I recently attended a symposium sponsored by the Africa Initiative of Syracuse University and the African Studies Center of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, entitled, “Obama and Africa: Which Way?” It was pointed out that the US imports more of its oil from Africa than it does from the Middle East; that there are thousands of US military personnel assigned to the continental strategic military command, Africom. As any scholar of the late colonial period in Africa knows, the US has a long and sordid history of anti-communist interventions, support for dictatorships and disregard of the will of many nations on multilateral funding, trade, health and debt policies. US social agendas dictate the shape of foreign aid programs, rather than the needs of recipients. Even social and agricultural research has often been tainted by “strategic” considerations. US policy thus carries a long legacy of the imposition of an unfortunate level of national arrogance.
However, the thrill of Barack Obama’s assumption of the US presidency has not faded. Symposium participants were celebratory at the departure of George Bush. Even the most cynical seemingly felt a little urge to lift a corner of the gloom, and let a bit of the sun generated by Obama’s dazzling smile shine in.
Perhaps destined to eclipse that sunshine will be the choice Obama is likely to make about where to place the continent of Africa on his list of “change” priorities. Still, his inaugural remarks did seem in some direct way to be pointed towards Robert Mugabe: “To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict or blame their society’s ills on the West, know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”
Readers of this website do not need to be told how dire the situation in Zimbabwe has become. Starvation and cholera stalk that lovely land. The country’s executive “completely ignores the orders of the courts, thus placing itself above the law, able to do whatever it wishes to citizens, ignoring all laws and constitutional rights, abusing its powers at will and with impunity.” Just as there seems to be no limit to the heights that can be reached by the inflation rate, there seems to be no depth that cannot be breached by each new day’s awful reality.
Readers will also be aware of the backlash against the Bush/Blair/Brown style of Zimbabwe criticism, and of the hearty support that Mugabe still seems to enjoy amongst those for whom denunciations of “imperialism” largely trump any evidence of local culpability in the current tragedy. The eternal question “what is to be done?” exercises the rest of us.
In the anti-apartheid solidarity movement, the slogan was developed in the progressive sports fraternity, “no normal sport in an abnormal country.” It is time this spirit was adopted towards Zimbabwe in general (not just in sporting and cultural affairs). It is clear, as the Legal Resources Foundation says, that “the Zimbabwean authorities no longer abide by the Constitution of the country.” The US and other countries can thus no longer fall back on the same policies which imply that appeals to constitutionality will succeed. Zimbabweans are telling America that those appeals will continue to fall on deafened ears. “Change” therefore has to mean doing things differently: no more assumptions that a normal dialogue with Zimbabwe lies just around the corner. The current task is to find ways to isolate Robert Mugabe and render him irrelevant in the service of making a new Zimbabwean reality.
In making this argument, I do not for a moment want to give the impression that the solution to the Zimbabwean problem lies in military force, whether covert or overt. More death will not assist the dying. In a recent otherwise reasonable syndicated column, Nat Hentoff quoted the Washington Times of December 7, 2008, “Alas, at some times in some places diplomacy just doesn’t work…Has anyone in [Zimbabwe] thought of the ‘f’ word – force?” Hentoff is mistaken. Warfare satisfies the impatient but it grinds the boot-heel of suffering ever more closely on the necks of women and children. In Zimbabwe it must be avoided.
What might a better US policy towards Zimbabwe look like?
Genuine multilateralism is the key. The first things the US must do are to pay its dues to the United Nations, and recognize the International Criminal Court, thus making an important statement and crafting a new image as a credible international partner rather than the cowboy bully of the Bush years. It must work to break the old imperialist-era logjams and coordinate more work with the European Union in Africa. It must ask the leaders of the African Union what the US can do to strengthen its negotiation and peacekeeping capabilities. In the southern African region, the most important things it can do are to build up substantial pressure on South Africa to acknowledge Zimbabwe’s pariah status – and to meet its own obligations to the woefully underserved and endangered refugees from Zimbabwe and other African countries who have fled to South Africa.
In the improved international atmosphere that would result from these actions, the US could press for the following specific initiatives which could credibly flow from a better regional diplomatic climate.
• appoint a special envoy to the African Union;
• state that the “who is going to be Prime Minister” circus is at a dead end;
• call for the release of all political detainees in Zimbabwe at the UN;
• encourage the UN Secretary General to approach the heads of the Zimbabwe armed services and negotiate a transitional arrangement;
• as the current Zimbabwean state no longer recognizes its own constitution, consider setting up an AU- and UN-backed government in exile in Botswana;
• insist that Zimbabwean women’s organizations are recognized and brought into international negotiations;
• sponsor and convene a conference of Zimbabwean activists, feminist organizations and NGOs and hear what their ideas are. Zimbabwe is blessed with an extraordinary corps of articulate, knowledgeable, experienced activist women. Let their voices be heard and let their ideas circulate.
• Consult with Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Medecins Sans Frontieres, etc on governance and humanitarian issues – rather than treat them warily as adversaries at best.
None of these actions would be an end in itself; rather, each would contribute to the achievement of enabling conditions for a Zimbabwean recovery. These ideas are proposed here in the spirit that “change means doing things differently.”