Zimbabwean dystopia : Why, South Africa? Why?

As reports start filtering through on the United Nations Security Council meeting which dealt with the election impasse in Zimbabwe, the Times of London confirms: “South Africa led efforts to block the dispatch of a UN envoy to Zimbabwe yesterday, as the UN Security Council met on the election stand-off for the first time.”

The basis for this, according to the Times reporters, is: “South Africa, China, Russia, Libya and Vietnam spoke up against any further Security Council action at this stage, diplomats said, with Burkina Faso saying that Africa should take the lead. A top official of Zimbabwe’s Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), which claims that it won the March 29 election, held private meetings with key UN members in New York yesterday to press for an envoy to be sent to the country.”

And finally, worst for me: “Tendai Biti, the general-secretary of the MDC, travelled to New York to meet Security Council members separately, although South Africa, Russia and China appeared set to avoid him. He called for the UN to recognise the “illegality of the regime of Mugabe” and oversee a transfer of power to an MDC-led government of national unity.”

Africa should take the lead?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t Zimbabweans living through hell precisely because Africa and South Africa have done nothing? Haven’t Africa and the SADC had their chance and failed abysmally?

It’s one thing to stand back for your crony and speak of “quiet diplomacy,” but quite another to suddenly become loud and animated in defence of what? More quiet diplomacy?

Watching as Zimbabweans get butchered quietly?

Isn’t the foreign policy of South Africa supposed to accord in some small way with the sentiments of the South African people?

Yes, we begged Africa to lead the way. This resulted, if anything, in assisting Mugabe. In exasperation, the country endorsed UN intervention and your response is to move from zero to Mugabe’s hero in 5 seconds flat?

An absolute disgrace.