Zimbabwe and the Failure of Quiet Diplomacy
It looks like President Thabo Mbeki’s policy of “Quiet Diplomacy” with Zimbabwe has finally been denounced as a disaster by world leaders. The criticism has extended beyond muted signs of displeasure to condemnation both within the respective countries and outside. Senior ANC leaders have called on Mr. Mbeki to alter his stance, and MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai has expressed his desire for South Africa be replaced as mediator in the crisis. Western leaders have upped their criticisms of the policy, with the President of South Africa facing unprecedented criticism for his stance.
It is worth examining what effects this policy, which has led Mr. Mbeki to claim there is no electoral crisis, has had on Zimbabwe. In terms of positive results, it has yielded little. Zimbabwe, once one of the healthiest economies in Africa, has been plunged into a crisis that worsens every day. Inflation stands at over 100,000% and is predicted to hit the 1.5million% mark by the end of the year. Its healthcare system has failed, with many children orphaned by an AIDS crisis Mr. Mbeki refuses to take seriously. Political violence, intimidation and corruption remain endemic. None of this has been ameliorated by South Africa’s diplomatic efforts, and this grim situation has worsened severely during Mbeki’s time in office.
Crisis? What Crisis?
This policy has resulted in the strengthening of Mr. Mugabe’s regime and the hampering of the ability of other countries to effectively address the plight of the Zimbabwean people. By indulging his belief that the criticisms leveled against him are part of a neo-colonial plot, Mbeki has granted Robert Mugabe a legitimacy that he would not otherwise have. Far from improving the situation for Zimbabweans, this refusal to criticise has worsened it by allowing Mugabe to cling to power with that legitimacy. His dogmatic insistence that the Zimbabwe situation be viewed as the continuation of an anti-colonial struggle several decades after the end of white rule has handed Mugabe an easy shield to deflect criticism in return for no concessions.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that Robert Mugabe is delusional. One only has to read recent interviews with the man to realise that his behaviour and opinions reflect not the cynical manipulation of popular passions, but a genuine self-assurance of his own certitude and an unwavering belief that the responsibility for his country’s suffering lies with anyone but him. In this situation a coddling appeasement serves not to render the man receptive to the opinions of others, but to reinforce his belief that he is a faultless victim. Stroking his ego has only inflated his destructive arrogance, with disastrous results.
A tragedy in and of itself has been that it is in the interest of all to stand firm in condemnation of the actions of the Zimbabwean government. Zimbabwe lacks the economic and military clout to seriously threaten it international critics; the constraints of realpolitik are considerably fewer than in dealing with a country of economic or strategic significance. There is everything to gain in pragmatic terms by supporting reform in a country that has demonstrated such economic potential, and a moral mandate to criticise Mugabe’s corrupt despotism. Mbeki in particular can make the pragmatic case, given the influx of Zimbabwean refugees into South Africa.
A far better response would have been the more robust one. Standing up to the Zimbabwean Government would have limited their ability to manoeuvre diplomatically and politically, making it harder for them to acquiesce in the current crisis. Had South Africa been firmer from the outset in dealing with the regime and challenging its actions, it might have been able to limit the machinations of Zanu-PF and the generals now lining up to try and succeed Mugabe. A tough stance that refused to indulge Mugabe’s delusions might not wake him up to reality, but his isolation would afford him less political protection than he currently has. This is not to advocate a US-style hawkish diplomacy against Zimbabwe. That would be entirely inappropriate for the situation and the country, and have a very dubious prospect of success. Rather to stand up to Zimbabwe would involve stronger words supported with resolute action, a refusal to indulge Mugabe’s fantasies, and joining the rest of the world in the sanctions they have placed on the regime.
The world currently awaits the results of this most contentious of Zimbabwean elections. A change of stance from President Mbeki might go miles in delivering a resolution to this crisis. Let’s hope it’s not too late.
Sphere: Related Content
