Zim: Quiet diplomacy is the only way!

Prophets of doom are battling to swallow their words as President Thabo Mbeki’s diplomatic efforts in Zimbabwe appear to be vindicated.

Mbeki has maintained that a people-centred approach stemming from dialogue between Zanu-PF and the MDC is the only hope of a lasting solution to the political and economic meltdown in that country.

Since Mbeki forced Mugabe to allow international observers into Zimbabwe during the elections in 2000 and 2002, Mbeki’s position of influence in that country has soared and his efforts received more prominence than the solutions championed by the Western powers.

The critical difference between the Mbeki way and the George Bush/Tony Blair approach is that Western powers are more interested in demonising Mugabe as another failed African leader, lending credence to Western beliefs that Africans were better off with colonial masters in control.

Pretoria, on the other hand, cannot afford to play semantics about the Zimbabwean situation as it stands to inherit the ills of the Mugabe regime.

Already, the economic melt down in that country is affecting the South African economy and the country will soon need to grapple with the reality of thousands of Zimbabweans believed to be economic refugees who are already streaming into our country.

Critics of the Mbeki government — driven by emotion rather than reason — are merely calling on the state to play into the hands of populists.

The headline-grabbing hard-talk strategy propagated by both Britain and the United States and lauded by the media was never a realistic option.

These superpowers aided by the media seek to shift the blame for the ills of Zimbabwe from the colonisers who reneged on their promises to foot the bill for the land redistribution to Mbeki.

Now Mbeki is being discredited as swimming in the sewer with Mugabe and his band of hooligans within Zanu-PF.

Mbeki critics assume that Pretoria’s refusal to vilify Mugabe publicly when Zimbabwean police brutally assaulted MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai meant Mbeki was embracing Mugabe.

They assumed Mbeki and the ANC were ashamed of being seen to be criticising a comrade and being used as a conduit of Western propaganda in Zimbabwe and the African continent.

They were wrong.

Mbeki is forever on the phone to both Tsvangirai and Mugabe drumming the message that it is incumbent upon them to find a peaceful solution to the problems besetting that country and to lead subsequent international efforts to rebuild that country.

Foreign Affairs spokesperson Ronnie Mamoepa argues: “The fact that we do not publicly condemn the situation does not mean we are not making a difference in Zimbabwe.

“We are, in fact, doing more to change the political situation in Zimbabwe than any of those who are being praised for standing on roof tops with loudspeakers and condemning the government of Zimbabwe.”

Even Tsvangirai acknowledges that Western powers have dealt themselves out of any efforts to find a lasting solution in Zimbabwe.

Mbeki, on the other hand, brought Mugabe to dialogue with Tsvangarai, whose arrogance and refusal to recognise Mugabe as the elected head of state should be blamed for further antagonising Mugabe and most importantly delaying the talks.

Advocates of regime change are failing themselves in believing Mbeki would allow himself to be a conduit of their beliefs and worse an agent of regime change in Zimbabwe.

Mbeki’s so-called quiet diplomacy is, in fact, the same strategy adopted by Pretoria in all conflict-resolution efforts in war-torn countries including Haiti, the DRC and Burundi, where it brokered peace deals.

Mamoepa argues: “Wherever we have been invited to intervened in Africa and the world, we have called all the antagonists to dialogue.

“Any imposed solution in Zimbabwe will not advance the cause of the people of that country and will not be sustainable.”

The same strategy is, in fact, the very same approach used by the ANC in negotiating a peaceful solution to end the reign of terror of the apartheid regime.

In the same way as talks between Zanu-PF and MDC are taking a long time to reach a solution, talks between the ANC and the Nats took years before compromises were reached.

Like a broken record, Mamoepa preaches to deaf ears that: “In the same in which we ended apartheid and brought an end to violence and brutality inflicted by surrogates of the apartheid government, the advent of democracy in Zimbabwe will bring an end to detention, torture and brutality.

“We are therefore saying all forces must come to dialogue to pave a way forward.

“This is exporting our home grown solution which is held internationally as a miracle in peaceful conflict resolution.”

True, Zimbabweans have come to a fork on their road and what they do now — not what foreigners do for them — will determine their future.

No foreign solution or imposed democratisation process will end Mugabe’s reign of terror.

One is shocked that the agents of regime change in Iraq where American efforts have gone pear-shaped still insist on regime change in Zimbabwe.

It is indeed mindboggling where Mbeki’s critics get the theory that the president, one of the world’s leading campaigners against regime change and militaristic solutions, would allow himself to be an agent of regime change.

It is a fact that South Africa is now close to brokering a peace deal in Zimbabwe, but doomsayers will neither swallow their words nor give credit to Mbeki for averting a crisis.