Back to Index

Mbeki, Mugabe and the G-8
Jonathan Katzenellenbogen, Business Day (SA)
June 22, 2005

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/topstories.aspx?ID=BD4A59216

SINCE the election in Zimbabwe earlier this year, developments have taken a brutal turn, with the forced mass evictions of hundreds of thousands of informal traders and squatters. Not having to be seen to be playing fairly in front of election observers, President Robert Mugabe believes he has a free hand to destroy businesses, civil society groups, and generally crack down on dissidents to build the power of his coterie.

Stolen elections, economic decay, and the latest crackdown should mean that Zimbabwe is a topic that cannot be avoided at this year’s Group of Eight (G-8) summit. Indeed, it might be a good time to remind Mugabe that under international law, when a population is suffering serious harm through repression and the state in question is unwilling to help, the principle of nonintervention could yield to intervention under the principle of the international responsibility to protect.

But there is a strong desire among the G-8 and African countries to avoid detailed and forthright talk on this issue. That means the opportunity to intensify pressure on Mugabe to quit will be lost.

The summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, early next month will focus on Africa - specifically on how the proposals of the Commission for Africa, set up by British Prime Minister Tony Blair to boost economic growth on the continent, can be implemented. The heart of the report is that low levels of governance and accountability are root causes of Africa’s crises. Zimbabwe is a prime example of the issues contained in the report. But the G-8 is not about to hold the continent hostage over lapses in one country, and is likely, instead, to stress that there are high rewards for democratic reformers.

Zimbabwe is not of strategic importance for any world power. It is landlocked, has no oil, is not particularly resource-rich, and has fewer than 15-million people, most of them increasingly poor, who do not constitute a great market. Given this strategic insignificance, it is clear that no G-8 country would sacrifice good relations with SA by placing pressure on Pretoria to take a tougher stand on Harare.

The US and the European Union have said the recent election in Zimbabwe was neither free nor fair. But SA and the region have said the poll was a fair reflection of the will of the Zimbabwean people. The US has declared Zimbabwe to be one of six "outposts of tyranny" and there is no sign it is about to change its mind on this. The disagreements are not about to be resolved, but neither will there be intensified pressure.

Meanwhile, the crisis in Zimbabwe worsens with increasing strife in the ruling party, greater repression, and continued economic decline opening up the prospect of a disaster scenario.

SA’s strategy of encouraging change within the ruling Zanu (PF) has failed. After his recent meeting in Washington with US President George Bush, President Thabo Mbeki said SA was working to bring about dialogue but produced no evidence of success. And since the election, the opposition Movement for Democratic Change has said it will no longer look to Mbeki as a mediator.

The tough position of the west African regional grouping, Ecowas, on what it said was tantamount to a coup d’etat in Togo, has to raise questions about the Southern African Development Community’s limp response to the Zimbabwean elections. There are unlikely to be direct questions about this in Gleneagles, but it does make things awkward.

So, the question has to be: what will Mbeki tell the G-8 about Zimbabwe?

Southern Africa’s approval of the Zimbabwean election would seem to indicate that SA favours a policy of engagement by the G-8. But arguing to the G-8 - now the election is over - that it is time to engage Mugabe and allow donor funds to flow to ease a transition to reform is unlikely to receive a sympathetic hearing. The argument that, since the election, Mugabe is better positioned to advance a reform agenda, is simply not one that could go far with the G-8 - especially after his crackdown on the urban poor. It would be tantamount to rewarding Mugabe for stealing an election and destroying a potential source of opposition in the informal sector.

The argument that smart sanctions have not worked cannot be advanced. After all, SA and the region are the lynchpin to the effective application of sanctions - and they have not tried sanctions and are unlikely to do so.

And any argument about engagement being the way to effect reform in Zanu (PF) ignores the fact that free and fair elections are the only route to legitimate government.

The hope in Pretoria is that change will come from within Zanu (PF) - but it is only likely to be the controlled change desired by the geriatrics who control the party. It is unlikely to repair the deep economic damage and bring about free and fair elections.

Mugabe’s practice has been to feign a willingness to ease restrictive laws when under pressure and then stall when he is no longer under pressure. Mugabe and Zanu (PF) are far too wily to make engagement worthwhile. Given Mugabe’s past, reform and succession had best come before any engagement.

There is no possibility that the US and Europe will switch to an engagement stance as long as Mugabe is in power. Stories on the eve of the summit of a plan to replace him, and that a reform agenda is in place, will not be convincing.

One option for the African delegation at Gleneagles is to talk about the broader issue of progress in Africa’s conflict zones. SA’s efforts in Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Côte d’Ivoire are yielding progress. But Zimbabwe is a special case as it is our neighbour. Zimbabwe stands out because the early warning signs of crisis, food insecurity, and possible extensive conflict have been visible for so long.

Mbeki could tell Mugabe after Gleneagles that he tried to get the G-8 to engage, but it said no - unless a succession plan was implemented and the repressive legislation was dropped.

The tragedy is that Mugabe may not care about engagement. After all, his politics are not about development, but about staying in power and ensuring that he chooses his successor. That’s why an Africa united with the G-8 on a plan for the continent - a plan which includes pressure on dictators - could be the best outcome. But that is not on the cards.

*Katzenellenbogen is international affairs editor.

Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

TOP