The International Community

It may seem trite but Zimbabwe cannot survive without the support of the international community. Zimbabwe is relatively weak, landlocked and oil-less. Correspondingly both ZANU (PF) and the MDC cannot survive without the support of the international community. ZANU (PF), because it cannot hope to restore the economy and govern in the long term without that support. The MDC, because it does not have the physical power itself to guarantee a free and fair election. The views of the International Community regarding what is happening in Zimbabwe are therefore equally important to the MDC and ZANU (PF). ZANU (PF) needed the international community to buy its argument that land is the core issue and that it is an innocent actor. The MDC needed the international community to buy its argument that good governance is the core issue.

It was with this in mind that Mugabe selected his cabinet. For example his choice of Jonathan Moyo as Information Minister was not made with Zimbabweans in mind but rather with the international community, and especially SADC, in mind. When ZANU (PF) came within a whisker of losing the June 2000 election they realised then that they would battle to win the first-past-the-post-countrywide Presidential election. To win they would have to implement the fast track land programme and increase levels of intimidation and violence. But it recognised early on that it would have to create elaborate smokescreens because it could not embark on such schemes with impunity unless ZANU (PF) could portray itself as a relatively innocent actor. Mugabe knows that he will still have to govern Zimbabwe after the election and that he will not be able to do so without international assistance. In other words not only did ZANU (PF) have to get the international community to buy its argument as to what the cause of the strife within Zimbabwe was, but also it had to get the international community to turn a blind eye to abuses of human rights so that Mugabe’s government would be recognised and aid would flow after the election. And so Jonathan Moyo’s task has been to convey to the world that ZANU (PF) is merely responding to people pressure for land and that Morgan Tsvangirai and the MDC are unreconstructed "terrorists". If the international community, and especially SADC, bought into ZANU (PF)’s argument, ZANU (PF) could subvert the electoral process with impunity. Mugabe cynically calculated that the West would apply a different standard to Zimbabwe ("African elections are violent") and that African nations would be sympathetic to the argument that the land invasions were uncontrollable and that in any event the MDC was just as violent as ZANU (PF). In other words he calculated that he would be able to get away with bludgeoning his way to electoral victory and that the international community would simply forgive and forget after he resumed the presidency.

The MDC has had to counter massive internal and international propaganda of ZANU (PF) that land was the core issue, that the violence was not of ZANU (PF)’s making but part of "spontaneous demonstrations" by landless people and that the MDC was a violent neo-colonial outfit designed to return Zimbabwe to Rhodesia.

The MDC has faced a daunting task to overcome this strategy. Not only is Zimbabwe a tiny country with an inconsequential economy on the world’s forgotten continent, but also it had to contend with western scepticism and ignorance. Added to that it was up against a government that was prepared to use millions of taxpayers’ money to employ lobbyists. But the MDC has won this battle.

To demonstrate this it is appropriate to start with the United States of America. Both ZANU (PF) and the MDC recognised that the approach of the USA was critically important, not just because it is so powerful but in particular because it holds so much sway in South Africa. That is why ZANU (PF) employed American lobbyists Cohen and Woods and subsequently Andrew Young to do its bidding in Washington. Cohen and Woods had much fertile ground to work with when they started. Successive MDC delegations to Washington in 2000 found that many influential members of the all-important Congressional Black Caucus still viewed Mugabe as a "liberator". Others had bought into the ZANU (PF) line that the chaos was the result of an unresolved colonial, and racial, legacy.

The tragic events of September 11th initially appeared to make the MDC’s task harder. The international media turned its attention elsewhere and it seemed to many hoping for democratic change in Zimbabwe that Mugabe had the perfect cover. But our fears have not been realised for, far from it going off the radar screen, Zimbabwe has come into sharp focus in the minds of many influential Americans since the 11th September.

The first inkling of this was given when United States District Judge Victor Marrero handed down his 130 page judgement on the 30th October 2001 in the case brought against Mugabe for damages by Adella Chiminya, Maria Stevens and others who have lost loved ones at the hands of Mugabe’s thugs. Judge Marrero found that Tapfuma Chiminya, David Stevens and the other loved ones were, because of their support for the MDC, "extra judicially murdered …by operatives of ZANU (PF) operating in concert with or significantly aided by high-ranking Zimbabwe government officials acting outside the colour of state law". However the Judge found that he could not grant judgement against Mugabe because he enjoyed head-of-state immunity. The Judge was clearly pained by this and as he said "the enormity of the atrocities". Accordingly he qualified his judgement by stating:

"resort to head-of-state immunity as a shield for private abuses of the sovereign’s office is wearing thinner in the eyes of the world and waning in the cover of the law. The prevailing trend teaches that the day (will) come to pass when those who violate their public trust are called upon…to render account for the wrongs they inflict on innocents." 

Then significantly the Judge, who sits in New York, made a telling link between the case at hand and the events of 11th September by stating:

"Today, events around us bear witness almost daily to the destructive power of individuals whose chosen way of life is to do wrong by inflicting harms of mass proportions. With modern means, the hands of one or a few persons hold the force sufficient to wreak in moments wanton destruction and horror of a magnitude that it once took whole armies to inflict….(t)o iniquity’s purpose of propagating large-scale grief, as evidenced by the case at hand, its capacity for injustice is virtually limitless because it honours none of the self-imposed restraints that contain the conduct of the civilised world within decent bounds."

Having made that link of terror the Judge concluded by calling for the law to "stand ready to adapt as appropriate, to shape, redress and remedy so as to answer measure for measure the particular evil it pursues" and granting judgement against the only entity he could, namely ZANU (PF). I have dwelt on this judgement because it illustrates what informed ordinary apolitical Americans think about what is going on in Zimbabwe, who is responsible for terror in this country and what should be done about it. The judgement also decisively placed Mugabe on the wrong side of President Bush’s fence dividing those who oppose and those who support terrorism throughout the world.

Ironically both Mugabe and Jonathan Moyo have further compounded their predicament since the beginning of November. Mugabe, in an emotional speech given on the 18th November, said that he would not be dictated to by those "in their tall towers" in the West and accused Tony Blair of being involved in acts of terrorism in Zimbabwe. In mid November the ZBC, which falls under Moyo’s command, started mimicking CNN’s by-line "The fight against terrorism" to describe ZANU (PF)’s crack down on the MDC. These actions demean America’s legitimate fight against real terrorists and lost Mugabe any remaining friends he might have still had in America.

The first sign of this loss of support was given in the photograph of Jesse Jackson congratulating Daily News editor Geoff Nyarota (who had just received a press freedom award in Washington) on the 28th November. Jackson, it will be recalled, has been in the past a Mugabe apologist. Jackson’s action in meeting Nyarota was a harbinger of things to come. In early December the House of Representatives was called upon to vote on the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Bill. ZANU (PF) thought that the Congressional Black Caucus would vote against it. But in a truly historic vote the Bill passed by 369 votes to 11. Not a single member of the CBC voted against it and the 369 affirmative votes included every informed and influential member of the CBC. So much for Mugabe’s assertion that this is only a racist Jesse Helms Bill! The action of the CBC in this regard demonstrates the determination of all Americans to fight terrorism in whatever forms it appears and is a damning indictment against Mugabe. The strong language used by highly respected former Chairperson of the CBC, Donald Payne, in supporting the language must have shaken Mugabe and ZANU (PF) to the core.

The signing of the Zimbabwe Democracy Economic Recovery Bill (ZIDERA) into law by President Bush just before Christmas completed the transformation, in the minds of Americans, of Mugabe from African statesman to tyrant and marked the beginning of a new chapter. The Act in itself is graphic evidence of the failure of ZANU (PF)’s propaganda campaign and an acceptance that the lack of good governance in Zimbabwe is at the core of Zimbabwe’s crisis. More worrying for Mugabe and his henchmen is the fact that ZIDERA signals America’s determination to assist in the democratisation of Zimbabwe. If Mugabe does not hold free and fair elections there will be dramatic consequences for the ZANU (PF) elite in the form of personal sanctions. Gone too is Mugabe’s argument that the Zimbabwe crisis is simply a spat with its former colonial master, Britain. Finally, America’s lead will have, and already has had, a powerful influence over the way the EU, SADC, and the Commonwealth deal with the problem.

The transformation of the EU’s approach to the Zimbabwean crisis over the last year has been equally remarkable. At the beginning of 2001 France, Belgium and, to a lesser extent Spain, were not convinced that the MDC’s version of what lay at the core of Zimbabwe’s problems was correct. That attitude was complicated by the fact that France and Belgium appeared to be reluctant to jeopardise their relationship with Mugabe because of concerns related to Zimbabwe’s involvement in the Congo. Without the support of France and Belgium, forthright action against Zimbabwe in the EU would have been difficult if not impossible. The turn around of France and Belgium on the 29th October, when they voted with the rest of the EU to invoke Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement (the precursor to sanctions against Zimbabwe) surprised many of us in the MDC and was deeply shocking to ZANU (PF) – they just never believed that their erstwhile friends would do such a thing. The depth of their shock was displayed when Mugabe walked out (in a huff) of a meeting with senior EU ambassadors in Harare on the 23rd November. This is the man who used to be able to charm world leaders and who has successfully pulled the wool over the eyes of democratically elected leaders for decades. He finally lost his cool and let his guard down because he realised that the game is up. The bottom line is the EU is now also an avowed enemy of ZANU (PF) and former supporters of the party such as Sweden are vilified. The reason: the EU also has firmly rejected ZANU (PF)’s propaganda line and is demanding that there be free and fair elections and good governance. If there are not Article 96 will be pursued vigorously. 

Zimbabweans have been extremely critical, with good cause, of the Commonwealth over the last two years. It all started with Secretary General McKinnon’s disastrous assurance given just before the June 2000 election that Mugabe would act decently. Since then there have been a succession of wishy-washy Commonwealth statements and actions (or more appropriately inactions) that have discredited the organisation. It is not surprising that ZANU (PF) until recently were happy to have the Commonwealth monitor Zimbabwean elections. The strongly worded statement, that the situation constituted a "serious and persistent violation of the Commonwealth’s fundamental political values", emanating from the Commonwealth Ministers’ Action Group (CMAG) on the 20th December would have shocked ZANU (PF). CMAG resolved to review the situation at its next meeting, to be held on the 30th January 2002, and Zimbabwe has been placed on the formal agenda of the meeting, in itself a statement that the Zimbabwean crisis is now sufficiently serious to merit special attention. Not even the Commonwealth now buys into ZANU (PF)’s agenda.

Accordingly by the end of 2001 a broad coalition of the United States, the EU and the Commonwealth emerged. All are determined to ensure that Zimbabwe has free and fair Presidential elections. The only apparent source of comfort to ZANU (PF) was the statement issued by some SADC Ministers on the 12th December welcoming the "improved atmosphere" in Zimbabwe. ZANU (PF) has made much of this statement, which has led many to believe that SADC is going to look the other way and allow ZANU (PF) to abuse the electoral process. Whilst there is no doubt that some SADC countries, which are themselves undemocratic, support ZANU (PF) it would be wrong to assume that the SADC Ministers’ statement represents the views of the most influential countries in the region. It is pertinent to note that Ministers from Angola and Namibia dominated the SADC meeting and that Ministers from South Africa and Botswana left the meeting prior to its conclusion. 

Indeed far from SADC looking the other way there are signs that democratic leaders in the region are increasingly concerned about Zimbabwe. Festus Mogae, the President of Botswana, openly criticised Mugabe and his war veterans in an interview in the Sunday Times on the 11th November. During the week commencing the 26th November President Mbeki spoke out against what was happening in Zimbabwe on no less than 3 separate occasions. On the 20th December a high ranking ANC delegation arrived in Harare for talks with ZANU (PF) and prior to its arrival the SABC announced that part of its mission was to secure free and fair elections. It is highly significant that neither party at the conclusion of the talks made any press release and save for one article in the Herald claiming, without any supporting statement from the ANC, that the ANC was in solidarity with ZANU (PF), the ZANU (PF) propaganda machine has been remarkably quiet about the visit. If anything the government controlled media and Jonathan Moyo have spent most of December criticising South Africa. In the December 18th edition of the Chronicle there was a vicious cartoon portraying Nelson Mandela as a lackey of Bush and Blair. In Parliament on the 18th December Jonathan Moyo said: "Those who see the likes of the BBC, CNN and SABC as voices of democracy are either naïve or plain mad". Subsequently Moyo stated in a press conference that the South African media were still under the control of apartheid forces. Throughout December there was a sustained attack on the ANC in the Herald implying that it was now being influenced by, and had sold out to, the New Nationalist Party. Clearly ZANU (PF) now perceives the ANC as an enemy because it too is insisting on a fair electoral process.

The real test of who is in control of SADC and what the most powerful States in SADC think about the Zimbabwean situation will be shown when the SADC Heads of State meet in Malawi on the 13th January. Whatever happens there however what is now clear is that a very powerful coalition comprising the United States, the European Union, an overwhelming majority of democratic Commonwealth countries and the two most powerful neighbours of Zimbabwe, South Africa and Botswana, has emerged during the course of 2001. This coalition is determined to ensure that free and fair elections take place and has come to the conclusion that whilst the land issue is an important unresolved issue, the principal problem is the absence of good governance. The MDC now has the most powerful and influential countries on earth singing from the same hymn sheet as it and this particular hurdle is now firmly overcome. There will be no going back on the international community’s insistence that free and fair elections be held in compliance with the SADC Electoral Norms and Standards as passed by the SADC Parliamentary Forum in Windhoek in March 20001. ZANU (PF) will only snub that insistence at its peril.

One final thought: once a politician, or a political party for that matter, is marked as a pariah the stain is indelible. There is now nowhere for Mugabe to hide. Either he complies with the international community and holds elections in compliance with the SADC Standards, in which case he will lose by a mile, or he does not, in which case if he manages to win the result will not be recognised by the countries which count in the region and the world in any event. 

The views expressed in this letter (are attributed to David Coltart - MDC Legal Affairs, Zimbabwe, and) do not necessarily reflect the views of the MDC (Movement for Democratic Change).

It's time to complete the change (in Zimbabwe) | The International Community 
Support of the people (in Zimbabwe) | The Candidate (Morgan Tsvangirai) | The Final Lap