Zuma needs a democratic Zimbabwe to gain credibility over Libya

The continued claim by South African President Jacob Zuma that the approach of the international community to Libya is just one more example of their lack of respect for Africa is not only misplaced but fails to factor in historical considerations relating to the end of apartheid and this country’s woeful efforts to bring lasting peace to conflicts on the continent.

In response to a US proposed draft resolution to the UN Security Council on Wednesday — to release frozen Libyan assets for the benefit of the National Transitional Council (NTC) — South Africa agreed to release a third of the assets seized here, opposed making the balance available until the NTC has been recognised by the UN and suggested that it will work in concert with the African Union while condemning any form of violence and the doctrine of imposed regime change.

This fails to factor in the fact that regime change came about in South Africa precisely because the international community, acting with liberation movements, brought enormous pressure to bear on the apartheid government. Without that external pressure — of which African countries also played an important part — the multiracial democracy that exists today would still be in contemplation rather than a reality.

Moreover players like Colonel Muammar Gaddafi were not the parties who assisted South Africa, it was the Libyan people and their resources of which Gaddafi just happened to be the leader. It is not the leaders of the countries but the country as a whole that gave support to ending apartheid. This is what makes the previous South African support for Mugabe instead of the Zimbabwean people even more disturbing.

In addition it is pointless condemning violence on both sides in Zimbabwe and Libya and suggesting that this is being even-handed when the people of those countries can hardly deliver the same murderous firepower that Gaddafi and Mugabe’s forces can and do inflict on their people.

It is all very well to push for recognition of South Africa and Africa on the world stage but this requires that this country and continent demonstrate their ability to deal with domestic concerns. Presently every conflict resolution appears to involve a dictator retaining power within the country concerned and the people having to make do with whatever power sharing or government of national unity that the strongmen will allow.

In the case of Zimbabwe, as I have stated previously, should Zuma and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) deliver a free and fair election then this will be our president’s finest hour. No matter what else should crop up along the way during his presidency, a stable Zimbabwe would be a major boost to South Africa and the SADC region as a whole replacing our biggest liability with a fully functioning asset. It would remove enormous drain on regional resources and restore an important trading partner.

In the past South Africa, and only this country, must accept the blame for the continuation of President Robert Mugabe. When the international community signalled its readiness to act on Zimbabwe it was South Africa — having previously employed “quiet diplomacy” — who rushed to the UN to save Mugabe and cost our country and the region all the additional billions that it has since 2008 and has left Zuma to deal with the problem.

Ironically with Morgan Tsvangirai, undoubtedly the victor in the last election, it was South Africa who ensured there wouldn’t be regime change even if it was voted out and that violence, which it currently condemns, is to a large degree created by our own actions in saving Mugabe.

Accordingly to suggest that road maps which see the continuation of brutal dictators like Gaddafi and Mugabe — all the while looting the wealth of their countries at the expense of their people — are better than decisive action by the international community is to show total disregard for the Libyan and Zimbabwean people.

If the international community had adopted that approach to South Africa the disgraceful policies of apartheid would still be in place.

South Africa must act in accordance with what is right by the Libyan people and forget about getting married to the principles laid down by Africa. If the African proposal is the one which brings about a full-blown democracy in Libya then support it. Unfortunately it does not and would have been a repeat of Zimbabwe, Kenya and other cop-outs where African leaders refuse to step aside and free their people after decades of rule.

In addition before taking a firm stand on Libya, South Africa needs to establish its leadership credentials by delivering Zimbabwe into the safe hands of its elected leaders in a free and fair election.

If Zuma can achieve that world leaders will recognize his and South Africa’s ability to give leadership in the region and on the continent.

Until then remember as a rule of thumb that the people of each country and not their dictators supported South Africa in ending apartheid and backing them against their own people is a betrayal of the worst order.