AFRICAN DEMOCRATIC LEADERS RISE UP AGAINST MUGABE

Chika Onyeani bio & history

July 2, 2008 1:07 AM EST

What the Zimbabwean situation has shown is that there are quite a few African leaders with democratic credentials who are no longer willing to acquiesce in the politics of the former OAU (Organization os African Unity).  That organization, popularly known as the “club of dictators,” died and was buried in 2002.  We are beginning to see the emergence of credible African leaders.

Several African leaders who were elected on the platform of democracy are increasingly voicing their opposition to the dictatorship of Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. Leading this charge is the country regarded as the most democratic, Botswana, which last Sunday called on the African Union to bar Mugabe from attending the Heads of State meeting in the Egyptian resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh.  It was also Botswana that first called attention to the appalling situation in Zimbabwe when it called in the Zimbabwe High Commissioner in Botswana and lectured him about the arrest of opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai.

On the issue of admitting Mugabe to the meeting, Botswana again took the lead in objecting to his admission.  Vice President Mompati Merathe said,

“In our considered view, it therefore follows that the representatives of the current government in Zimbabwe should be excluded from attending SADC (Southern African Development Community) and African Union meetings.” “Their participation in the meetings of the two organizations would give unqualified legitimacy to a process which cannot be considered legitimate.” Continuing, Mr. Merathe said, “It is also Botswana’s strong view that the mediation process must treat both parties as equals.”

This is the first time an African country has come out boldly to call for severe punishment against Mugabe.

Joining in the criticism against Mugabe was Nobel Peace Prize winner, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who stated that Mugabe should not have anything to do with Zimbabwe’s future.  And further said,

“If you were to have a unanimous voice, saying quite clearly to Mr Mugabe … you are illegitimate and we will not recognise your administration in any shape or form I think that would be a very, very powerful signal and would really strengthen the hand of the international community.”

And surprise of all surprises, the Nigerian delegation is said to have echoed Botswana’s views, in that they too “would refuse to recognize Mugabe as Zimbabwe’s sixth president.  In fact, coming from Nigeria, it is a major departure from the cuddling that Mugabe has received from major African leaders who, because of their own records, have been reluctant in criticizing Mugabe publicly.  It would be remembered that the current Nigerian president, Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, himself was elected under what international observers also regard as a sham election in 2007.  It would appear that Yar’Adua is now comfortable in taking a more decisive role expected of the most populous and arguably one of the two most powerful black countries in Africa. 

Nigeria’s position must put South African President Thabo Mbeki is a very awkward position.  Mbeki, who the SADC countries had chosen as mediator between Mugabe and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai has been very reluctant in saying remotely appearing as criticism of Mugabe.  His stance has been condemned internationally, as well as domestically.  In what is seen as a rebuke to Mbeki, world icon, Nelson Mandela, called Mugabe “a failure of leadership.” Even his own party, the ANC now led by Jacob Zuma, said it was dismayed as what is going on in Zimbabwe.

Other SADC countries have also severely criticized Mugabe.  Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga last week said that Mugabe was an eye-sore to Africa, and then called on the African Union for Mugabe’s suspension after the sham elections.  From West Africa, President Abdoulaye Wade sounded the alarm on how the military was on its way to arrest Tsvangirai, and being informed escaped into the Dutch embassy where he is still holed up.

Most importantly, though, credit for the African Union resolution rebuking Mugabe and calling for him to negotiate with opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, must go to current AU Chairman, President Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania, whose bonafides as a democracy champion is well acknowledged.  Already, before the summit, Tanzania’s foreign minister was one of the first to sound the alarm about the act of violence, intimidation and murder of Mugabe’s political opponents.

Of the troika that were mandated to monitor the elections, Tanzania, Mozambique and Angola, only Angola seems to be playing cat and mouse with the others, apparently in view of the Angola’s personal friendship with Mugabe.  That’s unfortunate. Eduardo dos Santos of Angola is fast tarnishing his image by not speaking out against tyranny in Zimbabwe. 

The resolution calling on Mugabe to negotiate might not be to everybody’s like, especially the international community, but hey, it is a far cry from what has been happening in Africa before.  The resolution might not be strictly in keeping with the new charter of the African Union, but at least it is an attempt to enforce the Act’s right of intervention, to prevent a “serious threat to legitimate order.”

Evarist Baimu and Kathrun Sturman summed up the Act, as follows:

The AU Act is the first international treaty to recognize the right to intervene for a humanitarian purpose (humanitarian intervention). The Act provides in article 4(h) that the AU has the right to intervene in a member state pursuant to a decision of the Assembly in respect of ‘grave circumstances’, namely war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.15 The Act does not indicate whether the definition of intervention is to be restricted to the use of force or it is to be viewed broadly as including mediation, peacekeeping missions, sanctions and any other non-forcible measures.16 In this paper, the term is used in the restrictive sense of intervention by means of military force.

What the Zimbabwean situation has shown is that there are quite a few African leaders with democratic credentials who are no longer willing to acquiesce in the politics of the former OAU (Organization os African Unity).  That organization, popularly known as the “club of dictators,” died and was buried in 2002.  We are beginning to see the emergence of credible African leaders. 

To comment on this article, please click here.