Flaws in western dealings with Zimbabwe
Updated 2002
Zimbabwe's political crisis has been characterised by a bout of political arm wrestling between the country's political incumbents, notably Minister of State Jonathan Moyo and President Mugabe, and the British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, US Senators, and EU Commissioner Chris Patten.
Statements by the British Government have condemned President Mugabe, re-affirming at the same time the UK's commitment to democracy and social justice in the region. Speaking at Westminster Hall on 23 January 2002, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ben Bradshaw, agreed with the need for tough action towards Zimbabwe and added 'the British Government unreservedly condemns those flagrant attacks on democratic principles and practice'.
On February 1 2002, the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and the British Foreign Secretary were also very eager to denounce the government's attempt at stifling the press implying that possible punitive measures against Zimbabwe might be operational soon. While EU tough diplomacy brought Zimbabwe one step closer to sanctions and an assets freeze, the leaders of the 14-nation Southern African Development Community (SADC) that gathered in Malawi in early January 2002 failed to press charges against Zimbabwean leadership and resumed to passively accept the President's pledge that Zimbabwe's elections would be free and fair. The newspapers elegantly described the leniency of SADC leaders as 'quiet diplomacy'.
It is clear that the current political environment is characterised by asymmetrical international relations and faltering leadership from regional actors, which visibly stand for co-operation and non confrontation, empathy rather than action. Courtesy of the West's past colonial ventures, Mugabe's political discourse has re-interpreted the West's criticism as imperialism. He has declared himself at war with the British government, and depicted local media representatives as agents furthering the imperialist agenda of foreign powers. So conceived by the octogenarian president, Zimbabwe could best be described as the point where two worlds collide.
The West itself is not devoid of responsibility. It has at times contributed to support the claims of a neo-colonial struggle and so too often 'special cases' like Zimbabwe have been treated with condescension, hypocrisy or indifference. Britain herself passed a Terrorism Act in summer 2000 that, James Hammerton, described as 'a serious assault on civil liberties, using an extremely broad definition of terrorism.' The European Parliament overwhelmingly backs anti-terrorism warrants. The USA legislation, on its part, presently allows detention without charge or trial of non-nationals believed to be a 'threat to national security.'
As things stand at present, is clear that in Zimbabwe the recourse to the politics of race, and consequent clampdown on fundamental human rights, such as freedom of expression, have been the temptation of a President who is desperate to remain in power after 9-10 March.