---

---

Published by the government of Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe: Just Whose Tune is Tsvangirai Singing?

19 August 2008

---

opinion

Harare — PERCEPTION is everything. We know that the devil is in the detail, but the issue is to really identify who exactly is holding the people of Zimbabwe to ransom, and at what cost?

Should we read too much into the latest developments that the inter-party talks have once again failed to produce a deal?

Despite assurances from South African President Thabo Mbeki, mediator in the talks, at the just-ended Sadc Summit that negotiations would proceed under the facilitation of the regional bloc's Troika on Politics, Defence and Security, should we trust that a deal will eventually be sealed?

It was also heartening to hear President Mbeki saying that, "while negotiations are continuing, it may be necessary to convene parliament to give effect to the will of the people as expressed in the parliamentary elections held on the 29th of March 2008".

Angolan Foreign Minister Joao Miranda put his finger on the pulse when he made the following observation: "The gap between the parties is narrower. Points of disagreement are not so wide . . . The parties still are far from each other though on one point, and that is the executive powers that should go to the President and the Prime Minister. That is the stumbling block."

Thus the thrill of victory still seems elusive since it is dictated and manipulated by outsiders with set agendas, one of which is reversing the Land Reform Programme.

This writer was stunned when Tsvangirai's spokesperson George Sibotshiwe said: "We're finished."

This probably was the most devastating news for Zimbabweans, irrespective of political affiliation.

One wonders once again what has happened to the talks from the time when MDC-T leader walked out of the Harare meeting last Tuesday to the time he reaffirmed at the weekend that the talks were going "well" to Sunday when they said: "We are finished?"

A BBC reporter last week remarked: "Brave as he is, constancy is not one of Tsvangirai's virtues." Two days after the walkout from the meeting of all three principals, Tsvangirai was busy doing some damage control claiming that the talks would be successfully concluded, and that a deal was imminent.

In keeping with the spirit of "quiet diplomacy", President Mbeki said Tsvangirai left the talks last Tuesday in order to have time to "reflect and consult".

Some people joked and said was this reflecting on whether "to be or not to be".

However, what has puzzled this author is what happened to the MDC-T leader between the first marathon meeting which lasted until the wee hours of Monday morning and the second meeting when the meeting resumed after both President Mugabe and MDC leader Arthur Mutambara returned from the National Heroes' Acre?

In fact, as the nation watched Mutambara at the National Heroes' Day commemoration, there were high hopes that all three principals would be present.

Such a public show would have instilled confidence that the talks were indeed on track.

Still, the million-dollar question remains, what has Tsvangirai been reflecting on, and who was advising him since his principal negotiators had not left the conference room with him?

In retrospect, we ask whether the nation was witnessing a return of the pre-June 27 fiasco when he pulled out of the presidential run-off at the last minute?

Whose interests are being served when Tsvangirai makes it apparent that the interests of the people in this democratic process are inconsequential?

People have been patiently waiting for an outcome so that they can get on with their lives.

Since the harmonised elections and the presidential run-off, the Western media and their governments have used a caveat, which has been transformed into a regime change policy agenda.

One of them reads: "The opposition chief boycotted the June run-off election despite finishing ahead of Mugabe in the March first round of the vote, citing violence against his supporters that had killed dozens and injured thousands. Tsvangirai believes he has the right to the lion's share of power based on his first-round total, while the ruling Zanu-PF party argues Mugabe must be recognised as President in any deal, as he won the June election."

For the West, this dialogue was never supposed to be since March 29 should have seen the MDC-T leader in power.

This therefore should be translated as the West's agony of defeat.

Despite the snags it would be folly for Zimbabweans to lose hope. History has taught us that such hitches are a normal part of any negotiations.

As he left Harare for Luanda to brief Angolan President Jose Eduardo dos Santos last week, President Mbeki made some poignant remarks that indicated undue outside interference in Zimbabwe's internal affairs.

He also pointed out that the Zimbabwean leadership had shown their commitment to resolve the current impasse and that Zimbabweans should be left alone to find solutions to the challenges they are facing.

It was in that spirit that the South African leader said if it meant him staying in Zimbabwe for six months, he would do so until a deal was reached.

Thus despite all the West's machinations, a settlement will eventually be reached by all three parties.

Therefore, the West has to contemplate on the agony of their defeat since it is evident that the Sadc region and the people of Zimbabwe will not be forced into something they do not want.

By refusing to recognise June 27, the West has tried to create a crisis of legitimacy in Zimbabwe, which would see their continued meddling until their agendas are achieved.

On his way to the G8 summit last July, US President George W. Bush claimed he cared a lot about the people of Zimbabwe and hoped that there would be a settlement.

However, in the same breath, the Bush administration and the European Union have imposed more sanctions on Zimbabwe.

The American president needs to be reminded that if sanctions are his best expression of love for Zimbabwe then we can do without that love.

Zimbabwe has since 2002 criminalised sanctions imposed against it under the veil of semantic terms such as "targeted sanctions" or "travel bans".

Zimbabwe argues that the sanctions are criminal and illegal since the United Nations did not endorse them.

They are also criminal since they are being imposed by rich and white Western nations who feel that they have every right to interfere in and influence events and policies in Zimbabwe.

They also think that they have unlimited rights to Zimbabwe's resources including land which they are desperate to reclaim.

There is no comparison to how much the West has hyped the inconclusive March 29 presidential election result which they claim should form the basis of a new government in Zimbabwe.

Their obsessive claims on this poll result reached fever pitch on the run-up to the June 27 presidential run-off poll.

Notwithstanding, the poll went ahead, and President Mugabe got an overwhelming mandate to lead Zimbabwe for the next five years.

Despite what Zimbabwe's electoral law stipulates, they wilfully refuse to acknowledge, let alone respect the results from a credible due process.

They also maintain that the result should be discredited since the conditions for holding a free and fair election were hampered by anti-MDC violence.

The March 29 presidential poll result is also crucial to the West.

It was the cut-off date for their open meddling in Zimbabwe's internal affairs since they believed that a Tsvangirai win would restore their original position of control.

What Zimbabwe's laws say is a non-issue to them for they want Tsvangirai at the helm at whatever cost.

So why is March 29 so important to them, especially when their media came up with screaming headlines like "We have beaten Mugabe"?

Read comments. Write your own.

See all comments (20).

---