Military Intervention in Zimbabwe Would Be A Disaster

While the United States and most of the world celebrated the inauguration of Barack Obama, the people of Zimbabwe were once again being pushed to the brink. Talks between President Robert Mugabe and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangarai have broken down over several key issues, prompting Tsvangarai to say: "For us as the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), this is probably the darkest day of our lives, for the whole nation is waiting."

At the heart of the dispute is control of key ministries in the power-sharing arrangement being pushed by the South African Development Community (SADC) and its chief mediator, former South African President Thado Mbeki. It appears that the SADC agreement is basically the same one that was put on the table last September, essentially undermining attempts by the Tsvangarai faction to assume some control over key ministries that the Mugabe camp refuses to cede.

In other words, Mbeki is promoting a compromise plan without a compromise. Although the plan calls for Tsvangarai to assume the post of prime minister, it also allows for Mugabe to appoint two vice-presidents from his ZANU-PF party, and it fails to specify which ministries will go to the MDC and which to ZANU-PF. MDC has made it clear that it wants -- at least -- Home Affairs and Finance, but Mugabe refuses to budge. So the Zimbabwean danse macabre continues.

This outcome, which spells disaster for the people of Zimbabwe, might have been avoided if Mbeki and the other SADC leaders had taken a harder line with Mugabe from the beginning. Instead, the Zimbabwean president feels he has a mandate to make whatever shoddy offer he pleases to his opponents in a take-it-or-leave-it strategy that Tsvangarai has decided is just too paltry.

Headlines dealing with Zimbabwe dwell on the collapsing economy and health-care system, and calls from international activists for military intervention are growing. But there are still people working within the broken-down Zimbabwean judicial system to address some critical legal issues, particularly around land-reform.

The issue is whether the people in Mugabe's inner circle who benefited from land confiscations will be able to hold on to all of their ill-gotten gains, since the compromise agreement says explicitly that beneficiaries can only hold one farm at a time. Many white farmers view this as an opening to use the court system to get their land -- or at least portions of it -- back, and to resume pursuing their livelihoods on some of Africa's richest soil.

The simple fact that white farmers have yet to pack up and leave their native country suggests that, from their perspective, there is still hope.

International activists who have called for military intervention seem to forget the lessons of the Congo, where marauding interveners from multiple countries raped and plundered their way across the landscape, doing nothing but enriching themselves while further destabilizing a chaotic situation. To think that wouldn't happen in Zimbabwe is naïve. Even though the situation is dire, it is still salvageable through diplomacy if the right approach to dealing with Mugabe's ego and the ZANU-PF's power needs can be found.

The first step would be to replace Mbeki as chief negotiator, since his approach has proven to be bankrupt. The next step would be to entice Mugabe back to the negotiating the table by offering various types of investments and amnesties. The third step would be to give Tsvangarai and the MDC all the support they need to keep the pressure on Mugabe for the time it takes to peacefully remove him from power and return the country to democratic rule.

That could mean several more years of hard times for the citizens of Zimbabwe. But no matter how bad things get in the near future, nothing would be worse for the Zimbabwean people than to have a major military operation, directed by outsiders, roll through their lives.

World Policy Review/Jan 22, 2009

Words Don't Do It Justice

South African Scorpions Lose Their Sting

Two weeks ago, the parliament of South Africa -- essentially an arm of the ruling African National Congress party -- voted to abolish the Directorate of Special Operations and fold their jurisdiction into the work of the National Police. The move surprised no one but has angered many. Over the course of its nine year existence, the independent crime fighting unit of the National Prosecuting Authority, colorfully known as the Scorpions, has brought charges against current ANC head -- and presidential heir-apparent -- Jacob Zuma, as well as other high-profile ANC-supported figures such as former National Police Chief Jackie Selebi and Winnie Mandela.

Critics argue that many of the Scorpion's investigations were selective and (especially the Zuma probe) politically motivated. Defenders claim that the Scorpions were among the few institutions that kept South Africa from becoming a kleptocrat's paradise. But given that South Africa has some of the worst set of crime statistics in the world, it seems odd that the country's lawmakers would choose this moment to eradicate the Scorpions by blending them into the far less effective National Police.

In a recent poll conducted by TNS Research Surveys, almost 60 percent of South Africans contacted believe that the Scorpions should be retained. Various lawsuits have been launched on their behalf, but the die is cast. The Scorpions' former boss, Leonard McCarthy, has already been recruited by the anti-corruption unit of the World Bank (after being labeled a subversive by members of the ANC's executive committee), and all members of the unit have been asked to either interview for other jobs within the police and civil-service or to hand in their resignations. To no one's surprise, many members are simply walking away in disgust.

In a sense, the fall of the Scorpions also reflects the fall of Thabo Mbeki. In 1999, Mbeki was viewed as a cosmopolitan reformer. The creation of the Scorpions was one of the most potent symbols of his desire to change the direction of South Africa's drift towards criminal anarchy. His view of the unit changed, however, when former Police Chief Jackie Selebi, his friend and supporter, was investigated last year for alleged ties with organized crime figures.

Nevertheless, Mbeki launched an independent evaluation of whether the Scorpions should remain apart from the police. The Khampepe Report, named after the judge who headed the investigation, concluded that the Scorpions needed reform, not disbandment. It suggested that officers be selected more carefully and that the Scorpions be kept out of matters of state security and intelligence gathering.

The report was finished several years ago but only released to the public recently, too late to save the Scorpions and perhaps too late to allow the South African people to decide who they want as their watchdogs.

It seems increasingly as if the ANC's goal is to make itself indistinguishable from the government of South Africa, even though it is technically just another political party. By claiming the mantle of symbol of the "people," it has implied through its actions -- if not its legislative agenda as yet -- that any efforts to challenge its authority are unpatriotic, subversive and politically motivated. In the United States, arguments such as these would be met with derision. In South Africa, where the political landscape is completely dominated by one party, they are a hammer by which the ANC dominates its critics.

Published in World Politics Review, Nov. 5, 2008

South Africa Holds Its Breath After Mbeki Resignation

South Africa faces an uncertain future in the aftermath of a tumultuous week that culminated in President Thabo Mbeki agreeing to step down sooner than his already announced departure date in 2009. Mbeki's decision came at the recommendation of the governing body of the African National Congress, the country's dominant political party, following a scandal surrounding his government's interference in the attempted prosecution of ANC President (and Mbeki rival) Jacob Zuma on charges of corruption. A South African judge dismissed the case against Zuma last week, prompting Mbeki's rivals within the ANC to push for his early ouster. While Mbeki ultimately agreed to go should all the constitutional protocols be followed, it would be premature to conclude that this story will end there.While the world's image of South Africa remains shaped by its peaceful post-apartheid transition, conditions on the ground suggest that the ascension of Jacob Zuma will be anything but smooth. Thabo Mbeki has had enough charisma and intelligence to maintain the flow of foreign investment into the country. But while his effectiveness as a leader has enriched many of his colleagues and supporters, the vast majority of black South Africans haven't found their lives materially improved, and it is among the latter group that Zuma draws his support.It isn't yet clear whether Mbeki's supporters will fight to hold on to the reins of power. But a glimpse of what could happen should they do so was offered last spring, when South Africa exploded in wave upon wave of xenophobic violence. Tens of thousands of foreign immigrants were displaced or forced to flee while hundreds were murdered in cold blood. These events shocked the world and made it clear that South Africa is a powder keg. A serious power struggle within the ANC might just be the spark that lights the fuse once again.To prevent such a calamity, the ANC needs to relax its grip on power and let more parties and contending voices into the political process. An alternative scenario whereby Mbeki and his supporters form a new political party could actually be a healthy development for South Africa's political landscape.Second, white South Africans -- long used to Mbeki's multiracial liberalism and for whom Zuma's aggressive populism bears a worrying resemblance to their northern neighbor, Zimbabwe -- need to be reassured that their lives and property will be protected after the change in government. Third, the wise men of the liberation movement like Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu must use their legitimacy to shore up the country's political process.Lastly, the international community must accept that today's South Africa is no longer the same country that taught the world a lesson in peaceful reconciliation. It may very well need help to keep this transition from turning bloody.

Published Sept.23, World Politics Review

A Hero Dies

With the death of Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa Africa loses a respected and progressive leader. No better epitaph for Mwanawasa exists than his own words regarding the debacle in Zimbabwe


"What is happening in Zimbabwe is a matter of serious embarrassment to all of us. It is scandalous for the SADC [Southern African Development Community] to remain silent in the light of what is happening..."

During his last election, which was hotly contested against the populist xenophobe Michael Sata, Mwanawasa took issue with Sata's call to expel the Chinese, Indian and Lebanese business community. Mwanawasa understood that the rising prosperity in Zambia had more to do with the increases in global copper prices and that the foreigners were a critical component of Zambia's economic life.

What Does the Zimbabwean Constitution Say?

It's all well and good that the negotiations for a government of 'national' unity in Zimbabwe is making progress but there is nothing in the Constitution of Zimbabwe to justify it.

http://www.chr.up.ac.za/hr_docs/constitutions/docs/ZimbabweC(rev).doc

Specifically:

Article 27
(1) There shall be a President who shall be Head of State and Head of Government and Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Forces.
(2) The President shall take precedence over all other persons in Zimbabwe.

What this means, is that everyone agrees that the Constitution has little meaning so what is necessary is an answer to the immediate Mugabe/Tsvangarai debacle. It seems that these governments of national unity are going to be a trend. They should be resisted. They are a short-term solution to an underlying crisis (whether in Zimbabwe or Kenya or Iraq) and merely putting off a meaningful soultion.


And what about the rights of the people to choose a government?

Foolish question.

King "Ubu" Mswati Keeps His Boots On

In a part of the world where abuses of human rights are often government policy, the regime of King Mswati III of Swaziland stands out. Since 1973 the 'royal' family and its enablers have launched a systematic attack on democratic practices, trade unions, press freedom, etc. And what did the grateful citizens get in exchange for the destruction of their human rights? The highest rate of Aids infection in Southern Africa.

On June 22, the King outdid himself by passing Royal Decree #2 which allows for the banning of publications without appeal, the elimination of bail for some crimes and lowering the bar for what constitutes 'defamation' against the government.

Swaziland is often held up as a 'garden-spot' for tourists and nature lovers. Nestled between South Africa and Mozambique it boasts bucolic scenery and friendly natives: what's left out of the picture is a grim little despot intent on squashing all opposition apparently without protest from the international community. Disgraceful.