Back to Index

Zimbabwe-s future
Michelle Gavin and Knox Chitiyo, Chatham House
October 02, 2007

http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/10488_021007zim.pdf (direct link to 12 page PDF)

Download this document
- Acrobat PDF version (169KB)
If you do not have the free Acrobat reader on your computer, download it from the Adobe website by clicking here.

I just want to start off with a couple of disclaimers. One point to set you at ease: while I have this ridiculous cough and may hack away during the presentation, I am assured by a physician that I am not infectious. So it will be annoying but it should not be alarming.

I also want to make clear that what I have to say, these are my views; they are not the views of the Council on Foreign Relations. What I write in the report will be my views. It is something called a Council Special Report and they are the views of the author. The Council publishes them but it should not be attributed to the Council as a body.

What I have done is try to think about what those on the outside looking in at Zimbabwe's crisis might do to respond that they are not doing already. I focus particularly on the US role, obviously because it is what I know best. I am going to just briefly describe the thrust of my argument so that we have ample time for Q&A and discussion.

Before I do, and this may be a bad, cough medicine, jet lag-fuelled diversion, I will share with you some of my thoughts as I was coming over on the plane and looking at people reading through their newspapers and news magazine's and whatnot. The past few weeks, I have really been struck by how recent events in Burma, or Myanmar if you like, shine a light on some of the same challenges as those on the outside looking in confront with countries in crisis. Of course they are both very compelling cases of manmade disaster, but the historical context and internal dynamics are quite different. I am not suggesting these are cases that are perfect parallels. But you do see in this situation as well that those who are most outspoken in condemning an abusive regime tend to be those with the least leverage to do anything about effecting change and regional actors, who do potentially possess more power to be influential, are ambivalent about the best way forward. Their own interests in stability sometimes conflict with momentum for change. I think here of how President Bush in 2003, during his travels in southern Africa, called South African President Mbeki 'our point man', the US point man on Zimbabwe - and yet our policies have been different enough that Zimbabwe has been an irritant in the bilateral relationship, these strange mixed messages coming through.

From the US perspective - and I realise that Zimbabwe is a much more politically potent issue here - but in the States we see it in some ways the same way we see Burma, in the sense that its general profile heightens when there is some kind of high-stakes confrontation. Suddenly it is in the media and in the news, and we saw this in March with Zimbabwe with the crackdown. One searches in the policy community for ways to toughen up policy. But when the front-page stories fade, so too does a lot of the highlevel focus and attention - which is not to say there are not people who have been working for years on Zimbabwe issues in the US government and in the advocacy community, but that high-level focus and energy, the sort of pace and momentum of the discussion, tapers off. The issue tends to be reduced frankly to fodder for speeches in which one ticks off a list of odious regimes.

My project was by and large about how do we get beyond playing the kind of predictable role of the outsider with limited leverage: there to condemn what is clearly appalling in terms of human rights abuses, denial of civil and political rights; there to provide humanitarian assistance and to wring our hands about the devastating economic crisis; but not very effective in terms of helping the people of Zimbabwe move forward. So how to go beyond rhetoric and beyond targeted sanctions and find some new policy options.

It seems to me that it is an important time to do this because there are a number of factors pointing toward change on the horizon in Zimbabwe. They are primarily internal or regional dynamics. You have the increased regional attention with the new SADC mandate. While one can debate the efficacy of that exercise thus far, it is a new dynamic. It is not where we were last year or two years ago. You have the increased unsustainability of the economic situation. You have hit that point right where hyperinflation on the chart goes straight up - it is not a curve anymore, it tends to go straight upward and it is very difficult to see how this can be sustained for long. Various studies of other countries in similar hyperinflationary scenarios suggest that it does not go on for forever and typically there is some significant political change.

Download full document

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