African National Congress secretary general Gwede Mantashe told editors and journalists at a breakfast in Durban that neither tougher sanctions nor an invasion of Zimbabwe were on the cards. “I don’t think invading Zimbabwe or sanctions would work”. The ANC won’t “subscribe to an invasion and preferred to deal with Zimbabwe on a government-to-government level and on a party-to-party level”.
“What will we do to make Mugabe retire? We will persuade him.”
Mantashe said the higher structures of the ANC had discussed Mugabe’s reasons for wanting to stay in power. The arrest of former Liberian president Charles Taylor was affecting any decision Mugabe may make to retire. Taylor, who was Liberia’s president from 1997 to 2003, was forced into exile in Nigeria before being extradited. He is currently being detained at the International Criminal Court detention facility in The Hague and is standing trial before the Special Court for Sierra Leone.
He said the party’s national executive committee had discussed the fears that Mugabe might be facing if he were to relinquish power. He said no Western leader had been detained or had stood trial in The Hague.
What Mantashe and indeed the ANC fail to point out is that Mugabe can be ousted by South Africa, without an invasion, through joining with those within the international community who are calling for an end to the Zimbabwean dictator. South African can ensure that measures targeted at Mugabe and his henchman are enforced and that any assistance to the people of Zimbabwe be channeled through the United Nations and aid agencies.
This would cripple Mugabe’s security forces’ capacity to intervene against the population while maintaining support for humanitarian and healthcare concerns.
In essence, this action would force Mugabe, like Ian Smith before him, to accept the reality of his situation and bring about the end of his dictatorship.
The fact that South Africa has this capability is well known and was the reason why the USA sent Henry Kissinger to meet with former president BJ Vorster during 1976. The secretary of state’s mandate was to address the continuation of white minority rule in South West Africa and Rhodesia
Rhodesia, despite sanctions from the international community, had been able to keep going because its powerful neighbour to the south was willing to support it. When Vorster decided to sacrifice South West Africa and Rhodesia to buy time for South Africa the writing was on the wall.
The fact that South Africa’s decision to call time on assisting Ian Smith played a pivotal role in that country’s decision to usher in a multiracial democracy is beyond doubt. It has been well documented and was a source of much anger among many white Rhodesians at the time.
Having said that we cannot ignore the following :
Yet even with all that even he had to accept that the loss of support from South Africa was a fatal blow.
It is so easy to forget that Smith’s Rhodesia had resisted pressure from Britain, the USA and the rest of the planet without flinching. When South Africa joined with the international community the final gap in overcoming sanctions was closed down and the economy, under intense pressure before — albeit nothing like Mugabe’s inflation now — would not be able to cope.
In the case of Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, even support from his neighbors has not stopped the walls from crashing down around his ears. Just recently we have witnessed how desperate Zanu-PF have become with the government having to stoop to misappropriating aid agency funds ($7-million) while almost all of the state departments have collapsed. Soldiers are rioting because they weren’t getting paid and whatever pay they did get wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on.
In addition, we have also recently witnessed the world applauding South Africa after Cosatu and other local unions blocked the arms ship from China from being offloaded in Durban. This lead was immediately followed by other African countries who refused to allow these weapons destined for Mugabe to be offloaded in their ports. That, along with inter alia the Vorster-Smith example, are the reasons why the international community have come to realise that South Africa’s support and will to end Mugabe’s reign is imperative if this initiative is to succeed.
Not only because logistically it would crush Mugabe but because if South Africa were to call time on Zimbabwe so too would the majority, if not all, of the countries in the region.
Of course an invasion would be successful, the problem is that it might well drive some members of the Zanu-PF into a renewed bush war, which is undesirable. That said, the suffering of ordinary Zimbabweans from this would be far less than what they are currently experiencing under Mugabe. Sanctions however, other than those targeted at members of the Zanu-PF hierarchy, the military and those associated with them, remain undesirable because of the population’s fragile health.
While an invasion would depose Mugabe, it is unnecessary because the ANC is fully aware that financially and politically, we can put an end to all of this by cutting off strategic assistance. Ending the delivery of fuel and electricity alone would render the military impotent while calls to end Mugabe’s rule would be supported by other countries in SADC if South Africa led the way — all without setting foot on Zimbabwean soil.
Instead we are witnessing South Africa’s continued support for Mugabe at the United Nations as well as back home. Meetings of liberation movements, refusal to accept any solution that does not include Mugabe and even resistance to switching a mediator who’s impartiality is totally compromised.
Instead we are told by the ANC secretary general that while we can’t have sanctions or invade we are busy trying to persuade Bob to resign. Well if the ANC accept that Mugabe has to go and that he needs persuasion why are we sending R300-million to bail him out and blocking the United Nations from acting? Both actions — particularly the funding — are the very reason why Mugabe has not needed to resign in the past. He can always count on continued South African financial and political support which, in effect, cocoons him both here and abroad.
It appears to come down to this — the ANC are propping up a highly unpopular liberation movement despite widespread condemnation from the international community because somehow they believe that the fall of the Zanu-PF might somehow inspire their own demise at a later date.
In truth, by doing the right thing by Zimbabwe, the party would achieve far more credibility, assist in redirecting funds being used for Zimbabwe towards service delivery for our poorer communities and signal a move from a liberation movement mentality to that of a ruling party, government and regional power.
All without firing a single shot.
A prince with dignity and determination
Prince Ngarambe’s goals are to become Rwanda’s first transgender model and to uplift the country’s youth
The EFF’s principles are unshakeable
Unlike the ANC, the core values of the freedom fighters do not change with each leader it elects
