Zimbabwe Update -- If Only it Were This Simple

Robert Rothberg, a Harvard professor [natch] has a charmingly naive piece on the future of Zimbabwe in the Boston Globe. It's title is "An End in Sight for Tyranny in Zimbabwe."

Rothberg notes the immense catastrophe that Mugabe has precipitated in Zimbabwe and concludes rightly that the old dictator is running out of options for raising the money necessary to stave off total collapse. But then he goes completely off the deep end.

Rothberg has a pollyannish view of the state of affairs in South Africa and of the African Union. He considers Mugabe's recent cleansing campaign that has rendered hundreds of thousands homeless to be a "finger in the eye" of both those entities. But this ignores the fact that neither SA nor the AU has been willing to openly criticize the old tyrant. Both, however, have been willing to pursue a course of "quiet diplomacy" requiring that Mugabe, in exchange for loans, be willing to negotiate with the democratic opposition in Zimbabwe. Rothberg assumes that these negotiations will lead to Mugabe's retirement, new elections, and a new, democratic government -- even "ousting" Mugabe's political supporters, and a "truth-commission-like process" that will lead to "selective prosecutions" of major ZANU-PF "thieves."

Gee, that would be nice, if it were possible. But Prof. Rothberg blithely overlooks a lot of complicating factors. We should note that one of the reasons that the AU was unwilling to openly oppose Mugabe was that some of their members had in the past instituted similar programs in their own countries. To condemn Mugabe would be to condemn them too. And, Mugabe's policies that are so horrifying to Western observers are wildly popular in many parts of southern Africa where they play into the poisonous anti-colonialism mindset. The problem is particularly acute in South Africa where President Mbeki is under intense pressure to adopt racist land transfer policies modeled on on those Mugabe instituted in Zimbabwe. Neither SA nor the AU is in a position to vigorously force Mugabe into retirement.

And the good professor also ignores the total impotence of Zimbabwe's opposition. Much has been made, for instance, of opposition victories in Bulawayo's recent municipal elections, but few have noted that only about 10% of the eligible voters participated. Other than that there has been an unbroken series of electoral defeats for the democratic opposition.

It would be nice if the world worked the way Harvard Professors think it does -- sweetness and light would prevail everywhere -- but unfortunately that's not the case. Professor Rothberg is right in one respect -- Mugabe will go soon, he's in his eighties -- but the aftermath is just as likely to be continued tyranny or brutal civil war rather than the peaceful triumph of justice he envisions. ZANU-PF will not die with its founder.

Read it here.

RELATED:

The Telegraph reports that the AU may possibly be shifting its position on Mugabe.

The signs from South Africa now suggest that the African leaders - who for decades have refused to criticise abuses among their number - are for the first time seriously considering breaking the taboo and taking Mr Mugabe to task for the destruction of his own country.

As evidence they note that SA President Thabo Mbeki has admitted that his policy of "quiet diplomacy" rather than confrontation has not in any way deterred Mugabe from his mad course and an interview with Devikarani Jana, a SA diplomat who was stiffed by Mugabe, in which she said,

that she was personally "not happy" with the behaviour of Zimbabwe's regime, as there were "serious allegations of human rights violations".

Before Jana's rebuff,

the AU had always described Zimbabwe's crisis as an "internal matter". When AU leaders gathered for summit meetings, they would ensure that Zimbabwe did not figure on the agenda.

But Miss Jana's remarks indicate that South Africa would no longer object if the AU voiced public criticism of Mr Mugabe's regime. She said that it was "unreasonable" of Western governments to expect South Africa to "go it alone" when dealing with Zimbabwe, saying that the AU held prime responsibility.

"South Africa cannot act as a single country, as it belongs to the AU, and it's up to the AU to take a stand against Zimbabwe," said Miss Jana. She added: "I speak for myself when I say I would like the AU to take stronger measures on that."

The article then notes that Zimbabwe is in a terrible financial straits and that South Africa is therefore in a position to exert pressure on Mugabe.

Read it here.

Sure, so long as you confine your analysis to the diplomatic level and that of international finance, a plausible case can be made for SA intervention to resolve the crisis in Zimbabwe -- but that analysis, like that of the good professor, ignores the role of domestic politics in shaping South African policy.

As I have noted previously [here] Mbeki is not free to act against Mugabe who is regarded as a hero by many South Africans.

I wish these sophisticated experts were right in their assessment of the situation in Southern Africa, but I fear that they are allowing their hopes to influence their judgment.