First off, we know that President Mugabe does not care what happens to the citizens of Zimbabwe; rather, he cares much more about staying in power. This being said, cutting off electric, trade, and port access would really be putting the citizen's of Zimbabwe in a strangle-hold, rather than President Mugabe himself. This would therefore increase the amount of immigrants that would flee into the already over crowded- South African cities. As discussed yesterday, this is exactly what South Africa is trying to avoid. South Africa should be looking to increase the standard of living and increase political relations with Zimbabwe- in order for Mr.Mugabe to be receptive to policy and reform suggested by the South African government and the SADC. Keeping Mugabe close, by not condemning him publicly, gives Mbeki his right ear. As long as Mbeki, uses the position to turn Zimbabwe back in the right direction- it will be seem as one of the great achievements in Mbeki's political career, if not- it will become a rather large blemish on his political record.
6 comments:
There comes a time when "gaining the right ear" is wrong. That time has come. Mbeki has essentially told Mugabe that his crimes will be ignored. Mbeki has recast the outrage of the Western world, and particularly the UN, as colonial influence and given legitimacy to a presidential election stained with death, fear, and fraud. Africa is too fragile a land to survive such a terrible precedent. Can the AU have any real authority if South Africa undermines it?
At one time, similar crimes occurred throughout the DRC, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Bosnia, and Haiti. None of these conflicts could be fixed by lending an ear to those responsible for the bloodshed. Rather, outside intervention was necessary. South Africa has influence. It sets the tone for the rest of the region. The UN and AU must be recognized (particularly by South Africa who currently has a security counsel spot). If the violence continues and the international community ignored, international sanctions should be levied in Zimbabwe, as well as South Africa if necessary. An EU and AU military presence should not be ruled out. I realize that these measures may jeopardize Zimbabwe's citizens. But they are currently living in jeopardy. No food, no power, no safety, no voice. The world community will have to step in to deal with any humanitarian crisis that results. Even without sanctions, the refugee camps would continue to overflow. At least lets give them a chance to return to a stable government where they need not worry about being killed by those who represent them.
The Western world should not recoginze Mugabe's illegitimate election result. Ties should be cut with Mugabe's government and established with Tsvangirai's government in exile. Until things change, I'll be boycotting the World Cup and won't be going on that safari anytime soon.
Unless you are trying to start what the Liberia and Sierra Leone have (aka Civil War) this would be a poor option. You can not just remove a leader that is connected to half of it's citizens. Same mistake we made in Iraq. Just because a leader has become autocratic does not mean that it will be better to take the leader out of office. I should have made it clear that South Africa is going along with the UN Security Council, however not condemning the leader in public or putting sanctions on Zimbabwe. The refugees do not just go into refugee camps, the go into the cities. Yes, they are overflowing too, but you can not say- just because they are overflowing, What’s a little more overflowing? A lot. South Africa could face some serious issues and uprisings if it does not control this. Then the only stable country in the region becomes unstable itself. The region has to undergo reform. South Africa has to be the nucleus of such a reform, and it starts in investing and securing its borders. If the UN and AU (I hope you meant UN not EU) bring in their armed forces- violence will only get worse at this point. Mugabe is THE Zimbabwe liberator- although he has done horribly the past many years- Many still see him as this, and if you walk in and try to take him out, there will be civil war. Were people really will die, not just from starvation - which can be fixed, but from violence, a WAR, that was not needed to begin with.
Do I think there should be fair elections? Yes. Do I think, that South Africa should cut off the people of Zimbabwe? no. You claim that they do not have food and electric? They do, just a limited amount. And your proposal just cut this limited amount down to zero. Changing a leader, or making a fair elections at this point doesn’t change these issues. What does change these issues is investment. Food, electricity, safety. South Africa is in a position that it can provide these things, with out killing off the Zimbabweans and making them all flee to other countries, which almost all would go to South Africa.
My proposal is secure the borders and Invest in Zimbabwe- making sure that Mugabe follows the rules. Leave him in office or have the UN set elections for two years from now. This is too hostile of a time to have an exponential amount of immigrants flooding south Africa. Believe it or not, it is possible to better the overall population with a bad leader in place. I'm not saying it is going to be easy but better than starting a civil war. And reschedule the elections for two years from now with UN regulation. The area would explode if you do that now, because the movement is new and opposition is heated. Wait two years until people cool off then regulate the election process and protect all candidates. Remember there is still a good chance for Mugabe to win, so your taking a chance in starting a civil war over a chance that the opposition wins. And if he does, good luck removing Mugabe, 28 year leader, from office. More good can be done for the people in other ways currently, life in Zimbabwe is currently horrific and unfortunitly just a change in leaders will not do much, they need investment.
I forgot to mention that I still think the Security council should do something about it. China and the US can hold santions. Just not south Africa, it would bring too much instability. China needs to stop dealing with Mugabe, this would be a way to cut off mugabe without actually hurting the people much. China's oil money goes directly to the elite/ Mugabe. Take away his China funding and he will listen. I just think that south Africa can not do this, for the reasons listed above.
"Making sure that Mugabe follows the rules" is not an easy task. He has not done so in the past and I see no reason to think he will do so in the future. South Africa needs to establish leverage over him. Taking economic sanctions off the table, leaves them none.
What's more, if we "leave him in office and have the UN set elections for two years from now," how can South Africa, the UN, or any other country ensure that Mugabe won't again kill and cheat his way to the top of the ballot? More importantly, how can we ensure that no other prospective dictator in Africa will do the same?
I am also confused why Mbeki refuses to condemn Mugabe, but the ruling African National Congress has. (It said it was "deeply dismayed by the actions of the government of Zimbabwe.").
On Monday the AU holds its annual summit, and Mugabe plans to attend. He'll face the leaders of other African nations that have spoken out against the atrocities in Zimbabwe, including the leaders of Nigeria and Zambia. Others are sure to join, and I expect Mugabe will not be in for a very comfortable stay. Indeed, the SADC may not follow Mbeki's lead after all. South Africa may be forced to follow. Even South Africa's greatest figure, Nelson Mandela has spoken out against Mugabe and his "tragic failure of leadership."
I see you did not touch any on civil war comments, or the mention of how fragile the region is. This is the main point. It is not the time for intervention. Intervention may be needed at some point, but you are missing the big picture here. I am simply saying that sanctions can/need to be brought by the US/China where Mugabe feels it himself. While South Africa needs to create stability to the region by helping the people of Zimbabwe by investment. Mugabe would not allow this investment for the people if Mbeki turns his back on the dictator. South Africa supplies the peace and stability, while the super powers put the strain on Zimbabwe.
The minor suggestion about elections, was just saying that intervention now would just bring civil war. If you wait until the region and supporters of both sides cool off and have a UN supervised election, providing protection for the candidates- It may be a way to still have elections and not start a war.
Interested to hear your thoughts on the ICC indictment of President Bashir.
Post a Comment