|
Back to Index
Why
does Mbeki back Mugabe?
James Myburgh, Politicsweb (SA)
May 05, 2008
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71643?oid=89179&sn=Detail
Do we really
know why our president supports the old tyrant next door . . . ?
Over the past
eight years President Thabo Mbeki has endorsed Zanu PF's victories
in a string of stolen elections, opposed the imposition of any sanctions
on the regime in Zimbabwe, acted to shore up Robert Mugabe's support
within SADC, and successfully diverted international outrage into
various meandering and ultimately futile diplomatic initiatives.
The only surprise about his obdurate refusal to do or say anything
constructive about the latest crisis is - as Tony Leon noted in
Business Day recently - that "we are at all surprised."
Still, the extremes to which Mbeki has, apparently, been willing
to go in support of Mugabe still has a residual capacity to shock.
On Friday the Mail & Guardian confirmed that Mbeki had both
known about and condoned the transshipment across South African
territory of the Chinese weapons, intended for the Zimbabwean military,
aboard the An Yue Jiang. Indeed, the newspaper reported that according
to its sources Mbeki had given a "direct order" to the
ministry of defence and national conventional arms control committee
that the weapons be waved through. This revelation seems to contradict
Mbeki's statement to journalists in New York on April 16 that "those
weapons would have had nothing to do with South Africa. I really
don't know what Zimbabwe imports from China or what China imports
from Zimbabwe."
The fact that
cabinet clearly knew about the arms from early on also casts doubt
on Aziz Pahad's denial of any knowledge of the shipment. The deputy
minister of foreign affairs told journalists on April 17 "We
are not able to determine as Foreign Affairs what are the goods
that are going from one country to another. We are not aware of
any nature of the consignment because we don't have the capacity
to go and check on any consignments on any ship coming into South
Africa." Over the past month numerous formerly supportive politicians,
commentators, and diplomats have pealed away from Mbeki on the Zimbabwe
issue. Indeed, according to the Mail & Guardian, his insistence
on letting the weapons through has alienated some of his closest
allies in government. "Everyone is asking what has happened
to him" it quotes one person as saying. "It is very hard
to explain."
If there is
now a consensus that Mbeki supports Mugabe - and has done since
2000 - there is a lot less certainty about why this is the case.
The destruction of the Zimbabwean polity and economy was never in
South Africa's national interest. It has done no good for Mbeki's
international reputation. And it wasn't obviously in his political
self-interest either - it was one of the contributing factors to
his downfall at Polokwane. Between 2000 and 2003 Mbeki argued that
effecting a final solution to the "legacy of colonialism"
was the overriding priority in Zimbabwe. But the great majority
of white farmers were forced off their land years ago - and so that
consideration can hardly still apply. Mark Gevisser, has ascribed
Mbeki's approach towards Mugabe to a combination of "filial
obligation", "diplomatic strategy", stubbornness,
and a belief that Zanu PF would never concede power anyway. Professor
Stephen Chan makes similar claims. He has argued there are five
reasons for Mbeki's "extraordinary patience" towards Mugabe:
- Mbeki knows
that Mugabe is backed up by "his hardline generals"
- people who will not just disappear at his say so;
- He does not
see Tsvangirai as a "viable alternative president".
- Mbeki and
Mugabe "simply get on intellectually"
- Mugabe holds
Mbeki in "thrall" as the "grand old man of liberation";
- Mbeki "has
blind spots" and is stubborn. When one measures these putative
reasons against the thing they have to explain these explanations
cannot but come across as faintly inadequate. Like darts thrown
against an elephant they can't but hit the target - but they fail
to penetrate very deeply.
What man would
stand back and allow the utter immiseration of a country just because
he views its despotic leader as a kind of dad? Or, because he regards
the head of the main opposition party as beneath him intellectually?
A more substantive explanation has recently been provided by two
observers on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum. In an essay
on the Zimbabwe crisis in the latest edition of the London Review
of Books R.W. Johnson argues that "Mbeki's fundamental position
was that, as a fellow national liberation movement (NLM), Mugabe's
ruling Zanu PF had to be maintained in power at all costs."
This is a view shared by the SACP's Jeremy Cronin. In a speech last
week he said he personally believed "that what informs much
of President Mbeki's Zimbabwean strategy is the belief that national
liberation movements in our region should close ranks. This is informed
by a conviction that the crisis in Zimbabwe is being used as an
entry point by imperialist powers to reassert hegemony over a former
colony and eventually over our whole region." Still, one wonders
whether this explanation can bear the entire weight of that which
it seeks to explain. The bulk of the ANC leadership - including
Jacob Zuma and Kgalema Motlanthe - once went along with this line
of thinking.
But it seems
that they have now realized that at some point it becomes barbarous
to persist with this course of action. Once it became clear that
the presidential and parliamentary polls had been lost to Zanu PF,
Mbeki had a great deal to gain from ensuring Mugabe's peaceful exit
from power. His decision to back Mugabe from 2000 onwards had had
disastrous consequences for the region this provided him with an
out. His spin-doctors were already spreading the message that "quiet
diplomacy" was on the verge of vindication. But he humiliated
them and himself by standing by Mugabe after the old tyrant decided
to stay on. His stance has left him isolated both at home and abroad.
The only obvious beneficiary has been ANC President Jacob Zuma,
who has been made to look positively statesmanlike by comparison.
There are other
curiosities about Mbeki's relationship with Mugabe. The cover of
a recent issue of the British magazine Private Eye has a picture
of Robert Mugabe and Mbeki under the heading "Zimbabwe crisis
talks". Mugabe says to Mbeki "I'll resign if I can keep
my job." To which a smiling Mbeki replies, "Anything you
say boss." Gevisser observed in his article that on Mbeki's
recent visit to Harare, "Fondly clasping Mugabe's hand, he
averred that there was 'no crisis' in Zimbabwe. The smirk
on the father's face left no doubt about where the power in this
relationship lay." In a column a couple of weeks ago Justice
Malala derisively described Mbeki as Mugabe's "foreign minister."
All three comments point at the same thing: despite his obvious
vulnerability it is Mugabe who holds the whip hand in their relationship.
If one did not know otherwise one would almost think - as Malala's
'foreign minister' jibe suggests - that it is Mugabe, not
the South African taxpayer, who pays Mbeki's salary at the end of
every month. So, the honest answer then to the question of why Mbeki
has backed Mugabe is that I just don't know. I get the sense that
there is something else - some strange and secret bond - that binds
Mbeki and Mugabe together. I would almost class this thing as a
"known unknown." It is there and if we only knew what
it was a lot which currently appears inexplicable would suddenly
make a lot of sense.
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
|
