South Africa Shouldn't Have to Go Tougher on Mugabe
Los Angeles Times http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-000020181mar20.story COMMENTARY By GERALD HORNE March 20 2002 In the wake of the recent victory of President Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe elections, African nations--particularly South Africa--have come under increasing pressure from the West to harshly condemn his regime. Yet despite South Africa's move Tuesday to join in the mild sanction of suspending Zimbabwe from a coalition of mostly former British colonies, South African President Thabo Mbeki can be expected to continue his "softly, softly" approach. However much criticism Mbeki comes under for going too easy on Mugabe, he has his reasons. And punishing long-suffering South Africa would only plunge it into further misery. Before turning up the heat on South Africa, the U.S. and the European Union should look at Zimbabwe from a different perspective. In the welter of denunciations of Mugabe, few have acknowledged that during the long struggle to dislodge Zimbabwe's predecessor state--the white minority regime of Rhodesia--he was viewed as a plausible alternative to his Soviet-backed competitor, the late Joshua Nkomo. One leading British diplomat of the day said that "Mugabe's victory was the best thing that could have happened" because Nkomo "would have let the Russians in." Just as the Cold War helps explain why Islamic fundamentalists once were supported by the West in Afghanistan, the same reasoning was used to favor Mugabe. Washington and London may have forgotten this, but South Africa hasn't. Many there wonder why this is now being ignored. During the Cold War era, Mugabe's party was a stiff and stern critic of the African National Congress, which Mbeki now heads. At the time, Mugabe was aligned with one of the fiercest political opponents of the ANC. And although relations between Mugabe and the ANC during the anti-apartheid struggle of the 1980s were proper, they were certainly far from the picture of boon comrades that is too often portrayed in the West. One must also bear in mind that South Africa's ANC--and a number of other ruling parties in the region--hold no love for Mugabe's opposition, the Movement for Democratic Change, because it has made alliances with opposition forces in South Africa. Despite the West's support of the MDC, it is understandable that South Africa's Mbeki would not favor those allied with his political opponents. The ANC, like many parties in the region, looks with suspicion at the "Rhodesians" backing the MDC, especially because of their all-too-eerie resemblance to the whites in South Africa's opposition. The West would be well-advised to back off pressuring Mbeki to become involved in efforts to more harshly sanction Mugabe. It is too much to ask that the ANC provide aid and comfort to a movement in Zimbabwe that--if assisted to power--would then help the ANC's political foes in its own country. In fact, many South Africans believe conservatives in Washington are predisposed to eroding the influence of the ANC because of its closeness with the South African Communist Party. Instead of pressing South Africa to further ostracize Zimbabwe, the West should bolster South African leader's approach--which reportedly includes calling for a government of national unity. Punishing South Africa would be a wrongheaded policy. * Gerald Horne, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, is author of "From the Barrel of a Gun: The United States and The War Against Zimbabwe, 1965-1980" (University of North Carolina Press, 2001). _______________________________________________________________ SACP Statement on ZimbabweSACP Statement on Zimbabwe 20th March 2002 Over the last few years, the South African Communist Party (SACP) has closely observed and studied developments in Zimbabwe. The SACP has been extremely concerned about the unacceptable levels of intimidation, violence, abuse of state resources, and the enactment of repressive laws since the Zimbabwean parliamentary elections in 2000. The SACP has also been equally concerned about the centrality of the land question in Zimbabwe, and the need for all stakeholders not to be misdirected away from constructive discussion on the practical tasks facing the people of Zimbabwe and the role South Africa in particular must play. In our view, developments in Zimbabwe since the late 1980s represent an intensification of what has been an ongoing harassment of progressive trade unions, media, student and other social movement forces. The instability in Zimbabwe must be seen against the background of deepening poverty, unemployment, land hunger and general social distress after a decade of punitive structural adjustment measures demanded by the IMF and World Bank, and implemented by a government which showed signs of increasing bureaucratisation and remoteness from its mass base. The gathering economic and political crisis in Zimbabwe is impacting negatively on poor and working people in that country as well as on the economies and people of other Southern African countries, and could impede efforts to promote regional cooperation in Southern Africa. As the SACP, we believe that all Southern African countries have a responsibility to constructively and carefully engage all forces in Zimbabwe towards national unity and reconciliation. We condemn and reject the self-serving recklessness with which Western countries, Britain in particular, are demanding sanctions and the isolation of Zimbabwe as if the problems in Zimbabwe are limited to the difficult conditions which prevailed in the 2 year run-up to the elections. We also strongly reject attempts to turn South Africa into a +ACI-nanny+IB0- of Zimbabwe on behalf of Western countries. Zimbabwe is an independent country and not the 10th province of South Africa. While the recent land invasions had more to do with electoral maneouvering than the pursuit of a programme of thorough-going transformation, the long delayed resolution of the land question remains absolutely central in Zimbabwe. This requires the decisive implementation of a far-reaching land reform programme and international support for such a programme. The return, control, ownership and productive use of the land by the people is the key grievance, essence and original demand of the people Zimbabwe and their struggle against colonialism. A thorough-going land reform programme is the key obligation and issue to which the Western countries and Britain in particular must respond to. Britain must not be allowed to run away from this obligation on the pretext of the negative developments since the 2000 parliamentary elections. Therefore the SACP calls on the Zimbabwean government to ensure that the rule of law prevails, and that an environment conducive to the advancement of the basic rights to freedom of association, free and fair political activity and freedom of expression takes place. Whatever the competing electoral trajectories were, and whatever the outcome of the elections, the SACP believes that it is time for all progressive forces on all sides in Zimbabwe to pursue a strategic convergence around a shared vision of reconstruction and development, including, in particular, land reform and the stamping out of corruption and bureaucratisation. This requires co-operation and national reconciliation. In the circumstances, any attempts to cause a stalemate over the outcome of the elections will further divide and polarise the motive forces of the struggle in Zimbabwe. The unemployed and suffering rural masses need to work together and be united with their urban sisters and brothers in a struggle to reconstruct and develop Zimbabwe in their common interests. In pursuit of this outcome, the SACP will inter-act with the ANC and COSATU, and key political and social forces in Zimbabwe. It is within this overall context then that the SACP understands and appreciates that millions of Zimbabweans came out to vote in their numbers and made their choices and expressed their collective will under extremely difficult conditions. The resilience and commitment displayed by the people of Zimbabwe has been critical in understanding the elections as legitimate. In Southern Africa's recent history, we witnessed massive violence, killings of thousands of people, intimidation and repression from the apartheid regime in its attempts to block the South West African People's Organisation and the African National Congress from electoral victories in Namibia and South Africa respectively. With everything said and done, it was important, in the circumstances, to appreciate the resilience and commitment of the people of Namibia and South Africa in legitimately expressing their choice and collective will. Without doubt, the elections were held under difficult and extremely problematic conditions. In today's circumstances, we therefore believe that the attention and focus of all stakeholders must be directed towards the tasks at hand in Zimbabwe, as outlined above. To do otherwise would be to play to the agenda of Western countries which would rather leave the land question as it was in colonial Rhodesia and who do not want to advance the building of a democratic and progressive state and society in Zimbabwe. -- ______________________________________________________________ COSATU Statement on the Zimbabwe Presidential Election After consultations with its leaders, who formed part of the South African Observer Mission (SAOM), the Congress of South African Trade Unions issues this preliminary statement on the Zimbabwe Presidential election. A more comprehensive statement will be issued once a final report by SAOM has been released. COSATU's main argument is that none of the conflicting reports on the Zimbabwe Presidential election provide a convincing argument to back their conclusions. In order to convince COSATU and the South African population at large that the SAOM and other missions did not go to Zimbabwe with preconceived and fixed positions to legitimise or to condemn the election results, the respective missions are challenged to give us concrete facts and scientific evidence to back up their arguments, in particular on the impact of the issues listed below on the election results: 1. The extent that violence and intimidation may have contributed to the numbers of people registering, the way people voted or low voter turnout. 2. The extent to which the illegal roadblocks erected by the youth militias and police harassment and bias or their reluctance to act may have or may have not influenced the election results. 3. The manner in which the electoral process was administered, including the legislative framework, voter registration and education. 4. The ability of the parties to freely organise gatherings to canvass support. Initial reports indicates that the ZANU had 60 rallies to the MDC'8. Reports indicate that the police interpreted the Public Order Act to ban opposition party's gatherings. The MDC claims that 83 of the elections rallies were either disrupted or banned. Have these claims been verified? 5. The voters'roll was never published to allow voters to check if their names appeared in it. The polling stations were announced on the eve of the elections. The polling stations in the urban areas were arbitrarily reduced. The high court ruling extending the voting days to three days was not fully complied with. To what extent did these in factors disenfranchise voters? Did these factors affect the final outcome of elections? 6. What standards were used to judge the elections? Was it the SADC electoral code? Did it consider the Commonwealth Harare Declaration or is the verdict based narrowly on Zimbabwe's controversial legislative framework?. 7. The media in Zimbabwe is highly polarised. Of concern is that the state's own media should give equal access to all contestants. Did the missions check scientifically how the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation covered all the parties in an unbiased manner? To what extent did this lack of access and polarisation contribute to misinforming the voters? 8. The impact of the sudden availability of mealie meal allegedly provided by the Zimbabwean government in some parts of the country. It must be recalled that that there was a chronic mealie meal shortage for months. 9. On the election days, it is alleged that government provided food and transport to only ZANU-PF polling agents. Secondly there are claims that MDC polling agents were chased away from many polling stations in the rural areas. Were these claims investigated and, if there is truth in these claims, to what extent did this compromise the election results? 10. There were claims that soap caused marks to appear on hands of potential voters similar to the ink used in the voting stations was sold during elections days in some parts of Bulawayo. Was this claim investigated, and if this is the truth, to what extent did this compromise the goal of a free and fair election? 11. On the refusal to accredit observers: COSATU's own elections observers, and observers from the Southern African Trade Union Coordinating Council (SATUCC), Zimbabwe's own civil society and some European countries were not accredited on claims that they were biased against ZANU-PF. How many other observers were not allowed to observe elections and what was the impact of this to ensuring that all polling stations were covered and all elections activities monitored? Background COSATU had lobbied for a multi-stakeholder mission. In the build-up to the elections COSATU had added its voice to calls for a free and fair election and urged the Zimbabwe government to create a environment conducive for holding of free and fair elections. To that extent we had hoped that an observer mission would at least bring pressure to bear on all parties, particularly the government, to ensure a free and fair election. We applaud President Mbeki for his timely response to the call for a multi-stakeholder observer mission to Zimbabwe. COSATU believes that the presence of observers did contribute to the improving of the environment and ensuring restraint. While noting the conflicting verdicts on the elections COSATU believes that until a substantive analysis of the factors listed above is provided, it may well be difficult to have a consensus on the elections. Already there are divergent views on the outcome. COSATU had argued that the it would be difficult to attain free and fair elections in Zimbabwe taking into account the political environment since the 2000 parliamentary elections. COSATU consistently called for decisive interventions by the international community, in particular SADC, to ensure a free and fair election. The fact that most of the international community chose to ignore our pleas and act only on the eve of the election made it too late to reverse the accumulated damage. On the face of it, there is compelling evidence that the electoral process was fraught with irregularities, violence and intimidation, a biased media, and in some respects bias on the part of the police in some parts of the country. The legislative framework did not allow for a level playing field. The uncertainty created by court ruling, the defiance of the ruling and the last minute introduction of regulations resulted in massive confusion and inadequate preparations by the electoral authorities. While the election days were peaceful, the allocation of voting stations seems not to have been based on the number of voters in the constituency. Consequently, there were long queues, resulting in many people not able to exercise their democratic right. At the same time we must recognise that close to two- thirds of eligible voters did cast their vote. Secondly the opposition parties did participate in the election up to the last day. There no reports suggesting widespread rigging of the counting process. This means the over 3 million voters did exercise their democratic right. If the elections were judged solely on this, then it can be concluded that they were legitimate. However, we need a holistic analysis of the period prior to the elections, the election days and the post- election period. It is now incumbent on all observer missions to provide a compelling analysis of the elections. Until such an analysis is provided it will remain difficult to emerge with a cogent verdict on the elections. COSATU urges the SAOM to take the factors listed above into account and to make a final verdict on the elections, notwithstanding its preliminary verdict that the elections were not "free and fair but legitimate." COSATU urges the SAOM and others to change their verdicts if there is compelling evidence that suggest otherwise. Zimbabweans are now provided an opportunity to build a new political dispensation. This is a time for leadership and not vindictive politics. President Mugabe is provided with a historic opportunity to lead Zimbabwe out of this political quagmire. The international community has an obligation to assist Zimbabweans to emerge out of their political impasse. This is a time for constructive engagement by all parties. We support the Commonwealth Observer Mission's call on the Zimbabweans to unite behind the need to rebuild their country. Zimbabweans must join hands to tackle the following socio-economic issues: ? Economic crisis, in particular food shortages, massive poverty in the rural areas, high levels of unemployment, etc; ? Fostering a less polarised atmosphere and working for national reconciliation and peace and elimination of intolerance; ? Lifting of media restrictions and promotion of free flow of information, as well as access of all to the state media; ? Restoration of all civil rights including freedom of movement, speech, assembly and association and repealing of all legislation that limits these and undermines democracy. ? Withdrawal of threats to trade union independence, in particular the threats by President Mugabe to deregister the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU); ? Withdrawal of treason charges against MDC leaders. Lastly COSATU fully backs the three-day general strike called by the ZCTU, in support of their fight for basic trade union and human rights. COSATU deplores the action of plain-clothes police who forced their way into a private meeting of the ZCTU Executive Council on 14 March, in contravention of the International Labour Organisation's Convention 87 which gives workers' organisation the right to organise freely without interference. COSATU also condemns the harassment of workers by government militias and the police, which the ZCTU say has intensified since the 9-11 March election. COSATU also is concerned at the threat by the Zimbabwe government to deregister the ZCTU and its proposed ?anti-terrorist" law, which would make socio-economic, and political strikes illegal. Patrick Craven and Moloto Mothapo Acting COSATU Spokespersons _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
