Follow Botswana, isolate Mugabe

TANONOKA JOSEPH WHANDE
Correspondent | Thursday July 10, 2008 00:00

 

He definitely was not representing Zimbabwe and Zimbabweans. Clearly, he was there for himself and maybe for his family, the Service Chiefs and the thugs he is always sending out to kill and mutilate innocent people.

Some presidents now feel embarrassed to have him at their summits yet he feels no shame to force his presence on people who had rather not have him.

But, if member states of the AU and those of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) do not recognise the recent election and Mugabe's subsequent swearing in, why do they continue to let him sit amongst them as if he represents any nation?

And, except for Botswana and Kenya, no other leader dared to confront Mugabe and this is cause for concern since most African presidents appear to have skeletons in their wardrobes.

They lack the confidence to be individually scrutinised. Judging from the withdrawal into silence by some African leaders, it is a shame that most of Africa is run by people who achieved the presidency through dubious and undemocratic means, a point Mugabe is proud of and one he was quick to point out as he prepared to fly to Egypt for the AU summit.

Reminiscent of the biblical 'let the innocent cast the first stone', Mugabe wants the world to know that he is not the only murdering president Africa has, nor is he the only electoral thief inhabiting the continent.

'I would want to see a country that will point a finger at us and say we have done wrong,' Mugabe, who has a tendency to use the plural form when referring to himself, said. 'I would want to see that finger and see whether it is clean or dirty. I want to see it in Africa, in the African Union. I want to see that finger. Let it be pointed at me'.

And, without any hesitation, the finger came from Botswana and Kenya while all other countries pretended not to hear Mugabe's challenge.

Botswana pointedly urged fellow Africans to isolate Mugabe and his goons because of his so-called re-election.

'In our considered view, it therefore follows that the representatives of the current government in Zimbabwe should be excluded from attending SADC and AU meetings,' Botswana Vice President, Mompati Merafhe said.

Botswana pointed out that Mugabe's continued participation in African meetings 'would give unqualified legitimacy to a process which cannot be considered legitimate' and demanded that Mugabe's government and opposition be treated as equal in any mediation.

Botswana's call was supported by Kenya's Raila Odinga who also said that Mugabe must be suspended from AU business.

An absolutely fascinating scenario is slowly emerging where, with South Africa shielding Mugabe, Botswana's stand clearly benefits the opposition. Zambia has already shown its disgust with both Mbeki and Mugabe so Mozambique has to come out a little more into the open.

And at the ongoing G8 meeting in Japan, AU chief, Jakaya Kikwete repeated the insidious demand for power-sharing saying that no party can rule Zimbabwe alone. This is the kind of moronic stance that stops Africa from ever being a democracy.

ZANU-PF has been ruling Zimbabwe by itself for the last 28 years, so why can't the MDC, if so chosen by the people, run the country by itself? Why are African leaders so keen on appeasing those who lose elections?

Is Kikwete himself in a power-sharing deal with the opposition? How many countries in the world are being run by two political parties in a power-sharing agreement?

It is surprising that even after so much bloodshed and continuing abuse and murder of innocent civilians, African leaders can still be 'divided' on how to handle the illegitimate Zimbabwean government.

It is painful to note that a large majority of African leaders do not value people's lives at all and that their horrible divisions produce weak resolutions that are a comfort to the likes of Mugabe.

After the Zimbabwean election provoked unprecedented African criticism and widespread international condemnation, some countries hoped firm and strong resolutions would ensue so as to prod the Zimbabwean dictator and to remind him that it wasn't going to be business as usual with the AU.

Disappointingly, an embarrassingly weak resolution was issued, giving Mugabe a victory of sorts over many African presidents who are not confident enough to have their attainment of power and the running of their countries examined closely, just as Mugabe called their bluff.

What does it take to remove an African president? Instead of meeting the problem head on, the African heads of state took the cowardly route of encouraging the formation of a government of national unity.

They always try to hide problems. They are always afraid to take a stand and African presidents always want to pretend that a problem, however nagging it may be, does not exist.

How does one form a government of national unity with an unrepentant man who continues to harass and kill innocent people, arresting, detaining opposition leaders with whom he is supposed to come to some understanding?

Mugabe gave himself the presidency yet he continues to get people killed and his proxies are terrorising the nation. These are the people whom the likes of Kikwete want us to give power after the rank and file rejected them.

We have seen the folly of African presidents in the Kenya solution. The arrangement imposed on Kenya is not working and discontent is still simmering in that nation.

Instead of meeting the problem head on, they took the easy way out and swept the problem under the carpet.

Now the AU is clamouring for another government of national unity in Zimbabwe, totally disregarding the wishes of those who risked their lives to vote and totally defeating the march of democracy and encouraging presidential candidates to disregard people's wishes and to remain in power after losing elections.

At the just ended AU summit, Sierra Leone President, Ernest Bai Koroma, a member of the West and East African group most critical of Mugabe, told BBC radio earlier: 'The people of Zimbabwe have been denied their democratic rights. We should, in no uncertain terms, condemn what has happened'.

But Mbeki, in his irrational protection of Mugabe, countered by saying he has things under control in Zimbabwe and no action, or even debate, should be taken on Mugabe and Zimbabwe.

Meanwhile, people continue to be abused, abducted, killed and displaced and no one seems able to do anything about it.

To me, therefore, I wish other countries could follow Botswana's example and not only talk but back up their rhetoric with honest moves.

Zambia, Kenya and Botswana are taking the Zimbabwean issue very seriously but more countries need to be involved not only because there is a problem in Zimbabwe but because they have to do the right thing and actually chart a new course of action to keep the African family on a decent path.

African presidents have tolerated dictators for too long and this can be seen in the destruction of their economies and in the social well-being of their nations.

It is time all African presidents changed tact even if they came to power in what Mugabe considers to be in worse ways than his own.

There is such a thing as repenting.
Isolate Mugabe and his government and do not accept him as head of state until Zimbabwe returns to a normal state.