The case for SA sanctions against Zimbabwe

The case for SA Sanctions on Zimbabwe

“I was born here, I fought here and I will die here. Anyone who opposes me will be bashed.” These were words uttered neither by a rabid reactionary, nor by some embittered war veteran (those 20 year old ambiguities whose sad plight is to be betting chips for the next desperate politician.) These were the words of President Mugabe, whose thirst for absolute power has consumed him completely. Arrests without pretext, tortures, beatings and even murders have become the daily bread of a nation bereft of food, income, dignity and now security. Yet none of this is new or particularly shocking. Humanity’s threshold of tolerance towards the macabre and the grotesque has become so high that the liquidation of an entire nation-its dreams, its pastures, and its people simply doesn’t make the ticker tape any more.

Yet what makes Zimbabwe’s story particularly remarkable is how avoidable this spiral downwards was. Indeed, the fault lies not in our stars but really within ourselves. 27 years ago, a nascent nation emerged on the African continent, born out of a bloody war which both sides-the Rhodesian and the Nationalists’ side- were desperate to put behind them. The rudiments of a constitution whose only interest seemed to be the land question was drawn up, elections held and independence gained. A guerilla party came into power promising and extending the hand of reconciliation to a frightened white populace. The very same Mugabe of current ‘bashing’ fame, called on whites to “leave Rhodesia and come to Zimbabwe”. Massive economic restructuring was engaged in. Schools were built, hospitals constructed and the promise of independence began to dawn upon the nation. Yet even then the tremors of totalitarianism could be felt. Over 10 000 people (most of them Ndebele) ‘dissidents against the cause of the New Zimbabwe’ were murdered by Mugabe’s militias and their bodies dumped in mine shafts. These matters went largely unnoticed. Britain called it ‘an internal dispute’. A man, whose faith in violence was steadfast, felt vindicated. Today, faced with a failed economy, a ruined public sector, a dying citizenry as well as a brain drain of phenomenal proportions, violence has become the last refuge of the incompetent leadership of Zimbabwe. Its repeated purges of the constitution -outlawing political meetings consisting of more than 15 people (or is it 12? Does it matter?), the banning of a local independent daily, the murder of journalists and the brutal destruction of over a million homes in a ‘clean-up’ exercise have desecrated every international treaty to which Zimbabwe is a signatory.

And completing the cyclic nature of history, of course is the customary silence with which this has been met. South Africa’s ‘quiet diplomacy’ gives credibility to a dictatorship. At the UN where it holds a Security Council seat, in much the same way Western powers eschewed discussion of the apartheid regime of South Africa,
it has vetoed any debate on Zimbabwe.

Yet South Africa’s silence is particularly baffling. Its unparalleled constitution, its independent judiciary and the nobility with which it has made the transition from its terrible past to this optimistic present is the source of envy for the entire world. And this makes it essential that South Africa react to the situation in Zimbabwe- quickly. International organizations have declared this year-the 3rd consecutive one- as a drought year for Zimbabwe. Given the destruction of the agricultural sector (only 28% of pre-farm invasion land is currently being cultivated) this portends catastrophe for over a million Zimbabweans. Furthermore, South Africa, with the second highest income gap between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ (as shown by its GNI coefficient of 0.8) has had its unemployment and housing shortage problems exacerbated with the influx of over 2 million Zimbabweans over the last 5 years.

It is therefore incumbent upon the South African government to impose targeted economic sanctions against the ZANU PF regime of Zimbabwe; to freeze all assets belonging to ZANU PF, ban entry of Zimbabwean government officials into South Africa and to deport kith and kin of the ruling elite back to Zimbabwe who may be here for travel or study purposes. Sanctions serve the purpose of enunciating what should be South Africa’s unequivocal position on the gross violations of human rights. Furthermore, this will hasten the exit of the ZANU leadership and force the crumbling party into a negotiation. The current equivocation of the South African government is rooted in its perceived need to fulfill petty loyalties to unworthy African governments whose support for Mugabe and for ZANU PF stems from the bond of criminality that links criminals. Mbeki believes that for African Renaissance and NEPAD (both of which are noble initiatives) to succeed South Africa cannot afford to isolate itself from the entire continent which for the moment seems in support of Mugabe. Yet the great responsibility of the powerful often involves the courage to walk alone. Sanctions will force the corrupt leadership of Zimbabwe to decide between feeding its starving populace and buying the latest Mercedes, between sending their children to expensive foreign universities and educating the growing mass of illiterate people, between freedom and oppression. In the realm of grand ideas, this relatively minor one-to curtail the privileges of the ruling elite may seem ineffectual. But forcing the corrupt government of Zimbabwe which lives in abundance while a nation starves may indeed make all the difference.