CRITICISM has been leveled against the Zimbabwe government’s and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change's efforts to resolve the crisis in Zimbabwe by holding talks. While concerns about sincerity on the part of each side remain valid, it is in Zimbabwe’s long-term interest not only to support the crisis talks, but refrain from words and actions that could jeopardize the process.
Last year, the Zimbabwe government launched peace talks with the MDC in Pretoria, South Africa which led to changes in Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA), the Public Order and Security Act (POSA) and the Broadcasting Services Act (BSA) - laws whose changes necessitated the display of election results at polling stations and the scrapping of presidential appointments in Parliament, among other significant changes.
On Monday July 21, the Zanu PF government signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the two formations of the MDC which paved the way for talks between the two traditional rivals and they resolved to hold talks.
While Zimbabweans have welcomed the new initiatives, the United States and the European Union have expressed reservations. Rather than reservations, these two groups should offer something entirely different: restraint and support for the negotiations.
The first priority of the Zimbabwean government should be to establish peace and stability within Zimbabwe, where violence is halted to a zero. If the opposition is seen to place the interests of the United States or E.U. before those of Zimbabwe, it will experience the same legitimacy problems they are saying are being faced by President Mugabe. This will undermine a peaceful transition in Zimbabwe and will be a source of instability in the country and possibly the region.
If current negotiations fail because of any type of recalcitrance, Zimbabweans will be left with very few options and the crisis could escalate to neighbouring countries with severe political and economic consequences. Further polarisation will occur in Zimbabwe and violence could well be on the increase.
The South African government recognizes the need for a regional approach in order for peace to become sustainable. But it also believes in a step-by-step approach. Once it has established a “working relationship” with both political parties, they could potentially facilitate talks in Zimbabwe.
In recent weeks both the Zanu PF government and the opposition MDC have exhibited battle fatigue and seem willing to talk to resolve the Zimbabwean crisis. They have reached out to each other and this could prove to be an effective step forward.
To support peace talks and also preserve its security interests in the region, the United States and the E.U. should first encourage better coordination. Zimbabwe’s political transition and internal strife has led to the stalling of high-level coordination meetings with U.S. and the E.U. This has been unfortunate and talks between the E.U. and the U.S. and the Zimbabwe government must resume immediately so that negotiations between Zanu PF and the MDC can take better shape.
The recent sanctions regime imposed by the E.U. is not a positive development in resolving the Zimbabwean crisis. America’s restraint is welcome, but not sufficient. They should now use all their good diplomatic offices to facilitate the talks in Zimbabwe and refrain from using divisive sanctions language and have their own MoU with the Zimbabwean government, using the current diplomatic lines.
At the same time, the United States and E.U. should respect and enhance the efforts of the African Union and set the parameters necessary for supporting a peaceful resolution to the Zimbabwe crisis. For instance, commitment should be made as to when pieces of legislation like the notorious Zimbabwe Democracy Recovery Act (ZIDERA) passed by the U.S. and the sanctions regime will be lifted after the two sides agree to a peaceful resolution and implement the acceptable proposals.
In addition, the United States, E.U., and African leaders (like Raila Odinga and Kofi Annan) must refrain from verbal attacks on Zimbabwe and the Zanu PF leadership during the crisis talks. This will worsen relations between the two main parties at a time when increased cooperation is required.
Zanu PF sees these verbal attacks as a direct attempt to sabotage a peaceful resolution of the Zimbabwe crisis and unwarranted intervention in Zimbabwe’s internal affairs, which results in calls for verbal revenge against the E.U. and United States and invites retaliatory attacks from other unsuspecting circles. None of these outcomes bode well for a peaceful resolution in Zimbabwe.
Also, the recent £9million food-aid package approved by the British government will go a long way in helping the situation to stabilize and is a good sign that Zimbabwe and Zimbabweans have not been forgotten. The Zanu PF government should reciprocate by allowing NGOs to distribute food aid now that talks have been set in motion, and also refrain from using caustic divisive language.
Finally, the United States and E.U. should call for improved lines of communication with the Zimbabwean government and foster all-stakeholders’ and coherent strategy that addresses the core problem. Any resolution of the Zimbabwean crisis which does not take the international community into consideration is likely to falter, but their role should be facilitative.
This is a critical time for Zimbabwe as it pursues a home-grown strategy to battle its woes. Rather than undermine the process, the international community should aim to bolster it in a way that would serve the long term interests of Zimbabwe, the African region and the whole world.
Busi Ndoro • busi4lyfe@yahoo.co.uk Subject: What Role for International Community.....? Sun, 27 Jul 2008 09:31:03 • Dear Mr Editor
I have read through your article and have sensed you sort of are trying to court the friendship and favour of this so called international community, which by the way you only mention Britain and America and their puppets at large Raila and Koffi.
By no ways do these two self acclaimed masters of the world who have a hereditary superiority complexes of dumbly believing they have a right to world dominance.
What about the roles of South Africa, China and Russia and the magnitude of all those who stood by us if at all we should care about the international community?
We do not have to bother about the new world axis of evil's criticism for the time being, the Americans, British and their legion of the E.U., theirs is not constructive criticism and for now, we have far too precious little time and tolerance for trying to offer them political correctness lessons. Now, we are investing our efforts in cleansing the venom this same international community has sown in our midst. Neither will we sucker to their legitimacy claims or seek their favour for a few lousy £s in the name of aid and loans which we have since learnt of the hardships and manipulation they entail.
What Zimbabwe needs and the talks should push for is total economic independence. No more foreign run businesses but indigenous and indigenous/international partner grown consortiums. No more NGOs with more than 35% foreign employee contigencies in the offices. There are a lot of experienced Zimbabweans from all political walks of life who can professionally and neutrally work together without being polarised by the military intelligencies and political activists under the cover of NGOs such as we have witnessed before. Before allowing these NGOs the talks should pioneer an idea of African independent local relief groups that can be hired by any NGO to carry out relief work under their audit. Then we shall see who the real NGO with the plight of the suffering population at heart. This would be the first biggest industry and employment the talks will have created for the masses in an over 80% unemployed country.
Also, before rushing to snatch the bloody donor injection of funds from the same sanctionist who have brought this misery upon us, we need to shut them out and introduce a five year self recovery plan
where we shall give total support and concented efforts to self drive and commitment to unified progressive development in the projects of the land reform and the restoration of our industries as Zimbabweans alone working together.
Once we establish home grown produce then we establish our home based market which the whole real international community will soon learn is not for market sharing but strictly business - simple willing buyer willing seller.
Your so called international community can continue with their sanctions but this time, tell me who will they bite if we have rid ourselves of their dominance in our own economy.
The proposed five years will be hard but then, what we would have built together as a united nation would be harder to put asunder in future. Stringing a puppet would'nt be so easy then.
I thank you.
n/a • n/a Subject: International community Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:44:54 • The world and its mother should leave Zimbabweans to determine their own destiny. EU sanctions at this stage in the negotiations are only muddying the water. Kofi Annan and Raila Odinga are only singing for their supper and should be ignored.
SUBMITYOUROPINION
Please make sure you fill in all sections for your post to be submitted. Use n/a if not submitting details. The submission code below is case-sensitive. Also make sure you get confirmation that your comment has been submitted.
