 | | | | by Josie Appleton |
Not only has healing the 'scar' of Africa become the issue of the summer - now Zimbabwe's president Robert Mugabe is presented as the source of all Africa's problems. Everywhere there is the conviction that Mugabe's slum clearance programme is uniquely terrible, that he is uniquely evil, and that something must be done about it.
| UK foreign secretary Jack Straw, along with European Union (EU) partners, made a statement back on 7 June demanding that the Zimbabwean government end its slum clearance - and he has reiterated this demand more forcefully over the past few days. Ten UN human rights representatives recently demanded that Zimbabwe 'immediately meet its human rights responsibilities', and a UN envoy is currently in the country investigating the situation (1).
| In addition, there are growing calls for the British government to suspend the deportation of asylum seekers back to Mugabe's regime, where, according to one Zimbabwean opposition figure, they are considered to be British spies and persecuted. The Archbishop of Canterbury has made a rare foray into politics, arguing that sending asylum seekers back was 'deeply immoral', and that he was 'amazed' the government was continuing to do it (2). A leader in the Observer called on UK critics of Mugabe to 'recognise their responsibilities': '[We cannot] return asylum seekers into the hands of [Mugabe's] thugs.' (3)
| Of course, there should be no deportations. But why is Zimbabwe being singled out from all those other shaky third world states, to which asylum seekers are routinely returned? The fact that the Tory Party is calling for a halt on deportations to Zimbabwe, when it normally campaigns to kick asylum seekers out, suggests that Mugabe has become a special case.
| This idea of the Zimbabwean president as a uniquely evil dictator just doesn't wash. In fact, his chaotic programmes seem to be fairly run-of-the-mill, compared with those of similar third-world countries. As was the case with Saddam Hussein, the West is applying one standard for Mugabe and another for everybody else. And we can be sure that intervention from the likes of Jack Straw and co is a recipe for further disaster.
| There are conflicting reports of recent events. Since 19 May, police have apparently bulldozed or torched illegal street stalls and shacks on the outskirts of Zimbabwe's cities, as part of 'Operation Restore Order'. Estimates vary wildly about how many were affected - Zimbabwe's police claim 120,000; international groups say 300,000; and the UN puts a top figure of 1.5million. Two children reportedly died last month after they were crushed by rubble. This is indeed distressing, but unfortunately it is pretty common practice in straitened third world states. Countries from Brazil to India have in the past sent in the bulldozers to clear slums, in a bid to combat the crime, informal economy and disease associated with these impoverished settlements.
| Zimbabwe certainly isn't a bastion of liberty, but it's not a totalitarian state either. It has an opposition, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), which has seats in parliament and manages to get its amendments into key government bills. There's no free press for the BBC, but the Zimbabwean Daily News and Standard keep up an ongoing commentary on government activities; the Daily News was briefly shut down by the government, but a Harare High Court ruled that it should be reopened. The judiciary has also shown independence in repeatedly tossing out Mugabe's attempts to have the opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai locked up for treason.
| In the African context, Zimbabwe is pretty much on a par with the region's Western allies. Mugabe's regime is criticised for intervening in the Democratic Republic of Congo, for example, but other states with similar records are encouraged. Uganda and Rwanda are both seen as good guys by the West - yet those governments have little opposition to speak of, and both have press and courts that are far from independent.
| Mugabe's increasingly erratic policies seem to spring from his desperate attempts to respond to political forces that are pulling in opposite directions. He often vacillates, playing off first one group, then another. At one moment he plays up the anti-Western rhetoric, then makes conciliatory gestures. In January 2005, for example, he told the UN to cut its food distribution, saying: 'We don't want to choke on your food.' Yet as the economic crisis worsened, in early June he reversed tack, saying that he would 'welcome' more UN food aid.
| | | Outside meddling is in part to blame for the current mess |
| In a populist move in 2000, Mugabe sanctioned war veterans' seizures of white-owned farms. This was actually relatively little relatively late - seeking to rectify land problems that had been hanging over for 20 years. It was in 1979 that Zimbabwe - formerly the British colony, Rhodesia - was handed over to the black majority, from the white elite that had seized power after Britain pulled out in 1964. Mugabe, prime minister of the country's first government, agreed to concessions that would limit badly needed land reform. The 1979 Lancaster House agreement, written by Britain, specified that owners would have to be paid in expensive foreign currency for expropriated lands - an impossible task for the fledgling state.
| The demonised image of Zimbabwe comes less from events in that country, than from Western grandstanding. By holding Mugabe up as a unique figure of evil, and demanding that he change his ways, Western leaders get to flatter themselves in comparison. This comes at a time when Africa has shot to the forefront of attention, with politicians competing to be seen solving its problems. When it comes to Zimbabwe, critics of the government turn allies, often demanding that the government 'do more' to put pressure on Mugabe. There's an unholy alliance here between the old and the new imperialism - between those who instinctively support Zimbabwean white landowners because they are our kind of chaps, and those who criticise Mugabe for his treatment of homosexuals.
| Increasingly, though, this is a very self-effacing kind of grandstanding. Rather than threaten Mugabe directly, Western leaders instead bully African leaders to tell him what's what. Last week, Straw said that there was a 'high responsibility' placed on African leaders 'not to continue to turn a blind eye to what is going on in Zimbabwe'. A UN official was reported as saying that the South African and Nigerian presidents should have intervened. The Observer criticised the region's 'apologists': 'Just as South Africa's friends around the world once found ways to put pressure on the apartheid regime of South Africa, now Zimbabwe's nearest neighbour must recognise its responsibilities.' (4) The conceit of it: we stopped buying oranges for you, now you must do your bit.
| But the African Union has - quite rightly - ignored these calls, and argued that Zimbabwean sovereignty must be respected. President Mbeki of South Africa commented that 'The land question is Zimbabwe has never been a South African responsibility.' (5) A spokesman for the African Union (AU) said: 'I do not think it is proper for the AU commission to start running the internal affairs of members' states.' It is likely that they realise that such an action would be highly destabilising, not just for Zimbabwe, but for the region as a whole.
| More Western intervention is the last thing that Zimbabwe needs. Indeed, outside meddling is in part to blame for the current mess. Since 1998, bodies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and International Development Bank (IDB) have frozen loans, warned off investors, and refused renegotiation of the country's debt. The more that British ministers criticise the Zimbabwean president, the more he's likely to react with defensive measures.
| Zimbabwean opposition supporters have found friends in London, inside Whitehall and out. At one rally last year, the Gay Rights Group Outrage! marched with banners reading 'Forward to Freedom in Zimbabwe - People's Revolution Now!', 'Victory to People Power - Overthrow Mugabe!'. Solidarity among the world's political movements is all to the good. But in this case, appealing to Western supporters proves a substitute for building a movement. The opposition often ends up gearing its protests towards overseas media, presenting issues in ways that will grab London newsdesks - rather than creating a base in Zimbabwe, which could provide an alternative to Mugabe in the long run.
| Isn't it time for London to stop trying to decide what goes in Harare? The Zimbabwean people should be left to make their own destiny.
| Read on:
Zero tolerance for Zimbabwe, by Barrie Collins
(1) UN envoy arrives in Zimbabwe, 10 experts deplore forced evictions, UN News Centre, 27 June 2005
(2) Archbishop intervenes in Zimbabwe asylum row, Guardian, 28 June 2005
(3) Mugabe's friends fail Zimbabwe, Guardian, 26 June 2005
(4) Mugabe's friends fail Zimbabwe, Guardian, 26 June 2005
(5) See South African government information
|
|
|
| | |
