Back to Index

This article participates on the following special index pages:

Input at the Zimbabwe Consultative Conference on Regional Solidarity (Unofficial transcript)
Sydney Mufamadi
July 21, 2009

Sydney Mufamadi: Comrades and Friends, allow me to say word of thanks to the organizers of this consultative conference for giving me this rare opportunity to break out of the loneliness of a retired politician. You just can't imagine the favour you have done me. This is the first public gathering that I address since September 2008. As I say, it's a therapeutic opportunity for me.

More importantly, and on a very personal note, I accepted this invitation because Zimbabwe has a special place in my heart. I grew ip in the 1960s and 1970s in what has come to be known as the Limpopo Province in South Africa/ That province of South Africa is closer to Zimbabwe and Mozambique than it is to Pretoria or Johannesburg.

As part of my life experience, I witnessed Portuguese colonialism whilst it was on its death throes in Mozambique. As a teenager at High School, the struggle for Zimbabwe had a catalytic effect on the formation of my political consciousness. From the (ad)vantaged position of the now Limpopo province we used to listen to ZANU radio broadcasts making clarion calls to the people of Zimbabwe from their positions in Samora Machel's Mozambique. The message of freedom which was broadcast resonated with us. We identified with the struggle for Zimbabwe, not only because of geographical proximity, but also because together with the people of Zimbabwe we had a shared experience of living in societies which were fundamentally undemocratic.

The achievement of independence in Zimbabwe and the progress that characterised life in the earlier years of post colonial Zimbabwe served as an inspiration for us. This, your noble achievements, reinforced our confidence in the certainty of our own victory over apartheid colonialism. Indeed, I had the privilege of visiting Zimbabwe a few years into the aftermath of independence. I saw then a country full of promise. To us then Zimbabwe represented our own vision of the future. It became one of those African legends which taught us to swear by our continent and our love for it. Little did I know that one day I would be given a file on Zimbabwe and be tasked with the responsibility to facilitate dialogue amongst Zimbabweans who are at war with each other. [brief applause from audience]

Together with my colleagues in the South African government and SADC we accepted the responsibility because as Africans we became utterly concerned with looking at any of our 53 national jurisdictions if we see a revolution lose its way, be it for objective or subjective reasons. Many in our region and beyond ruled out beforehand the possibility of a dialogue between the parties. Their pessimism was based on the utterly wrong notion that in the conflict which was besetting Zimbabwe there are two sides - on the one side they saw the devil incarnate and on the other side they saw the paragon of virtue. What surprised us about this was that amongst those who made such an unscientific diagnosis of the problem were diplomats who were so blatantly prepared to negate the rules of their own profession.

The foundational premise of the SADC mediation effort is the contention that self-help solutions stand a better chance of sustainability than externally imposed ones. I think the experience of Zimbabwe attests to the correctness of this contention. We live the legacy of Lancaster House. I'm saying we are of the strong conviction that for any solution to be lasting and sustainable it must be a self-help solution. To that end we sought to take the parties beyond the blame game to the task of pulling the country out of the political economic quagmire.

In our interactions with Zanu-PF and the two MDCs we stressed the need for them to see their own dialogue as a positive sum undertaking intended to produce a 'win win' solution for Zimbabwe and that they needed to come to terms with the reality that no single party has the ability to positively affect the political dynamics of Zimbabwe without the cooperation of the others. Even though these parties as at the time of the negotiations and beyond had a proven elective base, we suggested they must continue to pay attention to the important task of forging a collective identity of interests between parliament and organs of civil society. Some of you here will recall the occasional briefing sessions that took place between representatives of organizations of civil society and the facilitation team. We saw it necessary from time to time to have sessions where we could give progress reports on negotiations whilst simultaneously serving as the sounding board on behalf of the negotiators, We took the responsibility on ourselves to report loyally on the concerns and suggestions that were aired in those meetings. The assumption we make is that as organizations of civil society you command a wide audience for your opinions in the public domain. Therefore, alongside the elected representatives of the people, you have an important role to play in appealing to the virtuous mass of the people. After all, it is they, the people, whose sensibilities are offended by decisions and actions which touch their lives in negative ways.

As we see it, the principle custodians of the Global Political Agreement are the people of Zimbabwe led by the leaders they elected. The Global Political Agreement is a necessary instrument for helping you as Zimbabweans to rediscover your historical mission and get on with the unfinished project of transforming your country to a zone of peace, democracy and social progress. However, it bears emphasizing that the Global Political Agreement is not self-implementing. The Joint Monitoring and Implementation Committee, JOMIC, bears the task of ensuring that all the signatory parties do discharge their responsibilities. We, the generality of the Zimbabwean population bear responsibility to hold the leaders top the commitments they made on 15 September 2008. This responsibility extends to the task of ensuring that the international community in its various formations - the African Union, the United Nations and so on - is positioned properly to affect the impetus of implementation in positive ways. As we do all this we must orient ourselves on the perspective that we are dealing with a problem that does not admit to straightforward, instant solutions. In other words, we are not involved in a problem free process. It is an exhausting journey to be sustained by a vision that requires collective tenacity, the sort of tenacity that saw us liberating Zimbabwe, that saw us liberating Namibia (and) that saw us liberating Mozambique and other countries.

And so, this consultative conference must drive home the message that one; the government and the people of Zimbabwe in their various organized formations face a common challenge; two, we need a precise definition and shared understanding of this common challenge, and lastly we need to agree on the things that need to be done in order to produce a positive sum landscape. For you who are assembled here this morning, the task of helping Zimbabwe rediscover its revolutionary ways is not an optional extra; you do not have any option but to execute this task, and execute it adroitly. The lives of the people of Zimbabwe and of those who call the rest of Southern Africa their home depend on what you do. I sincerely hope that out of this Consultative Conference, you will emerge with a roadmap for navigating the problems facing the country and the people of Zimbabwe. I thank you.

Questions and Answers

[First session - a dialogue with Thoko Matshe, Barnes Dlamini and Glen Mpani]

Thoko Matshe (FEPEP): You talked a lot about our responsibilities as Zimbabweans, how we should move forward with the instruments that are in place. I want to talk to the other side of it - the guarantors of this GPA and my appeal is that the guarantors have got to be seen to be doing more than we are seeing they are doing at the moment. We do understand that there are challenges of diplomacy, but we think that you need to be seen to move forward or to move towards addressing the challenges and the burning issues around all the things that are hanging. But also I think that you need to be seen to be listening, or you need to listen to civil society, because it seems like there is no listening to civil society at the moment. And then I ask the question, what exactly is the role that you have as guarantors? What is that role and how do you do it? Especially, for me sitting here as a Zimbabwean woman? How do I get the confidence that those guarantors that are there will deliver to the Zimbabwean women? I think that will help us to move forward. And I think it is important as well, because history will judge you, and for me it is important that you be judged on the way you have protected and saved lives of the people of Zimbabwe. So, those are the things I want to throw to you before I start writing a dissertation.

Barnes Dlamini (UDF - Swaziland): Comrade Mufamadi; It's good to rub shoulders with you, and sitting on the same chair that the King was sitting as the chair of the troika when you guys endorsed this agreement a couple of months ago. And he is still singing about . . . (unclear) and in other regions that he is moving that he did something great and he left a legacy here. I wonder what that is. But nonetheless, Tata Mufamadi, yesterday we had presentations - but I go particularly for the interest of stimulating questions at the conference - we were told in no uncertain terms that the GPA is a transaction, that it is irreversible, that most of all it is about regime change which is also call the rules of political . . . .(unclear). That is all about shifting the paradigm from the ZANU-PF to something else, a democratic dispensation - that is what we were told yesterday. We were also presented (with) three possible scenarios; the first one being a forward movement, namely recovery; the second was a backwards slippage towards political disorder, and the speaker named that one repression, and the last one being a political deadlock, which is a stalemate. We were told in no uncertain terms that that (i.e. stalemate) is unfortunately the condition with regards to the GPA. The challenge which was thrown to us as civic groups within the region and within Zimbabwe was to say that we have no choice but to strive for the first one, which is forward movement, recovery, whilst simultaneously avoiding where we are now, which is the political stalemate. We were also told there's a way forward (and) that we should change from our normal role of being dogs barking when things go wrong. But, this is where the sticking point is; we want to play a role, we don't want to continue being watchdogs, but we want active participation in every given policy. But even the way that SADC as a block is taking our concerns as civil society; I would like you to tell us all here, is a possible approach that you guys within the block - I know you are out - but within the block, tell us the real approach that you guys would like us to play in terms of bringing our conditions. Because yesterday we agreed that we are part of this process even though you guys kicked us out, but we want to demand our space. And I want you to tell us which approach, because we've been to your offices, we've been trying to disrupt your summits, but there are no responses to that. My first line of questioning would be, tell us the approach? Thankyou very much.

Glen Mpani (CSVR): Mine will be two questions. My first question is that yesterday, Honourable Priscilla Misihairabwi-Mushonga gave a very interesting presentation on the role and function of JOMIC and I remember vividly she spelt out the role of JOMIC is not to supervise or hold the Principals to account in terms of the implementation of the GPA. And listening to your presentation I'm trying to . . . . (inaudible) so I could really put across what I want to say. You say, the role of JOMIC is to ensure that all parties discharge their responsibilities. I would like you to clarify your perspective on the role of JOMIC and the interesting perspective that Priscilla gave yesterday because my presupposition from what we've just seen is that there is some supervisory role in the upholding of accountability to ensure that the GPA is implemented to the letter. My second question is to do with issues of ownership; You raise the issue and say that Zimbabweans have to be custodians of the GPA. If you look at how the negotations took place, and my sister Thoko has raised the issue of alienation of civil society - in my own opinion it was an elite deal that was struck first on the context that was prevailing, in the current environment. How then do you ensure ownership of a product that was negotiated without the participation of citizens who had previously gone for an election and expressed their wishes and their wishes were ignored? (applause) We have to play the role of selling this document for ownership, of taking cognisance of the fact that the culture of participation has been affected over the last eight years, where civic participation in all forms - protesting etc - has been curtailed by the repressive environment. How then do you create ownership and how do you give citizens custody?

Sydney Mufamadi: It seems to me that the idea was to make sure that I failed to answer the questions.

Starting with the comments and questions raised by Madam Thoko, and I think most of the questions that were raised really are interconnected. And if I may, allow me to tell you a short story. I must also up front say that I'm not an entrepreneur looking around for conflicts that make them my industry. But, in my short political life I was given responsibilities to facilitate dialogue in a number of places; one of them was the DRC. So, in the preliminary round of consultations with the various parties to the conflict I was talking to a leader of one of the rebel movements; they had come to South Africa for consultations. So I said to this leader, you know there is a lot of goodwill in this continent towards the people of Zaire - it was Zaire then. We are a poor continent, but we actually have countries dedicated their meagre resources to this task of helping to solve this problem in Zaire. I said to this leader that it is very important that you show and display sensitivity to this sacrifice that other people are making towards your own goals. And the only thing you can do is to show serious commitment to finding ways and solutions to your own problem. Because, these people who are making sacrifices to support you do not have unlimited resources. And my friend said to me, well, my brother, peace in Zaire comes at a price; if you want peace in Zaire you must spend for it. That was the attitude. I don't know what you make of that attitude, but really the point I'm making is, it is really important that we have an appropriate understanding of the continent and the region in which we are situated, so that our own expectations of what SADC can do, and even the AU, should be properly tempered. Maybe I can say within these four walls, that although SADC has got 14 member countries, perhaps slightly more, the contribution of these different member countries of SADC was differential in the search for a solution to the problem of Zimbabwe - not because they have different levels of commitment but because not all of them could contribute to the same extent. So, I'm saying that it's important to be able to try and understand what are the resources that we have at our disposal collectively as members of SADC and what we can realistically expect each of these countries to contribute to the process of helping solve problems in the neighbourhood. I'm saying that's one issue. Two, as you say we expect to see more coming from SADC; Comrade Thoko says that although we understand the challenges of diplomacy, I must say that, again, as neighbours we don't have unlimited powers to affect the political dynamics of neighbouring countries. You must ask the Americans who are more powerful than all the countries of this region; they thought they have such powers. They are stuck in Iraq. They can't find an off-ramp out off the highway in Iraq. They have been trying to get out of Iraq and they can't find an off-ramp off the highway in Iraq. I'm saying (that) because they thought they had unlimited power to affect the political dynamics of other countries. We know that it is just in the nature of the way that society is organized. We have to position ourselves in such a way that we can have the possibility to persuade all parties to the conflict. And if one party decides to place itself beyond persuasion there is very little you can do. I do think that working within this reality there is some progress that we can show for the SADC mediation effort. It is not quite exactly what we wanted, but it is more than what we think we could have achieved if we went the route of megaphone diplomacy or coercive diplomacy.

If you ask me what role does SADC visualize for organisations of civil society and I give you a straightforward answer to that question, it will be a wrong answer, because I will be suggesting that SADC is a homogeneous group. The relationship between the government of Swaziland and its civil society can't be identical to the relationship (that) South Africa has with South African civil society. I am saying no country in the world will have an identical relationship as between the government and civil society. In other words, these are matters that we must continually work at. And in the final analysis the relationship between government and civil society in any country will be the product of the efforts that are made by the parties themselves. But as I say, as we are working through this, it is important for us as organizations of civil society to always pose the question as to whether there are resources, extra-national resources that can be mobilized to be brought to bear on the situation. In other words, I don't know of any country that can successfully prescribe to another country what the relationship between civil society and government can look like. Now the relationship between government and civil society is the function of many factors, historical and otherwise. You have situation where what we call organized civil society is actually an outgrowth of the struggles for liberation that took place in those societies. That will determine to some extent how that relationship will look like post independence. But also that fact cannot be taken for granted. As I say, you have to continually work at it, because there are other factors that intervene in the process. That's when you begin to see some regression into anti-democratic practices. That requires the vigilance of nationals of our respective countries. In other words, we must be less reliant on what the guarantors can do and be more reliant on ourselves. This does not mean therefore that we do not have legitimate expectations of what we can and must do in support to our cause.

What can SADC deliver to the women of Zimbabwe; and the question I pose is what can the women of Zimbabwe do to shape SADC into an instrument that is responsive to their needs? I think that's the question that needs to be posed. If you ask the wrong question, necessarily you get the wrong answer.

Barnes . . . singing about the document in Swaziland . . . . I need to know the lyrics of the song so I can join in. But, frankly speaking, maybe we need more discussion amongst ourselves. The Global Political Agreement, we need to discuss what is this; come to a common understanding of what it is and what it is not. As I understand it, the GPA has got features which are predominantly of a transient kind. Let's all agree that the immediate strategic task facing us is to normalize the political, social and economic situation of Zimbabwe. I'm not sure about the issue of regime change and shifting the paradigm from ZANU-PF to a democratic dispensation. What I do know is that in the discussion with the negotiators, we did agree that there are two important ingredients that are required in order to guide a thorough going process of the situation in Zimbabwe. One of them is the renewal of Zanu-PF. I'm saying that was agreed amongst the negotiators. The other was a self-conscious process on the part of the MDC to facilitate itself into political maturity. I'm saying that was agreed in the course of the discussion; to say that these are some of the ingredients that we need in order to drive a thorough going process of the democratization of Zimbabwe. Now, a process cannot end with the signing of agreements If we are agreed the GPA is a halfway station towards somewhere and as I was saying earlier, my understanding of civil society organizations is that these organisations are not necessarily made up of people who do not have the political choice. So, if I'm a member of ZANU-PF, I must insist that there must be a participatory process within ZANU-PF which goes into the heart of what is contained in this Global Political Agreement; likewise if I'm a member of the MDC I must insist that these discussions take place within the MDC. And these must be nationwide discussions, which mean therefore organizations other than just the MDC and ZANU-PF must play an active part in mobilizing the generality of the population of Zimbabwe around the issues. It means that ZANU-PF in the process must be able to retrace its old steps and say did we perhaps go wrong somewhere. It means that political parities must come to an understanding as to what are the national priorities which cannot be sacrificed on the alter of narrow party political interests. That's where the issues of renewal and facilitation into a position of political maturity come in. But I'm saying this is a determination of the parties themselves made to say forward movement depends on us coming to terms with these realities. So, that as I understand it . . . the Global Political Agreement can not be said to be an elite deal. I'm not talking about its form, I'm talking about the substance of it. In part because, unlike in other situations, DRC for instance, even South Africa, some of the agreements that were negotiated as building blocks towards the ultimate solution were actually negotiated by people who did not have an elective base. Nelson Mandela comes out of prison; he was not an elected representative of the people as he was negotiating with De Klerk. But I'm saying in the case of Zimbabwe, that at least the three parties that were negotiating this deal had an elective base. That's how we understood it. But still, we agreed that so profound was this process that these parties that they have the last word on the matter. I don't know what they did after they went into that inclusive government, but the understanding was that the public process of consultation was going to be initiated even around such draft constitutions that exist at this stage, so that the people of Zimbabwe can take their own destiny into their own hands. But the mistake that of course some of us refuse to make is to create this false dichotomy between the people and the leaders they have elected. So, don't see an inherent contradiction between parliament playing its role in this process - I'm talking about an elected parliament - and the rest of the people also playing their role in this process. And perhaps that's what we need to discuss. At what point does a process and a deal become elitist? What are the requirements that it must meet in order for it to get popular sanction if it is an elitist deal. I'm saying these are some of the things we need to discuss. But as I say, we were quite comfortable ourselves that in the two MDC formations and ZANU-PF we were dealing with people who were elected by the people of Zimbabwe. But of course, that does not give them the right to indulge in undemocratic practices or anti-democratic practices. Hence I'm saying the question of making sure that everybody does what they have to do in order to ensure that the process of democratisation of Zimbabwe remains on course is an ongoing task. You don't come to a point where you say 'mission accomplished.' We trust everybody in the same way that we trust god because he is the one, she is the one who created them; it doesn't work like that, at least on this planet we call the earth. Thankyou . . . .er, the question about JOMIC. I don't know what the Honourable Minister Priscilla Misihairabwi-Mushonga said, so please don't play us off against each other . . . (attempted intervention) . . . . no, no, but she probably said what I would have said, which is to say that JOMIC is actually a sub committee of the signatory parties; you can go to the Global Political Agreement and see that the parties agreed to establish a Joint Monitoring and Implementation Committee. It has got two basic responsibilities which is one to ensure that at every turn you have an institutional feel of what is happening on the ground and you should be able to sensitive the signatory parties, the principals to that agreement as to what it is that needs to be done to improve the quality of implementation and to mitigate for such weaknesses, as may exist. But JOMIC must also serve as an instrument for enabling the signatory parties to keep the guarantors mobilized behind the implementation of this agreement. In other words, even the guarantors must be in dynamic contact with JOMIC in order to understand what is going on and to take such supportive action as may be necessary from time to time. The feedback that the signatories gave from JOMIC must enable the parties to even to mobilize their own support base to support the work of implementing the agreement. JOMIC must provide interface between the signatories and organizations of civil society. And for me that is just logical; JOMIC must be able to do that. You don't need to have a consultative conference first for JOMIC to be in contact with these organizations that are represented here. There must be that out of this conference, we must agree on an organized, an institutionalized way by which these parties are going to be in ongoing contact with JOMIC. So what I hear you say, the Honourable Minister said the task of JOMIC is not to hold the signatories to account. I don't know what you make of everything that I have said about JOMIC, er . . . , but if the Honourable Minister said that, perhaps she meant that that is not the only task it has, but this is certainly one of the tasks it has. This is one of the tasks it has. The signatories to that agreement must account for the commitments they made and someone must make sure that the activities of these principals are open to public scrutiny. SO JOMIC cannot be just inward looking, because the successful implementation of this agreement depends not only on what the signatories do, but also on what the rest of society does. So, it must also see itself as an organizer, a mobilizing instrument. Thank you.

Facilitator: As we are people coming from different countries, can you just tell us in very brief words, what actually is the role of the guarantors and also enlighten us on what is the role of the facilitation team now so we can decide how to communicate?

Sydney Mufamadi: Well, let me say firstly, if you look at the agreement, you will see that the guarantors are SADC, the AU and the UN. And as I said in general terms the international community sees itself as playing a support role to the signatories of that agreement, including the people of Zimbabwe in general. You will see that one of the things that happened shortly after the inclusive government was established was the meeting of the leadership in SADC at which meeting it was agreed that resources must be mobilized to assist the economic recovery programme in Zimbabwe. I'm saying that is one of the things. The other was to say we need to go into a diplomatic offensive, mobilizing governments, organizations, including private sector organisations beyond the region to assist the process of recovery and political mobilization in Zimbabwe. Now you will have notices that organized delegations of prospective investors have been coming in and out of Zimbabwe. I am saying this is one, as a result of one of the efforts that is being made in this regard. Now, there could be more that is done, but a lot of it in the specific detail will also depend on the feedback that the guarantors get from Zimbabwe. If this conference were for instance were to emerge with suggestions on what else should SADC do, I'm certain that SADC will listen. . . . well, you may be laughing because you've got a different experience, but I'm saying if you were to come up with suggestions as to what SADC will do, I'm certain SADC will listen. And I'm saying this from experience because there are many things that SADC did that pessimists thought that SADC would not do here in Zimbabwe, so I do want to believe that all of us here are optimists. We want to emerge with a programme of action that says this is what we ourselves would do, this is what we expect of other sectors including SADC. But as I said again, some of the things will be done by SADC as SADC. There are others that will be done by individual members of SADC because some countries have got better possibilities to contribute than others. But even if it is very little that they contribute I think the important thing for us to do is to show appreciation for what they do. Thank you.

Elinor Sisulu: Elinor Sisulu, a member of the Crisis Coalition in Zimbabwe which represents over 250 organisations in Zimbabwe dealing with governance and human rights. There are many things, but as I 've been told to be as brief as possible, I will try to do so. Comrade Mufamadi, you mentioned that Zimbabweans own the Global Political Agreement; I really would challenge that Zimbabweans feel ownership - I can't speak for all Zimbabweans, but I certainly know that in the Crisis Coalition there is no feeling of ownership of the GPA. The GPA is reneged every day on a continual basis and I think the experiences of the people of Zimbabwe, the beatings, the assaults people continue to experience; the fact that Zimbabweans are continuing to leave the country at an alarming rate. You only have to go to the borders of South Africa, Botswana and Zimbabwe to see the fact that refugees are continuing to stream out of the country, speaks to the fact that there is something very wrong with this agreement. I think the Minister spoke about resources. Now, it was pointed out that you don't' need resources to do a lot of things; you need political will. There is an absence of a moral voice about the violence that has been inflicted to the working class and rural people of Zimbabwe, especially women. And I would say that between March 29 election and July here was mass state sponsored violence on the people of Zimbabwe. We had SADC teams who observed it. We have an official SADC, AU and Pan African Parliament report on the violence. And in the SADC report actually sympathises with the people of Zimbabwe who lost their families and property. The GPA will not work unless those issues of violence are addressed. And I would like to ask Comrade Mufamadi, what did the SADC team, the negotiating team do about that violence. Was there anything done to try and prevent that violence from happening?

John Stewart: I just want to link into this the critical question of sanctions. It may be unwelcome, but unless there are adequate accountability structures that are respected those forms of external pressure do have to be applied. And one of the problems, and I think Elinor referred to it already, is the way that there is a sense that even SADC institutions, such as the SADC Tribunal are treated with utter contempt by certain political players. There is a lack of good faith. It's not just a question of political will, it's a lack of good faith of any possible kind which is continuously and repeatedly shown. How is that to be dealt with? Your statement is entirely correct. They have no right to indulge in undemocratic and anti-democratic processes. But if they do, what is done to them? How are they confronted? Are they told this is unacceptable, you have no place in the process?

SA delegate: Women suffer most in this unjust world. They are the first to die in a war. They are the first to be discriminated from paid work in an economic crisis like we are experiencing now. They are the fist to die of hunger and poverty. Therefore my concerns are the same as those of Comrade Thoko, women's needs need to be taken into account. As women we demand change in Zimbabwean women's eyes. SADC is a male dominated organization, so is the MDC and ZANU-PF. We also know the AU the UN, they are all male dominated. Men can't decide for us women. So maybe we as women especially Zimbabwean women should rise up and get civil society to support Zimbabwean women to talk the bull by the horn.

Sydney Mufamadi: Starting with Comrade Elinor; I think I would aggress fully that if you are to achieve political normalisation one of the important elements is to ensure you take violence out of the equation. But Comrade Elinor will know, if in South Africa we insisted that violence is first to be stopped by those who were perpetrating it before there is progress, there would have been no progress. What we did was to take responsibility for actively participating the facts on the ground. Comrade Elinor will know that a few months before we came into government - I'm personalizing this - my house was bombed twice; she will know I lost my brother a year before we came into government. Even today he lies buried in an unknown grave. But I'm saying if we took the view that the regime must stop all that it was doing, that violence would still be continuing. But we took a view that said that maybe we must insinuate ourselves into a position where we can take responsibility with effective institutional capacity to bring this thing to an end. I do think that even the Zimbabweans, they want to continue to ask the question if there is more they can do to ending the violence than just making demands. Maybe that is one of the things to be addressed in this conference.

Er, on the issues of sanctions as a form of imposing accountability. I must say that there maybe those who chose to use sanctions as an instrument for dealing with the situation in Zimbabwe. Frankly, because I was not part of them, I'm not able to tell you what sanctions achieved in Zimbabwe. We chose a different route and I think today we are talking about the Global Political Agreement with all its imperfections, we can attribute them, its existence to the things that we did as SADC. Despite al the problems that we know existed and some of which continue to exist I think counterfactual, the 29th March 2008 would not have happened, a relatively peaceful election, if SADC did not choose to use the instruments that it chose to. I don't think that we have no way of influencing the situation in Zimbabwe. If we are coming across as having said that perhaps we are not articulating our position properly. I think what we are saying is that we do not have unlimited power to decided what should happen in Zimbabwe. But within the limit of our possibilities we will continue to do what we can.

Now comrade Jill, you say that language is often used against women. Experience of liberation is that it meant hardship for women. Now, I think what I tried to say earlier was that we need to continue to ask ourselves the questions as Africans, not just about Zimbabwe, but about our continent in its entirety. Does the character of post colonial Africa conform to what many men and women of Africa took to war for? You will find that there doesn't always exist a coincidence between the ideals that were cherished by those who fought for the liberation of this continent and what we see on the ground, which means we have a continuing role to play in solving these problems. You say that women should rise up. I hope it's not an afterthought. It shouldn't be an afterthought that women should rise up. If there are sections of our society that are not vigilant, we should take collective blame for that. Why should we lower our guard and expect everything will come our way and only after certain things don't come our way we then say we should rise up. I think we behave . . . hence, I'm saying the call for women to rise up must not come as an afterthought.

What is the fallback mechanism? I think it reflects again what frankly is thinking I don't associate with. If this thing fails what do we do? My approach would be what is it we should we do to ensure this thing doesn't fail? So that the issues of fall back mechanisms does not arise. It suggests moments of passivity. I wouldn't prescribe passivity. I think we must be forever on the alert so as to avoid rearguard action where we are left to ask what is the fallback mechanism. The need for fallbacks should never arise. We must always be proactive. Thanks chair.

Delegate: What we witnessed in Zimbabwe was a political settlement. An ideal situation would have been to involve a number of stakeholders in creating correct interventions. Now we see a JOMIC which is also political. It means in terms of creating accountability - we all know that politicians in terms of accountability have a problem. They cannot bring accountability to this . . . .. so to have politicians to oversee politicians is creating a problem and what is needed is to create a structure and you have other stakeholders in that structure; that would make politicians accountable. I think in the future if we have ways and means of strengthening this process, I think this should be put in place.

Delegate: The question that I have is, the guarantors - do they have any body on the ground in Zimbabwe monitoring the situation since the signing of the GPA? And, I'll probably get the answer no which then definitely brings me to the relationship between SADC as an institution with civil society, as the people who are on the ground. I think you tried to ask the question, but I don't think there is a policy between SADC as an institution relates to civil society. Then also, I don't know if quiet diplomacy is still the principle taking over from Comrade Mbeki of the guarantors of this agreement, because sometimes it takes good men to remain quiet for evil to prevail. So, as long as the guarantors you are not saying anything about some of the things that are on the ground; we still have displaced people, still people are being detained and displaced, a situation that is so bad in Zimbabwe and still are not hearing anything from the guarantors of this agreement. We are expecting something.

Tanzanian delegate: I would like to know the extent to which the international community is committed to supporting the implementation of the GPA or whether they are actually blocking that process?

Zambian delegate: Minister Mufamadi, there have been a lot of sceptics out there, that see SADC as a body that is not really very forceful with respect to the situation in Zimbabwe. Some have said there is a lot of fear on the part of SADC towards the President of this great Republic of Zimbabwe. Now, I'm wondering honourable Minister, what has changed within SADC to ensure that things that were not being done before are now being addressed? What has changed?

Jenni Williams: As part of the civil society delegation you said that part of the SADC mandate was an election whose result cannot be contested. Many elections of been held, one of which I didn't have a right to vote in, because you can't vote from a prison. I still want an answer from you - when will there be an election in Zimbabwe whose results cannot be contested? There's a lot of talk about security sector reform; when is that going to start? And on the same topic, the generals came in June, they saw the militia bases, over 300 people lost their lives during that period of time? The generals' report has yet to be released. And lastly, your comment please, in the talks about healing of the nation, some of us have been severely traumatized. Is this going to be healing by decree or is it going to be by design? And please can you comment on the (dedication days) 24th to 26th, is this going to be healing by decree or by design?

Daniel Molokela: (Unclear) - Question about the state of the Diaspora and how the parties to the GPA are going to honour commitments to engage Diaspora with a view to getting them to come back home.

Delegate: (Unclear) - Role of guarantors to monitor the role of women and attendance to women's concerns with respect to the implementation of the GPA? Role of guarantors with respect to (ongoing) violence and repression against women.

WOZA delegate: How can you compare this situation to the apartheid era, when the apartheid regime was completely isolated? The problem that we have here in Zimbabwe is that those who are responsible for violence are not condemned. So I just wanted to point out that the two situations are completely different. Thank you

Sydney Mufamadi: I can't make my artillery fire in your direction, so every artillery is directed at me. But just to say that, I said JOMIC is an instrument provided for in the Global Political Agreement. So the parties signed the agreement said that this is the mechanisms which we are going to have to monitor implementation. The creation of JOMIC does not preclude the creation of other instruments. So, GPA doesn't say there shall be established JOMIC and no other instrument to monitor implementation. And I think the fact that the establishment of other mechanismsm including mechanisms that can be created in order to work alongside JOMIC is not precluded means that you have got a lot of possibilities of for creative thinking. And perhaps this is what this conference must address.

The next question was is diplomacy still the policy. And diplomacy was equated to silence or quietness. Frankly I don't know where this notion of quiet diplomacy comes from. And in this instance, I'm actually speaking as a scholar of diplomacy. There is no such a thing as quiet diplomacy. This is a device that was used by people who wanted us to internationalise their own policy preference. So the best thing to do is to delegitimise every approach which is not the same as the one they chose. So people started talking about quiet diplomacy and it becomes common legend. But I'm saying there is not such a thing as quiet diplomacy, but it's a matter that we can discuss at some other point, because I think it's a matter for scholarly engagement.

Regime change? Frankly, we could not have a situation where a regional organization which does not have the legitimacy of national sovereignty deciding that its strategic agenda is regime change. If you decided that your strategic agenda in Zimbabwe is regime change and an election takes place in Zimbabwe, and the people of Zimbabwe vote for a government other than the one you want as an external player. What do you do? In other words, I'm saying we could not decide to share the pathological hatred that other people had for certain players in the Zimbabwean situation. Let the people of Zimbabwe people decide in conditions of relative peace who they want to vote for. I'm saying the 29 March election, I think many people did day it approximated the sort of thing that all of us were working for. As Comrade Jenni said, we said our agenda is to ensure that we create conditions for an election whose outcome is not contested. The 29 March, at least from the feedback we got, was such an election. The 27 June was a problem. And, SADC and the AU did not keep quiet about it. If you want to know what SADC and the AU said about it, look at the resolution at Sharm al Sheikh in Egypt on this issue. Hence we are saying, that the business we set for ourselves as SADC, the AU, is unfinished. But the question is what do we do together to ensure such an election does take place. It can't be right to ask me, even if I was SADC, when will you bring about that election whose result will not be contested. I think that all of us are saying this is what we wanted therefore what is it that we do together to bring that about, which is the reason for this conference.

The Generals were sent to act on behalf of SADC by the government of South Africa. Their own observations informed the attitude that was taken by the government of South Africa, by SADC member countries when they went to Sharm al Sheikh. So it's not as if they came here and made no observations at all. But, their primary responsibility was not to come here and sit in a street corner to write reports. Their primary responsibility was to intervene to the extent (that) they could to constrain the parties in acts of violence. That was their primary responsibility.

'The skeptics are saying SADC is no forceful . . . fears President Mugabe'. Well, if there are people who fear President Mugabe, I must say that I am not one of them. You can ask him. He knows I don't fear him. But we relate to him from a position of mutual respect. We say to him we think you are wrong here, we think there is a better way of looking at your problem. We say that to Morgan Tsvangirai, we say that to Arthur Mutambara and it's up to them to decide whether we are saying things that do not make sense. So we engage them. But I'm saying that if there are leaders who fear President Mugabe I don't know why people elect those leaders.

Is it national healing by decree of by design. It has to be by design. It has to be a consensual process. The terms on which such healing takes place must be agreed by the parties themselves. I happen to know that sometimes even when the parties to the conflict decide that they want to arrive at a situation where they can put the conflicts of the past behind them there are other peoples outside who know best who say that it is wrong to allow the perpetrators of evil to be forgiven. But what I do find is that quite often it depends on who are the parties who are trying to find one another are. You know in South Africa a lot of people said a miracle happened. Not only did they applaud us for agreeing with De Klerk that we are putting the past behind us, they even made him a Nobel Peace Prize winner. So, I'm saying there is a lot of duplicity in what people call the international realm, which we need to understand and try to understand where this duplicity comes from.

'SADC must address the problem of the millions of Zimbabweans who are in the diaspora . . . ' Sure, I think that must happen. But the primary responsibility for addressing that question lies with the Zimbabweans. Firstly what is it that we must do together to create conditions that enhance the people in the diaspora, which enhance their confidence in the process that is unfolding in Zimbabwe. Enhance their confidence so much that they are able to define a role for themselves in ensuring there are further improvements in the situation.

The issue of the participation of women in the political process, which is unfolding . . . . Again, I must say there is nobody who is going to issue a decree and say women shall participate. I'm not meeting Comrade Thoko for the first time here. I wonder how many of us are aware of the role that Comrade Thoko and other women played in making sure that they insist to the SADC facilitation team that they must be given space to impact on the negotiations that were taking place. But of course it happened that they did not necessarily achieve everything that they sought to achieve, because this thing was not talking place in conditions of our choosing. You know life is given to those who always fight to get it back. I'm saying that they took the attitude that they must do something about it. I actually think that it is wrong for me and you to sit here and say that SADC is male dominated. Why can't you elect women into leadership positions? The majority of voting nationals in many SADC member countries are women. If they are not sufficiently empowered to exercise this vote correctly, we can't complain after the fact. Is there no responsibility on us to change the facts on the ground rather than to regard our responsibilities as one of reporting on the facts after they've happened. In all my life I've not been a political commentator, I've been a political player. That is why I complain less and work hard to change conditions on the ground. Thank you.

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