Constitutionally Speaking - Mbeki & Mugabe

Pierre de Vos, the guy behind the blog Constitutionally Speaking, once again produced a very well thought through and articulated article - this time on Thabo Mbeki's much talked about political strategy of 'quiet diplomacy' towards Robert Mugabe's ongoing abuses in Zimbabwe.

The article, 'Zimbabwe: Why Mbeki is all carrot and not stick', lead to a rather long debate in the comments following below the article. It makes for interesting reading (in this case the comments) and is a good reflection on some of the different views present in South Africa on this issue. Once again many of the arguments is directly or indirectly race based - something that will sadly be with us for a long time to come...

Snippets from the article:

...Of course we have to remember that the two previous elections were declared credible and mostly free by South African observers (following the Mbeki line), despite the fact that these were conducted in an atmosphere of fear and violence and according to electoral rules that clearly allowed for the massaging of the results in favour of Mugabe. This suggests that the Mbeki ANC would have done and said almost anything to ensure that Mugabe was not humiliated or criticised in any way...

...There are at least two problems with these arguments.

First, South Africa is supposed to be a constitutional state based on the Rule of Law and a respect for human rights and the government police (sic) is supposedly to promote respect for human rights across Africa and to foster good governance in Africa through Nepad and the African Peer Review mechanism.

The failure of the government to forcefully criticise even the most flagrant human rights abuses and the stealing of two previous elections by Mugabe, suggests that South Africa is a silent or not so silent supporter of a tyrant and thus makes a mockery of the supposed leadership of our President and our country on human rights issues. This undermines our standing in the world and among right thinking people all across Africa. It is a matter of credibility: if one mollycoddles a tyrant it is hard to be taken seriously when making lofty statements about good governance and respect for human rights in other parts of Africa or the rest of the world (like in the USA or Iraq).

Our President has lost all credibility by holding hands with a person who has lost an election and now refuses to accept this reality and is using his military to terrorise the population who had the audacity to vote for the opposition.

Second, (and much worse) the South African governments’ silence (sold as quiet diplomacy) has actually helped to prop up Mugabe and thus helps him to stay in power... South Africa could place serious diplomatic and economic pressure on Mugabe to change but has failed to do so. This makes our government complicit in the murder and torture of thousands of Zimbawean citizens and the ruining of the economy in that country.

Thus South Africa’s actions have helped to support a tyrant in power and have made it potentially more (not less) difficult to get rid of him...

To read the full article & the interesting debate in the comments section go here.

I also touched on the subject in March of 2007 when I put the question - 'Robert Mugabe - credible partner for quiet diplomacy?'. That was after the leader of the opposition was detained and ended up in hospital.

Robert Mugabe - credible partner for quiet diplomacy?

South African and global media carried some horrible headlines in relation to Zimbabwe over the last 24-hours. Rumours that the Zimbabwean opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, and other leaders in the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) has not only been detained during a protest meeting but also assaulted and tortured was bad enough. The brute reality of a headline that appeared earlier this morning, "Tsvangirai 'has cracked skull, in ICU'", is nauseating.

Zimbabwe is one of South Africa's neighbours to the north, but it could barely feel farther removed from our everyday reality. To be sure, we have some very serious challenges on our side of the 'fence'. However, democracy is firmly entrenched. Amongst other things we're a constitutional state where the constitution -as protected and interpreted by the Constitutional Court- is the highest authority in the land. While the government's often visible irritation with the news media is somewhat worrying, freedom of speech and the free flow of information is constitutionally guaranteed. We can struggle with real problems within the framework of a democracy.

In contrast it has long seemed that Zimbabwe is a democracy only in name. It goes through the motions of democratic processes, elections and the like - but in the final analysis it has a 'president for life' and supporting institutions. The latter includes the police and army. All the ingredients of a basket case dictatorial state. When the official opposition's leader is detained AND beaten for engaging in political protest -not criminal activities- one has to shake your head in disbelief.

I have limited sympathy for the South African Government's stance on 'the Zimbabwe problem'. Yes, I agree, we can't invade the country and topple the ruling Zanu-PF by military means. For such kind of action even more gruesome transgressions need to be committed or be imminent, let's pray it doesn't come to that, and international sanction needs to be obtained through a (relatively) credible organ such as the UN. Even then the chances of lasting success, barring a real groundswell in support among the broader Zimbabwean population, is remote. Iraq is a case in point, regardless of the demographic differences (societal/economic/religious).

If you can't go the military route, which should always be the absolute last option -to be avoided at all cost-, the only option left is resorting to various diplomatic strategies. Logic dictates that diplomacy that relies on incentives and support rather than threats should in the long term lead to the most sustainable results. Ridiculing the target of your diplomatic efforts can at best only lead to limited concessions, grudgingly conceded. If you can somehow manage to have the illusion of 'working with' the other party and actually achieve results, all should be well.

All of the above make sense and could be used in support of the South African Government's preference for 'quiet' (read non-offending) diplomacy. Also keep in mind that South Africa's ruling ANC was supported by Zimbabwe's ruling Zanu-PF during the former (then) liberation movement's long and arduous struggle against Apartheid and quiet diplomacy makes all the more sense.

But what if, after years of quiet diplomacy and various broken promises, you do not achieve meaningful results? What if, in your effort not to offend or ridicule your target for diplomacy, you end up being ridiculed as your well meant efforts are repeatedly nullified by new power abuses in Zimbabwe? What if your international credibility starts suffering from your negotiating partner's flabbergasting actions? What if the leader of the official opposition of that country is beaten up by Zimbabwean Police to the point of suffering a cracked skull? What if your negotiating partner, Robert Mugabe, is an 83-year old despot who seems incapable of changing his ways?

Sure, military action is still not an option. How about much harsher public rebukes? How about non-military options, e.g. freezing bank accounts, demanding time lines for reforms, sanctions against members of the oppressive government, material support for the opposition?

Moving to all of these immediately will off-course be foolish. Shutting the door on Zimbabwe won't help anyone. But perhaps a public rebuke and an insinuation that action may follow on words is at the order of the day? I think such a rebuke could be delivered by our ambassador on the front steps of the relevant hospital, after a 'courtesy' visit to Tsvangirai. If there is any Zimbabwe police around, I'm sure there will be, he may want to wear a helmet - just in case...

In my opinion, the South African Government needs to seriously consider whether its departure point for dealing with Robert Mugabe is based on respect for an admired (now corrupted) former freedom fighter or on respect for human rights and democracy. If it is the former, then perpetual quiet diplomacy, 'staying the course', is indeed the best approach. If its the latter, then it is clearly time to confront the old man more decisively...