Mbeki Fiddles While Zimbabwe Burns

I am in the process of reading that vile book by Ronald Suresh Roberts, Fit to Govern: The Native Intelligence of Thabo Mbeki. It's going rather slowly: there is just so much I can stomach at a time. Its entire logic is based on a conspiracy theory that international capital, local liberals/neo-colonialists and the West, who control the world, are engaged in a campaign to ensure that native leaders like Mbeki fail at every turn. If the word liberal were replaced with the word Jew, it would be the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The worst part is that it probably reflects the views of our President as cartoonist (brilliant, except when it comes to the Middle East) Zapiro implies. 

Last night I finished reading his chapter on Zimbabwe. It actually has very little to do with Zimbabwe and is much more of a personal attack on the character of renowned anti-Apartheid activist Helen Suzman. Her outspoken criticism of human rights abuses committed by Mugabe's regime and condemnation of President Mbeki's seeming apathy on the issue is denounced as racist. Kasrilsspeak at its worst!

What little is devoted in the chapter to the situation in Zimbabwe is a justification of South Africa's quiet diplomacy. Roberts' basic argument is that it has reduced the amount of death and torture inflicted by the Mugabe regime on its own people. Obviously getting rid of the Mugabe regime would stop it all together but Roberts just doesn't seem to get that. It's like arguing that Panado is the best drug to fight cancer because it may momentarily relieve a patient's pain.

Clearly the events of the last 2 weeks across our northern border have demonstrated the futility of such a policy. Mugabe thumbed his nose at South African mediation efforts over the weekend when no ZANU PF representative pitched at scheduled peace talks. And Zimbabwe's economic crisis has spun out of control since Mugabe's introduction of compulsory price cuts. There are reports of ubiquitous shortages of basic goods such a meat, bread and petrol.

This ridiculous legislation has been backed up by crack downs on those who have refused to comply. 30 company executives have been arrested for hoarding goods and flouting the price cuts. Among those rounded up were executives of a leading clothing retailer (Edgars), two directors of Zimbabwe's main food distributor and fast-food chain, and the chief executive of the largest producer of pork products.

I guess Roberts and his ideological ilk would respond that international capital is finally getting what it deserves.

So where does this all lead? Ironically ancient Western history, much deplored by Africanist ideologues, may in fact provide the answer. In 284 AD Diocletian became Emperor of the declining Roman Empire. Five decades of costly wars, internal conflict and politically motivated confiscations of property had caused widespread impoverishment. In response he adopted that often tried and failed strategy of debasing the coinage (in today's terms printing more money). The result — extreme hyperinflation.

Like Mr Mugabe, Diocletian believed he could legislate his way out of this worsening crisis. He passed a royal edict fixing the prices of over a thousand goods and threatened the death penalty to merchants who overcharged. Instead of curbing inflation, the edict's price controls drove goods onto the black market and created chronic shortages. The resulting civil unrest eventually forced Diocletian to withdraw this policy. In the end he actually managed to turn the Empire around (if only for a relatively short time) by focusing on improving economic fundamentals such as revamping the monetary and fiscal systems.

If we learn from Rome's experience, all is not lost in Zimbabwe. But it will take a tremendous amount of political will to turn things around. South Africa could achieve this in weeks. An ultimatum to Mugabe, leave office or we cut off the power (South Africa supplies Zimbabwe with most of its electricity) would do the trick. Ironically Apartheid Prime Minister BJ Vorster exhibited far more scruples than our democratic government has yet to show when he adopted a similar approach to bring down Rhodesia's illegal white minority regime. 

If South Africa does not act decisively now, then, like in Diocletian's Rome, widespread civil unrest will be the catalyst for change in Zimbabwe. And Mbeki's legacy will come to resemble that of another Roman Emperor for fiddling while Zimbabwe burned.   

Comments

[Pierre]

Robert's book is quite heavy on the paranoia (just like the man he defends), but I thought he made quite a few good points on Zimbabwe. As he rightly asks: what are the alternatives? Do we want to invade Zimbabwe? I think not. Do we want to impose sanctions? Most people who think SA should do something about Zimbabwe had the view that sanctions on South Africa was a bad idea because it would hurt the very people it was supposed to help, so they would surely not support sanctions against the innocent people of Zimbawe. The truth is that there is not much we can do to stop the rot in Zimbabwe. Unless we get the USA to invade - but look what happened in Iraq....

[mike]

Ironically Pierre, most people who supported sanctions against Apartheid South Africa and Smith’s Rhodesia now oppose sanctions against Mugabe’s Zimbabwe.

I don’t believe that we can just throw our hands up in the air and say oh well there is nothing that we can do and what goes on in other peoples backyards (not matter how gruesome) is not our problem. When tyrants like Mugabe engage in the systematic oppression of their own people, the international community must act. I personally believe that a legitimate multinational organization should be charge with the authority to act in such cases. In theory the UN would be the idea tool. But given its utter incompetence in the face of Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur etc, other organization unfortunately have to take on the role. Fukuyama in his book After the Neocons makes the interesting point that legitimacy and effectiveness seem to be inversely proportional in relation to international humanitarian interventions. A UN sanctioned mission will far more legitimate may be severe watered down to accommodate the conflicting positions of its many diverse members. At the other extremely an American unilateral intervention may proved the necessary scope but of course lacks international credibility which in the end also hurts the chance for success (eg Iraq). He resolves this problem by arguing picking and choosing international organization depending on the extent of the crisis.

Quiet diplomacy has clearly failed. So now its time to ratchet up the pressure. Some combination of international stakeholders need to come together whether its SADC or the AU or the Commonwealth with South Africa as point man and set out a list of demands for Mugabe to meet. Include must be the punitive action that will take place if he fails to comply by a given time. I would start with sanctions. But ultimately if there is not other way to get him to stop his unacceptable behaviour than I would not rule out military action.

[Gary]

Pierre, I find it interesting that you oppose sanctions against Zimbabwe but probabely fully support sanctions against Israel.

[Dave]

Helen Zille's weekly letter makes a clear statement about Mugabe and his destiny as an international criminal. The crunch could be the Portuguese having the will to refuse him entry for the EU Africa meeting