Posted on 08/16/2002 4:09:32 AM PDT by Clive
Finally a government minister has admitted it: South Africa hasn't a clue what to do about the rapidly deteriorating political and economic crisis in Zimbabwe.
"What is it that we are expected to do?" Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister Aziz Pahad asked journalists on Wednesday as they repeatedly pressed him on what South Africa was doing about the crisis across its border.
"In all our consultations with the international community and our colleagues on the continent, the question always comes up - 'What can be done more than what is being done now?' "
Pahad admitted the only idea Pretoria could come up with was to continue to join its Commonwealth partner Nigeria in pressing for a resumption of the stalled talks between President Robert Mugabe's ruling Zanu-PF and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change.
"It is a matter that we are concerned with and we are trying to deal with it. We are part of the process with Nigeria to find a way forward."
The talks had not resumed because of Zanu-PF's refusal to take part as long as the MDC continued to challenge the results of March's presidential election.
Government sources said relations between President Thabo Mbeki and Mugabe were still strained after two of Harare's state-owned newspapers quoted a leaked letter which Mbeki and his Nigerian counterpart, Olusegun Obasanjo, had written to Mugabe.
The letter warned Mugabe of an intensified international siege and encouraged him to push his party back into talks with the MDC.
Pahad said suggestions of military intervention were "nonsensical". "There's no way that we can take any option seriously: it's not our way of dealing with things."
And there was a limit to what could be done about Mugabe's apparent defiance of international pressure.
The European Union's sanctions on Zimbabwe - in the form of a travel ban - for example, did not seem to be having an impact.
Pahad disagreed with suggestions by journalists that South Africa was applying double standards in its responses to the crises in the Middle East and Zimbabwe.
"In no way can that (the Zimbabwean crisis) be equated with the level of the depth of the problem between Israel and Palestine," he said.
The situation in Zimbabwe had "not reached a situation, in our view, that's endangering regional security and international stability."
In comparison, the conflict between Israel and Palestine was "a very, very volatile situation".
Democratic Alliance spokesman Andries Botha said that although Zimbabwe's threat to regional stability might not be as acute as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it was still very serious, and should not be dismissed by Pahad.
"Zimbabwe is facing its worst famine ever, a famine virtually entirely of President Mugabe's and his Zanu- PF party's making.
"This, combined with the destruction of property rights and the complete collapse of the Zimbabwe economy, will reverberate throughout the region, including... the creation of large numbers of economic refugees."
One important difference between the situation in Zimbabwe and the Middle East crisis was that South Africa's potential influence was radically different.
"South Africa's leverage over Zimbabwe is immense, and our failure to use it deplorable," Botha said.
A Zimbabwean cabinet minister accused white
farmers on Wednesday of bringing in impostors to evict them from their farms, in order to attract attention and paint a bleak picture of the situation in the country.
"We are fully aware of the gimmick that is going on and these impostors are being made to pose as if they were war veterans," Lands and Agriculture Minister Joseph Made said.
"It's the usual case of demonising the war veterans."
One which, by the way, they have characterized as, while not being "free and fair" by international standards is nevertheless "valid" by African standards.
As to the question "What is it that we are expected to do?":
First step, they could use their considerable influence to have the AU oust Zim the way it has ousted Madagascar.
Second, as two of the three members of the sub-committee of the Commonwealth on Zim they could agree to expulsion, as was once done to South Africa, instead of mere suspension.
Then they could impose the same kind of sanctions that have been imposed by western nations.
Then they could use force majeur to ensure that the food shipments are guarded against plunder by Zim government thugs and that the food distribution is fair.
These are just a few of the possibilities short of military action. There are numerous ways in which they can express their disapproval.
And anyway, what is so wrong with military action as a remedy?
In saner times (back in the bad old imperialist days), competent states bordering on such chaos would have marched in and divided up the nation between them. (Perhaps giving the Shona high veldt to Moz and the Ndebele low veldt to SA) but of course that is not going to happen.
I have long argued that there needs to be a British led military mission to Zimbabwe to evacuate the remaining farmers. Mugabe would be told, firmly, that if he interfered, any troops of his would be killed and so would he. He would likely try to do so, in which case, cry havoc and open fire.
Regards, Ivan
In Sierra Leone, the force consisted of a battalion of first para, a commando of Royal Marines embarked on HMS Ocean (LPH) airlifted artillery pieces from HMS Ocean, Harrier sorties from HMS Illustrious (CVS} plus the escorts and RFAs stationed off Freeport.
Freeport was in friendly hands, albeit pressed by the insurgents, so there was a port to facilitate logistics.
The government welcomed the expedition under the ostensible reason of "extraction of Brit civilians" which made the expedition less repugnant to Africa than simple force majeur would have been.
Zim's eastern border is 250 km from the port of Biera in Mozambique and the nearest place for a task force is the Mozambique Channel. Airlift of troops and supplies would have to cross Mozambique or, a longer trip, South Africa. Coming at it across the Kalahari is just not on.
A Brit expedition could use ostensible "extraction of Brit and Commonwealth nationals" as its justification, but it would need not only the acquescence of Mozambique and South Africa but also their active collaboration, otherwise the whole of Africa would rise up against the idea.
I am totally uninterested in what the rest of Africa wants. After reading David Blair's magnum opus on the subject, if we have to go in with guns blazing, so be it. Let Mugabe's rotting corpse twist in the wind in downtown Harare (Salisbury) with a sign around his neck, Sic semper tyrannus.
It's not a question of if we can. I believe that with enough arm twisting and bribery one African nation could be persuaded to give us a base. It is a question of having the will to do so. I am not particularly fussed about the technicalities of the farmers having British passports or not - they need to be extracted from there before they are slaughtered. Hopefully we can do that and slaughter Mugabe in the process.
Regards, Ivan
Most people think of South Africa when considering a base for operations against Zim, and that is the traditional route, but my opinion is that Mozambique would be the key.
…… The original decision to nominate Libya was taken by the U.N.'s African regional group, comprising all 54 African members. It was reaffirmed by heads of state attending the recently concluded inaugural summit of the new African Union (AU), the successor to the now-defunct Organisation of African Unity (OAU). Joanna Weschler of HRW told IPS that the African group could change its mind on the nomination. "It is 100 percent in the hands of the African group, and if they so wish, they can reverse the decision."
Mungoven said that Libya's nomination violated African leaders' recent commitments to promote human rights and good governance through the New African Partnership for Development (NEPAD) which has been endorsed by leaders of the Group of Eight (G-8) countries: the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Canada, Italy and Russia. At a meeting of G-8 leaders in Canada last month, NEPAD was assured of about six billion dollars in Western aid annually, starting in 2006. But this was based on the condition that African nations make a strong commitment to multi-party democracy, rule of law, respect for human rights, fair and free elections and free market economies.
NEPAD establishes a code of governance supporting basic freedoms and a system of peer review so African governments can hold one another to account for human rights violations, among other things. NEPAD's steering group comprises presidents Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal, Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria, Daniel arap Moi of Kenya and Muammar el-Gaddafi of Libya. HRW said Libya's nomination was a "real setback" for African governments' stated new commitment to human rights. "Libya's appointment to the steering group of NEPAD has already raised eyebrows among supporters of NEPAD," Mungoven said. "But putting Libya forward as Africa's choice to lead the world's human rights forum should really ring alarm bells," he added.****
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.