My liberal arch-nemesis has some characteristically smart thoughts:
I think the great majority of non-Africans do not in fact believe that Robert Mugabe is entitled to rule Zimbabwe because he is black. But the opinions of non-Africans on this question do not matter much, and didn’t really even in 1979. The UK and US could no more have held a weaker, more democratic and capitalist government in place in 1979 than they could have held the Kerensky government in power in Russia in 1918.However, the apparent belief by Thabo Mbeki that Robert Mugabe has the right to dispossess and slaughter the Ndebele because he is a Shona, has the right to dispossess, exile or kill whites because he black, and has the right to impoverish his entire country and beat his political opponents to death because he was a hero of black anti-colonialism — that has certainly empowered Robert Mugabe. Mbeki is a very strange figure; despite running Sough Africa for eight years, he seems still not to really deeply grasp that he is actually running a country and bears responsibility for what happens to it. But other African leaders seem equally incapable of intervening against Mugabe. The question is really to what extent non-Africans can influence the attitudes of Africans on these kinds of issues. Does it matter what we think of Robert Mugabe?
As always, read the whole thing.
I left the following comment on Steinglass' site:
I'm not sure whether there is evidence for the claim that Mbeki's current public position regarding Zimbabwe is based on his belief that "Mugabe has the right to" do what he had done and continues to do.
Mbeki could believe that the best way to influence Mugabe's actions is through diplomatic engagement rather than loud denounciations through the BBC. That would be totally consistent with the actions we have so far observed without making claims tantamount to reading his mind.
While some of us may think that the heinous actions of Mugabe should free the South African leadership from any reservation they may have in criticizing a former "comrade in struggle", bonds that may developmed through years of active support to the ANC when many countries only paid lip service or resisted sanctions against apartheid SA cannot be so easily discarded. It's quite possible that Mbeki believes while he and his government may work quietly behind the scene, they should not publicly denounce Mugabi out of respect earned through their past relationships.
And frankly, the claims by many (not in your case) that Mbeki and others are not denouncing Mugabe simply because they would like to reserve the right to carry out similar actions/policies is really without any evidence.
So, despite all his faults (his stance on the HIV-AIDS link, for example), I don't get the criticisms being directed at Mbeki. He is likely to be at the limit of his powers with regards to influencing Mugabe. What has the sanctions by the UK and the US achieve beyond further impoverishing the ordinary Zimbabweans? What has the denounciations by Mandela achieved so far? What has the denounciations by the Zambian and other Southern African presidents achieved?
How can you have an arch-nemesis if you are devoid, sadly, of superpowers?
Only superheroes have arch-nemeses. Everyone else has enemies.
Jamie, Mbeki may believe any of several things. But regardless of his beliefs, the bottom line is that he has not successfully exerted any influence on Mugabe's behavior. Either whatever he is doing is not working, or he isn't trying to do anything.
And Mbeki is running the only country which has any real hope of doing anything effective in Zimbabwe. Other African leaders can denounce Mugabe's actions, and some are. But all they have is moral suasion -- which apparently moves Mugabe not at all. South Africa could exert economic, or even military, pressure. But, under the current administration, is doing nothing. (And isn't even denouncing Mugabe, which would cost them nothing.)
"Jamie, Mbeki may believe any of several things. But regardless of his beliefs, the bottom line is that he has not successfully exerted any influence on Mugabe's behavior."
Despite the best of intentions, not all actions can succeed. Mugabe has shown that he is unmoved by criticism, no matter where it is coming from. By the way, Desmond tutu has also criticized Mugabe. I don't see how Tutu's and Mandela's criticisms carry any less moral weight than Mbeki. If the failure to influence a dictator's behavior (short of military action) is a knock against Mbeki, I don't think that's anything to be ashamed about.
Please tell us what military options are there for South Africa against Zimbabwe? I would think our experience in Iraq would make people hesitate before cavalierly suggesting military actions in removing dictators.
I gather that South Africa supplies most of Zimbabwe's electricity.
Suppose, just as a thought experiment, Mbeki demanded that Mugabe change his behavior. And suppose further, that he then moved the South African army to the border. Not, mind, for the sake of this experiment, over the border. Just up to it.
Mugabe would, necessarily have to divert to the border a significant portion of his thugs. Which would make them unavailable for their currently use to intimidate (not to mention batter and kill) the people of Zimbabwe. Which might not be enough for him to lose the election, but would certainly up the odds.
As you say, not every effort will succeed. But not actually making an effort will generally not succeed. Can you state, with any confidence, that Mbeki is doing anything at all? Can you cite any evidence to support such a belief? I sure haven't seen it.
How can you have an arch-nemesis if you are devoid, sadly, of superpowers?
Says you. All good superheroes keep their alter-ego a closely garded secret.
What on earth is this meant to mean?
"I think the great majority of non-Africans do not in fact believe that Robert Mugabe is entitled to rule Zimbabwe because he is black."
Eh? Double eh with bloody-hells added. Did this lumphead complete primary school? It must be some sort of insult to have this twerp as an enemy.
According to the CIA factbook, South Africa has moved its army to the border with Zimbabwe, apparently for the purpose of stemming the flow of economic refugees.
Thanks, Tom. I had missed that. (Of course, to have an impact on Mugabe, there has to be some reason for him to suspect that the SA Army might actually come over the border....)
Hmmmm.
@ jamie
"Despite the best of intentions"
Your problem is that you need to show that there actually were "Despite the best of intentions". Difficult since Mbeki has done pretty much nothing.
How much influence does the west have in Zimbabwe?
Not much. But the west forced out Ian Smith so we used to have quite a bit of influence.
We could have as much influence over Zimbabwe as we desire, but apparently we don't desire very much. The US has the capability to invade and control Zimbabwe; we lack the will to do so. Please note that I'm not advocating the invasion of Zimbabwe.
Does it matter what we think of Robert Mugabe?
No. Sometimes I daydream about going over to Africa, raising an Army from scratch and building a nation built on the principles of justice, property rights and a free market. But that would be too much hard work and risk of death for my tastes.
Well, Mbeki notwithstanding, some South Africans do appear to be taking some action. The Congress of South African Trade Unions just called for the isolation of Mugabe - independent of the SA government. (If Mbeki appears impotent in the face of Mugabe, see how useless he is standing up to his own country's labor movement.) Mugabe can blow off the UN, Tutu, Mandela, even Mbeki all he wants. If the South African labor unions, on whose services he relies, decide to cut off Zimbabwe, Mugabe's pretty screwed. Recall that these are the people who (without government sanction) stopped that Chinese arms shipment at Durban back in April.
The West could have recognized the government of Abel Muzorewa, who won elections in 1979 when Ian Smith resigned, instead of caving into the kleptocrats of African nations who insisted on installing Mugabe, who was on a campaign of terror at the time. It is appalling how little this shameful episode is mentioned today and the common lie that Mugabe was a freedom fighter who overthrew Smith is promoted.
As a matter of interest, it was a previous South African Government that pulled the plug on the then Rhodesia by cutting off essential supplies. No reason why this can't happen again and in particular by cutting off electricity.
Although that may not make all that much difference. A popular joke in Zimbabwe goes along the lines of "What did they use to use in Zimbabwe for light before candles? Answer: electricity"