Until recently, the ANC had a proud record as a mediator, especially in Africa. One thinks of its efforts to broker a peaceful settlement in the Democratic Republic of Congo; of its interventions in Burundi, Mozambique and Lesotho; of Mandela’s role in brokering a deal between Libya, Britain and the US. But the government seems to have forgotten recently that scrupulous neutrality is a fundamental condition for successful mediation. Its efforts to act as an honest broker in Zimbabwe have failed because it has lost the confidence of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), which sees president Mbeki as an ally of president Mugabe. The two men are frequently seen together, and Mbeki has refused to condemn human rights violations in Zimbabwe. Moreover, several cabinet ministers have visited Zimbabwe recently and issued statements downplaying the gravity of the situation. Thoko Didiza said she believes the outlook for agriculture is promising and acknowledged only that the Zimbabwean government had made ‘a few administration errors’. In a letter to Australian prime minister John Howard, Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo pressed for the lifting of sanctions and the re-admission of Zimbabwe to the Commonwealth. The letter represented Mugabe as a reasonable man whose land resettlement programme has benefited 274 000 black farmers. Since Obasanjo and Mbeki met shortly before, it is clear that Mbeki shares this view. South Africa’s reputation as an honest broker has been severely damaged by its defence of an oppressive regime.
The ANC-led government has - or, more
accurately, had until fairly recently - a proud history as a mediator
of conflict, particularly in Africa.
Its record as a mediator includes its persevering attempt to broker a
peaceful settlement in the Democratic Republic of Congo. To South
Africa's mammoth and enduring conciliatory role in the DRC further
kindred initiatives must be added. They include its interventions in
Burundi, Mozambique and Lesotho, where South Africa, acting in concert
with Botswana, forestalled an attempted coup against the elected
government before nudging the adversaries into a constitutional
settlement and new elections.
Then, too, there is the role of Mandela in brokering a deal between
Libya, Britain and the United States - under which the two Libyan
nationals suspected of planting a bomb on the Pan-American passenger
plane that crashed in Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 were tried in The
Hague under Scottish law.
But more recently the government seems to have forgotten that a
fundamental condition for successful mediation is the need to be
scrupulously neutral and, as important, to be perceived as neutral by
the major parties in a conflict situation. South Africa's efforts to
act as an honest broker in Zimbabwe - where incipient civil war
threatens, according to the Southern African Catholic Bishops'
Conference - have come to naught. The reason is quite simple. It has
lost the confidence of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), which
sees president Thabo Mbeki as an ally of president Robert
Mugabe's.
The time-line from Zimbabwe's highly controversial presidential
election in March 2002 to Mbeki's decision to allow Zimbabwe's
suspension from the Commonwealth to lapse is not a testimony to South
Africa's impartiality. It is littered with manifestations of support
for Mugabe and Zanu-PF in preference to Morgan Tsvangirai and the
MDC.
Leaving aside Mbeki's refusal to condemn human rights violations in
Zimbabwe, there are photographs and television frames of Mbeki holding
hands with Mugabe and embracing Mugabe's former security minister
Emmerson Mnangawa.
Several of Mbeki's cabinet ministers have made trips to Zimbabwe in
recent months, only to issue statements on their return that sanitised
the Mugabe regime's human rights violations, rationalised its seizure
of farms and downplayed the disruption to the lives of farmers and
their workers. They included foreign minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma,
labour minister Membathisi Mdladlana and, more worrying, Agriculture
and Land Affairs minister Thoko Didiza. On the basis of a two-day visit
and talks with her Zimbabwean counterpart, Didiza thinks - in contrast
to the World Food Programme - the outlook for agricultural production
is promising. Like Dlamini-Zuma, she opts for euphemisms. She
acknowledges that the Zimbabwe government has made "a few
administration errors".
To cap it all there is the letter of Nigerian president Olusegun
Obasanjo to Australia's prime minister, John Howard, pressing for the
lifting of sanctions against Zimbabwe and the readmission of Zimbabwe
to the Commonwealth. Since Obasanjo met Mbeki for discussions on
Zimbabwe shortly prior to writing the letter, it is safe to conclude
that all the issues were cleared with Mbeki before it was dispatched.
In any case Obasanjo says in the letter that Mbeki shares his view that
there is no need for a meeting of the Commonwealth troika, consisting
of himself, Mbeki, and Howard, to consider whether to prolong
Zimbabwe's suspension. Stripped of circumlocution that means that he
wanted the suspension to be allowed to lapse.
Mugabe's spin doctors might have written the letter. It is
consistently supportive of his government. Obasanjo cites figures to
show the fast-track land resettlement programme has benefited 220 000
"peasant communal farmers" and 54 000 "indigenous commercial farmers"
and presents Mugabe as a reasonable man who will "provide land to
anyone who wishes to continue farming". It represents an eloquent
expression of the sentiments evinced by Dlamini-Zuma, Mdladlana and
Didiza.
There is a heavy price to pay for South Africa, however. Its
reputation as an honest broker has been severely damaged, perhaps even
irreparably. To many it has become the defender of an oppressive
regime.