By Sir Timothy Garden
The "something must be done" school of foreign policy thinking is focusing more and more on the troubles in Zimbabwe. No doubt, the plight of displaced white farmers has more resonance in the UK and US than the far worse suffering of the black farm workers, but in any event there is an expectation of action. The British government has been a strong advocate of intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign states for humanitarian reasons (Kosovo), where the state is failing (Sierra Leone) or where the rule of law has disappeared (East Timor). A good case could be made to say that the treatment of the farm owners and their workers in Zimbabwe had elements of all three causes for intervention. Yet Britain is in a particularly difficult position as the former colonial power. When Rhodesia declared independence unilaterally under Ian Smith in 1965, Britain was less than forceful in its reaction. The long years of international sanctions did not lead to black majority rule until 1980. Robert Mugabe has held power first as Prime Minister and then as President ever since.
Now two decades later, Mugabe’s position is much less strong. Instead of developing the economy and enriching the electorate, he has moved into terror tactics to remain in power. Land reform should have been addressed earlier and in a progressive way. The economic success of the country is dependent on a successful farming industry. The key issue is not the plight of the white farmers, but the break down of the rule of law as the Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front resorts to terror tactics to remain in power. Land reform is a convenient excuse for carrying out a repressive policy against any opposition to ZANU-PF. What was initially seen by Zimbabwe’s neighbours as a legacy of colonial rule, is now being increasingly recognised as a move away from democracy to authoritarian dictatorship.
To look at policy options for the international community, it would be wise to consider what President Mugabe’s strategy is likely to be. His main concern is the election which is due next April. The opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change, has shown itself to have widespread support among the agricultural workers. Ideally he would like to hold an election provided that he could be assured of winning. To do this he is putting the frighteners on both MDC supporters and on the media. Journalists are being arrested and threatened. The judiciary is still not prepared to accept illegal charges and arrest. However, pressure will doubtless be brought on them if necessary. Unsympathetic overseas journalists are being progressively expelled to allow greater freedom to terrorise the opposition. If terror is the stick to encourage support for Mugabe, then the promise of land reform is the carrot. However, the encouragement of land seizure has had an almost wholly negative effect on much of the population. Many have been made jobless, and the country has become much poorer as crops fail and are not replanted. The economic plight of the country is set to get much worse if international aid is withdrawn. Assuming that these tactics are making it less likely that Mugabe can count on re-election, then his alternative strategy will be to declare a state of emergency and suspend elections. This will have considerable attractions in allowing him a free hand to terrorise and dispose of his opponents without interference from the judiciary. The drawback is that it would certainly cause a much stronger international embargo on economic assistance. It would also make it much more difficult for African neighbours to support his regime.
Western strategy needs therefore to move carefully. Too hard a response at this stage will make it simpler for Mugabe to abandon any pretence of democracy. Too soft an approach will allow his terror tactics to succeed and give him a façade of democratic legitimacy. The diplomatic levers available include aid payments from the IMF, the EU and the US. The Commonwealth has a part to play as does the Southern Africa Development Community. On 6 September, the Commonwealth countries will discuss Zimbabwe at a meeting in Nigeria. President Mugabe hopes to keep the discussion to the land reform issue, however there are signs that he will not be able to avoid discussion about democracy, human rights and the rule of law. For this reason, it seems sensible to encourage his attendance. The heads of Commonwealth governments meet the following month in Australia and will be able to take a view of what happened at the Nigeria meeting. The EU is looking at selective sanctions against Zimbabwe. The targeting of the lifestyle of the government and its supporters would be more effective than impoverishing the population yet further. The US has also indicated that it will be looking carefully at Zimbabwe’s approach to democracy.
The most effective player in trying to promote stability in the region must be South Africa. President Mbeki has been playing a low key game, but needs to be encouraged to take a regional lead. Trade with South Africa is of vital importance to Zimbabwe, but the political support of his most powerful neighbour is also vital for Mugabe. Diplomatic effort needs to be addressed towards encouraging South Africa to take the lead in this difficult situation. For the UK, a role of quiet encouragement within the EU, the Commonwealth and the UN for the promotion of democracy, human rights and the rule of law will be better than taking too strong a lead on behalf of the white land owners. While they may appeal to the British tabloids as more deserving asylum seekers than those of a darker hue, the real problem is for the whole population of Zimbabwe. They are on the verge of economic and political catastrophe under the guidance of the man who was given power by a British government.