, but they announce “All Hail, Dorothy” and give the little girl the Witch’s broom to allow them to fulfill the great and Powerful Wizard’s task for them.

Of course, had the Witch’s personal defense force reacted differently, there would have been nothing left but straw and tin and lionine flesh and the tatters of a teenaged girl’s gingham dress. Dorothy, more than anything, got lucky.

Jeff Jacoby, the arch-conservative columnist of The Boston Globe, apparently never considered this lesson when watching the Wizard of Oz. In a column yesterday, Jacoby presented a well-written, ardent, impassioned, clear argument for either the United States or Great Britain invading Zimbabwe. He also could not be more wrong. 

Jacoby uses Pius Ncube’s recent statements about the prospects of a Zimbabwe invasion as a springboard to justify foreign miliary action (a belief that, as you may recall, Jacoby is not alone in considering, though he may be alone in his blind optimism). And Jacoby believes that such an invasion would be easy:

“Countless lives could be saved, and incalculable suffering ended, if Mugabe were forced from power. A detachment of US Marines, I wrote on this page in 2002, could do the job on its lunch break. The British could do it. South Africa could do it.”

First off, one would think that Jacoby would not be so blithe about the American military’s capacity to overthrow a dictator without any serious difficulties in light of what has gone on in Iraq. As we have seen, the overthrowing is the easy part. What comes next is what becomes a nightmare. Once lunch break is over, then what? How does a US or British (or South African) force then deal with the aftermath, which is sort of the important part? What will the succession struggle look like? Will chopping off the head end all of Zimbabwe’s problems, or will doing so serve as a multiplier effect and simply add to the misery? 

Second, how does such an invasion take place? Zimbabwe is, if Jacoby has not noticed, landlocked. Which African countries allow a foreign troop presence to use their country as a staging ground for military action that might work to remove Mugabe from power but that almost certainly will fuel chaos across the border? And which countries allow the troop presence of either a former colonial power or of a United States that has not exactly acquitted itself well in recent years when it has come to foreign invasions?

Third, the mission matters. Observers (myself included) have long said that a few thousand troops could have prevented the genocide in Rwanda. Similarly, many believe that a similar number of troops could ease the suffering in Darfur. But these would be preventative measures — the troop presence would serve to stop members of paramilitaries from attacking and killing civilians. That is a far cry from forcing regime change, even if regime change is necessary and justified.  

But most significantly, will such a presence get lucky, as Dorothy and her friends did in the castle? Will Mugabe’s military and police, will his private guard, simply accede to the death of their leader? Surely some will. But many won’t. And those that won’t will come from the revolutionary generation, the generation that knows the bush, that has fought in the bush, that has benefitted from Mugabe’s cronyism and kleptocracy, and that will want to have a serious say in what is to follow. Dorothy, remember, got lucky.

This is not to say that the military option should not be on the table. But it is to say that blithe assertions of the ease with which a British or American military effort could solve the crisis should not be taken seriously.  If SADC or the African Union choose to pursue the military option and if they ask the US or UK for support, that is one thing. But to propose such action to derive from Washington or London, Pius Ncube’s frustrated talk notwithstanding, is to live in Oz, a wonderland detached from reality where the roads are golden, the scarecrows talk, and monkeymen fly. It is, in short, to live in a fantasy world.