We can hardly remember the last time we commented on Zimbabwe. The reason is we’ve been following government’s approach of quiet diplomacy. And we’ve religiously applied the strategy since our last article in August, some four months ago. But recent ne
In our defence we have only been trying for a fraction of time. Four months is hardly enough to beat a tyrant from his pedestal – especially if the weapon of choice is kid gloves. But has government done any better?
A dismal seven years of policy failure
It is difficult to determine when the term “quiet diplomacy” was first used, although references to it abound as many as seven years ago. In a speech delivered to parliament on 2 June 2000, then deputy minister Pahad has this to say to the gathered MPs: “The President has been attacked for our quiet diplomacy in Zimbabwe. According to the Oxford Dictionary quiet is ‘calm, unobtrusive not showy’. Diplomacy is ‘management of, and skills in managing international relations and tact.’ If this is our critics understanding of quiet diplomacy not only are we willing to defend it, but we will pursue it in Zimbabwe and elsewhere.”
We venture that government’s critics, then and now, had a totally different interpretation of the term. They believe that government’s quiet diplomacy policy is a 100% hands-off approach in which the people of Zimbabwe will be left to sort out their own problems. And their record regards their struggling northern neighbour speaks volumes.
South Africa was silent when Zimbabwean farmers were chased from their land, despite legal processes in place to facilitate a peaceful ownership transition. They were silent when thousands of Zimbabwean citizens were made homeless as Mugabe’s troops and police smashed their shacks. And they were silent when the leader (and various supporters) of the official opposition was arrested and beaten at the hands of police. The only time we can recall South Africa going beyond quiet diplomacy was during the 2002 Zimbabwe elections. At this time, they took action to quash suggestions that the election was anything but free and fair. The South African observers sent to Zimbabwe appear to have received instruction to rubber stamp the event regardless of what they saw. And that is exactly what they did.
In summary, over the last seven years, our government’s calm and unobtrusive management of the Zimbabwe situation has achieved nothing. Perhaps the only victory is that South Africa’s politicians can sit proudly next to other leaders of African states and say, “we have not given in to Western bullying on the Zimbabwe issue.” This obsession with African sovereignty and the blind support of fellow African leaders at any cost has got to stop.
A crazy plan to wrest control of foreign firms
Zimbabwe today has spiralled from a country with huge promise to that of a crackpot dictatorship that offers almost no hope for its citizens. The media is state owned, elections are rigged, human rights abuses repeatedly violated and political opponents persecuted – the list of abuses is endless.
Once the breadbasket of Africa the country now battles to produce enough crops to feed its own people. The tobacco industry, a major foreign currency earner, has crumbled and official inflation has reached a staggering 8 000%. The country’s policy makers remain naïve. Central Bank chief Gideon Gono recently unveiled a new bank note, saying: “Last time around we removed three zeroes and they quickly returned. This time your governor will remove one, two or three zeroes and also make sure that they will not return.” This is another promise likely to turn to dust. The latest official currency peg changes one US dollar for Z$30000 – the black market changes the same note for Z$950000!
Mugabe’s response to the widening crisis in his country is to put a bill before parliament seeking to attach 25% of all foreign firms for the state – and secure a further 25% for Zimbabwean people. Foreign investors who were already reluctant to enter the country are now surely running for the hills.
Not enough rumblings from the corridors of power
Today, thousands of Zimbabweans cross South Africa’s borders in search of food, work and hope. The government remains silent on this issue too – claiming there is little evidence of a crisis, even as the flow reaching extraordinary proportions. There is no need or intention, they say, to establish any form of refugee assistance.
This is further evidence of the quiet diplomacy stance. Top politicians have failed to take a hard line on Zimbabwe, instead quietly hiding the problems under the carpet. Such events prompted Tokyo Sexwale to admit that Zimbabwe had ramifications for South Africa, saying: “My president started with the process of quiet diplomacy (now there is nothing wrong with that, you don’t start by shouting) but its success depends upon whether you are being listen to by the other side. I am beginning to feel that my president is not being listened to.”
We end this article with a quote from our President – one that provides a real ‘fall-off-your-chair’ moment. Speaking to the BBC in 2006, Mbeki told the interviewer: “Well let me say first of all that I have never quite understood what is meant by quiet diplomacy.” To the rest of us, Mr President, this fact is patently clear.
Editor’s thoughts:
We believe government would be hard pressed to find a worse response to the Zimbabwe crisis than quiet diplomacy. After more than seven years the strategy has left Zimbabwe in the worst state of any country at the southern tip of Africa. The solution is simple – start shouting – and take strong action to set the country on a real path to reform. What would you recommend the South African government do about Zimbabwe? Add you comment below, or send them to gareth@fanews.co.za The article mentioned above can be read here.
Comments
Added by JM, 29 Nov 2007