STWR - Share The World's Resources

15th March 07 - James Waters ~ STWR Member

In the past, I argued that Zimbabwe had been badly treated in the West, that its president Robert Mugabe had been demonised, and that countries should engage with Zimbabwe rather than isolate it.  So the current worldwide pictures of the main opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, with his face swollen and skull fractured following police beatings (*), are more than a little embarrassing.  They make me look stupid. 

My position was unusual in the United Kingdom, but I supported the policy of quiet diplomacy and engagement adopted by South Africa and other regional countries towards Zimbabwe.  The Western press and governments seemed only to become interested in the country when land was confiscated from major white farmers, and their claims to be concerned about abuses of democracy appeared to be a means to further attack the government for its illegal redistribution. 

In defence of Zimbabwe, it was possible to argue that the redistribution was a way to redress one of the world’s most unequal spreads of wealth and income.  Yes, the manner of its implementation was regrettable, but the idea was fair.  Yes, the outcomes were sometimes corrupt, but corruption was less, far less, than in many countries in which the West does business, extending formal state welcomes to their leaders. 

In defence of Zimbabwe, it was possible to argue that human rights were abused there, but the abuse was less than in many countries, again where the West had close ties.  The neglect of gay rights in Zimbabwe, whilst many people and the present author would hope for toleration of relations between consenting adults, is not unusual in African countries who have inherited a historic British legal and moral code. 

It was possible to argue that the government’s domestic violence in the past could be explained, if not justified, in the context of regional civil wars.  Zimbabwe remained comparatively peaceful despite those wars and South African destabilisation during apartheid.  It was possible to argue that the government had tried various peaceful and liberal paths to economic and social reform, some in partnership with the West.  The current economic difficulties are arguably due in part to a badly designed IMF structural adjustment program in the 1980s and early 1990s.  It was possible to argue that no politician survives, as Mugabe has, for two decades and several contested, if flawed, elections without some popular support. 

On their own, any one of these points can be argued; but when a country ends up with the world’s fastest contracting economy, the highest inflation, a ruined health sector, hundreds of thousands of refugees and economic migrants, rising political violence, opposition leaders hospitalised by the police, a politicised military, a president for life, inability to pay foreign debts, inability to secure foreign exchange, expulsions of non-governmental organisations, and bans on broadcasters - when all of these things happen it becomes a little more difficult to fight Zimbabwe’s corner.  For me it is embarrassing.  It is something else altogether for Zimbabwe’s neighbours, who surround a country contributing nothing to the regional economy but desperate migrants, unemployment, crime, and the potential for worse to come. 

What can be done by the international community to make life better in Zimbabwe and easier in the whole of Southern Africa?  Any form of military adventure would be risky in the extreme.  Given the country’s tinderbox state, a military involvement from any source could set off a fire in the country.  Consolidation and support of Zimbabwe’s institutions is surely more sensible.  While their safety is in severe danger, Morgan Tsvangirai and other senior opposition leaders in Zimbabwe should be subject to the same diplomatic protection by other countries as one of their own citizens.  Support, respect, time, and diplomatic courtesy should be given to those politicians, army leaders, and civic leaders who respect peace and democracy.  There are enough of them, a few within the ruling ZANU-PF, who recognise the damage being done to their country.  Some are easy to spot – the ones who have been shuffled out of the cabinet, out of the Parliament, out of the country, and into police stations. 

Quiet diplomacy with Zimbabwe has perhaps worked as well as any of the other diplomatic approaches which could have reasonably been adopted; but the conversation would benefit now from increased insistence, to support those who want a Zimbabwe not in the Western image, but in the democratic image of its neighbours.  The consequences of Zimbabwe falling down are grave: maybe collapse of the country after Mugabe’s death, Zaire style, or Tsvangirai’s death in police custody, apartheid style. 

* http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6449691.stm

James Waters is a research fellow at the Westminster Business School, University of Westminster.

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Write comment