South Africa

The dueling headlines tell of the tricky course South Africa has chosen for itself with regard to the situation in Zimbabwe. It is widely recognized that South Africa has the potential to be the biggest external power broker, whether through sticks or carrots, words or deeds. And so far, it is no secret, South Africa has chosen to act so tepidly that the country’s virtual inaction can only qualify as appeasing Robert Mugabe.

And so for readers of, say, the Cape Argus, it may have been reassuring that At Last, SA Condemns Mugabe. But for readers of The New York Times the message was quite different: A.N.C. Rejects Pressure on Zimbabwe. So which is it?

Well, as the Argus story makes clear, while South Africa did finally speak out against Mugabe, it also helped to block even stronger statements from the United Nations Security Council, which has unanimously rebuked Zimbabwe.  And in so doing, South Africa’s leaders have once again forced the world, which little understands the situation to begin with, to wonder, rightly, what on earth Thabo Mbeki could be thinking? Loyalty, even fairly blind loyalty, to the revolutionary generation is one thing. But at some point that currency was long ago spent. The idea that South Africa owes fealty to ZANU-PF at the expense of the masses of Zimbabweans desperate for change is absurd. Mbeki’s approach mystifies and infuriates much of the rest of the world. It is hard to see how either Zimbabweans or South Africans benefit from such an approach to the gravest regional crisis in years.

[Crossposted at the FPA Africa Blog.] 

Recent revelations that Nelson Mandela is still on the United States’ terrorist watch list (a list he never belonged on in the first place) does not exactly inspire confidence in America’s handling of its foreign policy, its approach to terrorism, or its grasp of African policy, does it?

[Crossposted at dcat.]

Jacob Zuma’s reputation appears to be enjoying a fairly significant renaissance. He has even made Time magazine’s list of the “100 Most Influential People,” an irredeemably silly exercise that nonetheless is an indicator of Zuma’s rise as a potentially serious player not only in South African politics, but perhaps continent-wide and globally. Now if only those corruption charges would disappear (along with the nasty aftertaste from those rape charges) Zuma might be in great shape.

At The Mail & Guardian last week longtime observer of South African politics Mark Gevisser, author of Thabo Mbeki: The Dream Deferred, compares Thabo Mbeki to Barack Obama and wishes that the former would learn from the latter.  My only caveat: Beware analogies drawn too closely, as context matters.

Two high school sisters in the Boston area have helped begin a program to bring sturdy, inexpensive laptop computers to underprivileged students in South Africa.  What is most remarkable is the way that this small idea is already beginning to grow and how two people have been able to make a difference. Some might argue that perhaps laptop computers ought not to be a priority when dealing with issues of poverty, but it seems that education is a vital variable when looking at how to address economic inequality and lack of opportunity.  Laptops may not be the most important thing these kids in Kliptown need, but surely they deserve access to an increasingly technology-driven, wired world if they hope to break the cycles of poverty.

(Zapiro — The Mail & Guardian)

The political contest in Zimbabwe continues to mystify observers. Simba Makoni’s candidacy has legs, which in and of itself is a cause for surprise, and possibly excitement.

A British economist, Professor Gwyn Prins of the London School of Economics, has called for South Africa to threaten to cut off Zimbabwe’s electricity supplies, much of which comes from south of the Limpopo, if President Robert Mugabe’s government continues to intimidate the electorate or otherwise sabotages Makoni’s campaign. This sort of thing (as I predicted yesterday) is all that it takes for Mugabe to accuse any critics, or in this case, Makoni’s candidacy itself, of being inspired by Great Britain. Mugabe’s cynicism is nothing if not consistent, and thus easy to anticipate.

Makoni, meanwhile, has been reaching something of an olive branch out to Mugabe, promising that a Makoni administration will not seek to punish Mugabe for his myriad gross violations of human rights. Presumably Makoni can say little else, lest Mugabe simply crush the opposition candidacy right now (I still fear that this step is coming), but it is still disquieting to realize that Mugabe will likely not be brought to account for his many crimes.

Accusations of Mugabe vote buying continues apace. Meanwhile analysts argue that high-profile Zanu-PF defections sting Mugabe, but should not ultimately destroy Mugabe’s electoral hopes unless the trickle becomes a flood. But the biggest X-factor continues to be both the possibility of violence, especially on the part of Mugabe’s supporters, as well as what role the police will play in either allowing violence to go forward or, worse yet, in fomenting chaos. Police officials insist that the election will be peaceful, but then again, what else can we expect them to say?  

Here is a quick roundup of some Africa-related news stories that have caught my eye in recent days:

Despite the fact that the media lives by the age-old credo “if it bleeds it leads” with regard to crime stories, which serves to warp people’s perspectives on the nature and frequency of crime, violent crime rates are actually dropping in Gauteng.

Does the recent peace agreement in Kenya signal better days ahead? Roger Cohen of The New York Times thinks as much.

Robert Mugabe might be starting what he believes to be his “march to victory,” but increasingly members of Zanu-PF are throwing their support behind Mugabe’s intrepid challenger, Simba Makoni. I still do not see Mugabe allowing Makoni to wrest his crown away, but if somehow it happens, I envision many of even Mugabe’s most ardent supporters responding to Mugabe’s defeat in the same way that the Wicked Witch’s praetorian guard responded after Dorothy liquidated their boss: “Hail Simba!”

One trend that I have noticed in American sports is the increasing presence of African athletes making their mark on the playing fields. Many of these athletes came to the United States when they were young children, many others were born in the United States to African parents, and still others found themselves face-to-face with American college coaches whose recruiting tentacles extend wider and deeper with each pasisng year. The usual push-pull factors are at play in these immigrant cases: On the run from war or privation or political chaos, drawn to the idea of America as the land of opportunity. The New York Times has the story of one such athlete, Hasheem Thabeet, a 7′ 3″ center for the University of Connecticut’s men’s basketball team who has become something of a folk hero in his native Tanzania.

Finally, what does it mean to be a citizen of a country? Is it sufficient to be born there? must one’s parents also be citizens of the country? Ireland is one of many nations dealing with these questions, and African immigrants represent the political football being kicked around.

France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy arrived in South Africa today for a two-day visit, his first to a non-Francophone African nation. Energy will be high on the list of priorities when Thabo Mbeki and Sarkozy sit down to talk, but so too will be agreements in technology, tourism, African relations, and other areas. Mbeki’s relationship with Sarkozy’s predecessor, Chirac, was lukewarm, so it will be interesting to see if Mbeki and Sarkozy, who has shown occasional tone-deafness when it comes to African issues, hit it off.

Not everyone shares the general belief that president Bush deserves some credit for his Africa policies. Josh Kurlantznick is decidedly unimpressed with the President’s approach toward Africa, as he shows in this piece at The New Republic. Here is a sample:

Rather than supporting democratic institutions and criticizing a new generation of African authoritarians, the Bush administration has backed whatever African leader claims to be battling militant Islam. For example, the White House has developed a close relationship with Ethiopia’s thuggish leader Meles Zenawi, supposedly an ally in the war on terror and a partner in battling militancy in neighboring Somalia. The administration has provided military aid to Ethiopia with virtually no conditions on the assistance. It has also offered advisers to support Ethiopia’s invasion of neighboring Somalia, an invasion which only led to more chaos in that benighted nation. Meanwhile, in recent years Zenawi’s government has overseen a massive crackdown on opposition activists and a brutal offensive in the country’s Ogaden region; in 2005, after disputed elections, the Ethiopian government arrested over 30,000 of its own people.

 

As in Ethiopia, so too across the continent. In building a string of counterterrorism allies, the White House has strengthened its links with some of Africa’s most brutal regimes, from Algeria to Chad.

For me, again, the case for Bush’s Africa policy is a relative one. From an absolute standpoint, this administration’s policies toward Africa have been fairly marginal. But from a historical perspective, Bush’s engagement still warrants some praise. I would like to see a foreign policy toward Africa that takes into consideration African needs and interests and in which Africans are partners, in the truest sense of the term, rather than appendages. But relative both to other administrations and to president Bush’s policies elsewhere, his approach to Africa warrants, if not praise, at least some recognition.

The Council on Foreign Relations has a useful primer on American policies toward the five countries President Bush is visiting this week.

I am going to make a controversial assertion: Although President Bush has, by just about any measure, been a pretty bad president, he ranks among the upper echelons in terms of policy toward Africa. Now this is not much of an accomplishment, to be sure. American policy toward Africa has ranged from the loathsome to the negligent to the indifferent. And I’m not certain that the United States has ever had an administration with an even passably good foreign policy toward the continent. So Bush is among the best of a bad bunch, despite essentially countenancing genocide in Darfur, the lack of delivery on some grand promises, and some questions about intent with regard to AFRICOM. Still, both President Cinton and President Bush at least had Africa within the periphery of their vision, which is a far cry from the noxious “Constructive Engagement” that preceded them.

All this tells me is that Americans must demand more when it comes to United States policy toward Africa. If Bush is among the best we’ve had, we have a pretty shameful record.