In the last week there were two very important statements
issued on our country Zimbabwe by two very important inter-state political
bodies. The first of these statements,and closer to home was issued by the Southern African Development Community(SADC) current chairperson, Hage Geinjob who is also the current president of
Namibia.
In the statement Geinjob condemned recent political violence
in Zimbabwe without putting the blame on government or the opposition. But more significantly, he called for the
removal of sanctions on Zimbabwe wherein he said (to quote him at length), ‘The
SADC Heads and State and Government further noted that the governments efforts
to transform the economy and bring about prosperity to the people of Zimbabwe
are negatively affected by the illegal sanctions that were imposed on the country
since early 2000. SADC expresses its
solidarity with the Government and people of the Republic of Zimbabwe, and
calls upon the international community to unconditionally lift all sanctions
imposed on the country.’
It was a statement that got an angry reaction from Zimbabwe’s
opposition and some civil society organisations and activists. With some unfortunately referring to the SADC
acronym as standing for a ‘Southern African Dictators Club’.
Not more than a week later the European Parliament(EP) made public its resolutions and recommendations to its executive arm, the
European Commission (EC) on Zimbabwe. In it the EP condemned political violence,
the internet shutdown and to quote it at
length, ‘Reminds the Government of Zimbabwe that the support of the European
Union and its member states in the context of the Cotonou Agreement, and for
trade, development and economic assistance, is conditional on its respecting the
rule of law and the international convention and treaties to which it is party:
Recalls that long term support hinges on comprehensive reforms rather than mere
promises; calls for European engagement with Zimbabwe to be value driven and
firm in its positioning towards the Zimbabwean authorities’.
As indicated in the firm language used in the resolutions,
the Zimbabweans government’s attempts at re-engagement for reprieve with the EU
has suffered a severe setback. And the reaction
from pro-ruling party activists has been to quite literally blame the opposition
for this firm stance by the EUP.
Both the state-controlled and private mainstream media in what is now
their expected partisan political output also reflected the views of their
editorial and political preferences.
But as always critical context matters. That the positions of SADC and the EP differ
is very clear. The motives for the same are however not so apparent.
SADC’s position appears to be predicated on a Pan Africanism
that is wary of interference in the domestic affairs of a member state. Not only by itself but also more significantly
by international organisations that it has historically been suspicious of their
intentions. I mention history here because
SADC is not just a latter day ‘treaty organization’. It is a relatively historically organic
one. Largely etched from the
anti-colonial and liberation struggle focused Frontline States (initially
comprised of Zambia, Tanzania and Botswana. Mozambique, Angola joined the group
upon their attainment of independence to be followed by Zimbabwe in 1980). The FLS
were to then establish the Southern African Development Coordinating Conference
(SADCC) which also then spawned the now existent SADC.
In light of this, whichever way one looks at it, the contemporary
SADC and a majority of its member states are strongly informed by an
anti-imperialist/colonialism ethos. A lot of us may consider the latter to be
outdated and an excuse for protecting ‘dictators’, but regardless it remains an
historical reality that cannot be wished away.
It is a reality that makes SADC one of the strongest regional political
blocks in the world. Minus the firepower
of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).
The EU’s position is however predicated on an understanding
of global universalism. As well as the strength
of its placement in global politics and the attendant economics/neoliberalism. And
the historicity of it is again largely based on the fact that it is a union
comprised of former colonial hegemons in Africa with vested interests beyond
the political. It is an historical fact that we cannot run away from even if we
wanted to.
Where we juxtapose these two positions from the EU and SADC,
we would do well to keep in mind how the two bodies potentially view each
other. Not that there is antipathy
toward the global interaction and agreements on universal human values but more
because of the specificities of regional histories and contexts. Particularly in the case of Southern
Africa.
It is therefore imperative that lobby and advocacy activities
on Zimbabwe always keeps this in mind.
As it did for example in 2007 when SADC intervened directly in Zimbabwe
under the chairpersonship of Jakaya Kikwete (Tanzania) who then appointed Thabo
Mbeki as the mediator on the Zimbabwean question(s). The inclusive government
that stemmed therefrom should have moved the country forward but it didn’t. Not least because of continued disputations
over the land question that it failed to resolve. And that the current Zimbabwean
government considers to be final.
What then becomes interesting is the possibility that there
is an evident desire on the part of SADC and the EU to move away from the
past. In respect of the former, it is to
take Zimbabwe to a post Mugabe era while not negating or directly appearing to be compromising on issues to do with sovereignty and of course, land. The latter however may have queries with the
current government as to its failure to move away from Mugabe era not only in
respect to human rights but also and probably more importantly to property
(land) rights.
In both however, if we look closely, we see an attempt to
move on or move back. As informed by both
immediate or long term history and perceptions of it. In any case, as has been
now proven, history does not end.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity
(takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment