Flaws in western dealings with Zimbabwe (continued)

The denunciations of the West, particularly Britain, and its demands for democratic credentials have been the expedient of a regime to respond to the many frustrations when confronted by the international community.

It goes without saying that the international community should remain constructively engaged with the Government of Zimbabwe. However, an international response should have had some kind of regional leadership, able to break ranks with Zimbabwe and enforce a minimum of democratic standards.

On 14 August 2001, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) appointed a task force consisting of Angola, Botswana, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia and South Africa to assist Zimbabwe overcome its problems. This was followed on 10-11 September 2001 by a Summit of the SADC Task Force to support the process established by the Abuja Agreement, reached at the initiative of President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria.

The subsequent SADC Summit in Blantyre, Malawi on 14 January 2002 endorsed Mugabe as he pledged to hold presidential elections in a free and fair manner. The initiative of African leaders, and especially some form of political pressure coming from the regional superpower, South Africa would have contributed to limiting impunity and human rights violations.

Key players such as Britain, the EU, the US Congress - and perhaps the UN's Secretary General - should have lobbied African governments and engaged regional institutions to strengthen democratic pressure in preparation for these elections. If regional action had been put in place then, the EU and US could apply sanctions now amidst the general perception that the whole African continent is firm on democracy. Missing that kind of backing, unilateral action from the West will risk alienating the regional governments.

Foreign powers should reassess their stance and formulate responses that avoid playing into President Mugabe's hands by allowing him to portray Western diplomacy as undue interference in Zimbabwe's sovereignty. There exists a real threat in the country that the remaining space for public debate might be reduced and rights to freedom of expression, opinion and association totally suppressed. If this were to happen, Zimbabwe's electorate would be left to rely on the state-owned newspapers such as The Herald and Sunday Mail.

International condemnation would be more constructive if it came from within the region, so as to avoid being perceived as undue interference in Zimbabwe's domestic politics. On the other hand, the European Union, most critically Britain and the United States, should abandon hypocrisy and embrace modesty, the premise being the need to find avenues and incentives for co-operation.