Washington, DC — Argument about the direction in which President Mugabe and his Zanu-PF party have taken Zimbabwe continues to rage in many parts of the world, with some arguing that his controversial land policy is a long overdue rectification of injustice suffered by the country's black citizens and others believing that it has been adopted and promoted for Mugabe's own political ends.
At the Howard University Ralph Bunche International Affairs Center in Washington, DC, last week, the Africa Society of the National Summit on Africa brought together a panel to discuss and debate the situation in Zimbabwe. It was the fourth such forum on African issues held by the society.
Chaired by Africa Summit president Leonard H. Robinson Jr., participants included Dr. Linda Heyward of Howard University, a specialist in the history of Central Africa, John Prendergast, Co-Director of the International Crisis Group, Simbi Mubako, Zimbabwe's ambassador to the United States, Malik Chaka of the professional staff of the House Sub-committee on Africa and Dr. Pearl Alice Marsh of the Democratic professional staff of the House International relations Committee. We publish excerpts below from the transcript of the debate:
Dr. Linda Heyward: I am not a specialist on Zimbabwe but Zimbabwe has come into my purview over the years as I have worked on the history of Angola, and especially the history of central Angola looking at Unita and attempts at unity in Angola. As a student of Angolan history who has studied and written about the tortured route to national unity and development in Angola, I'd like to reflect on how the present crisis might be understood by ordinary peasants in Zimbabwe because in my view even though foreign policy issues are of importance, understanding the African perspective, the perspective of people in Africa, is crucial to any sort of decisions we may take.
I'm going to start by reading something said by Rita Ncube, a Zapu (Zimbabwe African Peoples Union) leader in 1988. This is included in a book by Terence Ranger that I use with my students called "Voices from the Rock, Nature, Culture and History in the Matopos Hills of Zimbabwe." This is what Ncube said:
"In 1980 the new government had a cultural project to make videos at the shrines but the councils passed a resolution that government be given no access and no information. The whites ruled ???before 1980 and there were secrets they did not know. Mugabe has ruled for eight years and there are secrets he does not know. [Zapu leader Joshua] Nkomo was born in 1917 and there are secrets he does not know. Before unity we never wanted any Shona or any white man to know about the shrines. The Shona who came from as far away as Mutare just came to pay homage and went away. they didn't know about the shrines. The Ndebele rule for 60 years but there were secrets they didn't know. Nkomo is my political leader, but when it comes to the tradition, I am the leader."
I think that is one of the fascinating things in the history of Africa as a whole but especially Zimbabwe. I have read reports of the first Portuguese who went to Great Zimbabwe. As I reflect on that long history, the first Chimurenga [national struggle], the second Chimurenga - and Mugabe says his fight now is the third Chimurenga - I think there is something we need to tie in; that there is in the history of Zimbabwe, units that are connected to some deep historical feeling of being a people set on, and this must be taken into account when we begin to make decisions about sending genetically altered corn to a country like Zimbabwe in this particular situation.
As a historian of central Africa I have to understand Central Africa on central African terms, and think we should understand Zimbabwe on Zimbabwean terms. Mugabe is not crazy. There are people there who believe his land strategy and that his position informs and heightens their sense of a nation of integrity. Let us understand Africa on Africa's terms. Until we start doing that I think we will be going at loggerheads trying to plan policies. I've seen things that make me say, 'You know, I don't know where this is going but there is something in Zimbabwe that holds those people together.' Perhaps at this particular historical moment, Mugabe is not, in fact, the best reflection of that. But deep under what he is doing is a sense of Zimbabwean-ness. It is important for us to begin our reflection with some sense of these people have some integrity.
John Prendergast: Usually we human rights and conflict resolution groups will get up on podiums like this and we criticize and we condemn other governments or our government for crimes against humanity, for fomenting conflict, for committing all kinds of abuses of fundamental human rights and human dignities. But I'd rather start today by dispensing with these 'unpleasantries' at first and by congratulating President Mugabe and Zanu-PF for a job well done - a series of what I think are perfect crimes. Hollywood itself wouldn't be able to script these crimes any better.
The first of these perfect crimes is the theft of political power. By rigging and by stealing the 2002 presidential election, the ruling party remains the ruling party and the president remains the president for another six years in Zimbabwe.
The second of these perfect crimes is the theft of Zimbabwe's most valuable assets. For example, land. If there was a genuine effort to redistribute land by the government since independence then one could consider the current actions in a much more understanding light. Instead, the regime only made land an issue when it needed the issue of land to campaign on. It is now grabbing up and doling out these estates to Zanu-PF leaders. It is thus perpetuating the structural problem not resolving it.
The third and perhaps most elegant of these perfect crimes is the theft of Congo's minerals. Rather than contributing to efforts to resolve Congo's war, Zimbabwe has exacerbated it by supporting Rwandan Hutu militias and their continuing efforts to destabilize Rwanda, thus keeping the war on a slow burn and justifying Zimbabwe's continuing intervention in Congo which is a brilliant cover-up for the huge mining interests which Zimbabwean generals and politicians have secured in the Congo itself.
The fourth of these perfect crimes is turning a profit on economic collapse and famine. One of the crucial requirements for stabilizing the economy is allowing the foreign exchange rate to float freely rather than keeping it fixed at an artificially and absurdly low level. They won't do that because key Zanu-PF officials are making lots of money in the currency market, effectively trading on human suffering.
The fifth of the perfect crimes is the destruction of independent voices in Zimbabwe. The government has systematically punished supporters of the opposition through rape, through murder, through torture, and intimidation. It has gone after members of the media and NGOs who try and speak out on issues of concern. It has broken the back of some of the key mass organizations and their leaders, such as the trade unions.
There are many other crimes that have been perpetrated in Zimbabwe over the last few years; perhaps not as perfect as the ones I mention, but all with one common denominator: that is, they got away with it pretty much lock, stock and barrel.
There been hardly any consequences. A few officials can't travel here and there. There's no compensation for the hundreds of thousands of black farmers that have been made homeless - farm workers and laborers made homeless, for the devastated economy that has produced some of the highest unemployment rates on the continent, the famine that has produced rates of deprivation and hunger that are unrivaled throughout Southern Africa, which is in the midst of drought. And a tortured and ravaged opposition and its supporters who have not received any kind of compensation.
How did they get away with these crimes? I would attribute it to what I think is a false prophecy. Mugabe picked the perfect words, the perfect causes: Land, which is a historic injustice. Second, colonialism and neocolonialism. It's an ongoing legacy that needs to be dealt with. Third, economic exploitation which is a serious problem in Zimbabwe and on the rest of the continent. And fourth is race, which remains an unaddressed issue in Zimbabwe.
And as many false prophets have before him, Mugabe has taken legitimate issues and offered illegitimate and self-serving answers which play to Africa's unrealized aspirations, but in the end are bankrupt because Mugabe offers them only to maintain power for his party not for the benefit of Zimbabweans or for Africans more broadly. There will be no pay-off from these crimes for the people of Zimbabwe, mark my words.
Dr. Pearl Alice Marsh: Zimbabwe is a very important country in southern Africa and Africa, and a very important country to the United States. And I'll just read the statement of policy for the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act: "It is the policy of the United States to support the people of Zimbabwe and their struggle to effect peaceful democratic change, achieve broad-based and equitable economic growth and restore the rule of law."
I am going to talk about that act and what we put on the table as the United States government to try and offer carrots to Zimbabwe to improve the civic and political and civic environment there.
Zimbabwe is important to Southern Africa and the United States not just because of its potential - we talk all the time about Africa's potential - but because of its well-developed capacities to exploit its natural resources and its agriculture.
In the year 2000, Zimbabwe imported US$112m worth of American-made goods which is not inconsequential to our own economy and economic interests in Africa. Professor Heyward talked about Zimbabwe's spirit and when I was there in Zimbabwe you could certainly feel it. And there is pride in Zimbabwe. The literacy rate in Zimbabwe is 76 percent. You can't point to that in many places on the continent. So the human capacities in Zimbabwe really make that place a dynamic place on the continent. Of course there are problems. There is HIV/Aids. There is the economy; it is in terrible shape. There is the food crisis that we're going through now, and of course there is the political crisis that one cannot ignore.
I won't go through the litany of issues that John pointed out, but clearly in the run-up to the elections, and subsequent to the elections, there have been enormous instances of abuses of political power, of the abuse of human rights really creating a terrible situation for many Zimbabwean citizens. It isn't just whether or not you're Zanu-PF, it's presumed you're not neutral, I think - that you're either Zanu-PF or you're the enemy. And that's very, very troubling.
I would go back to what Professor Heyward said, that we do want to engage Zimbabwe on Zimbabwe's terms but Zimbabwe's terms aren't necessarily Mugabe's terms. Zimbabwe's terms are a political environment where all Zimbabweans participate in creating that vision of what Zimbabwe needs and wants so that they can engage the world on their terms.
With the Democracy and Economic Recovery Act that the Congressional Black Caucus supported overwhelmingly, and I participated in last year in terms of getting it passed by an overwhelming majority in the House - the numbers were 496 to 11 - the goal of that was to present to Zimbabwe prior to elections some incentives for opening political space, for the Zimbabwean government to really become a government of the Zimbabwean people and not a government of Zanu-PF, a government that protected its people from egregious physical harm, and did not either cause grievous physical harm or kind of turn a blind eye to it.
Let me briefly describe what we put on the table. If the Zimbabwean government restored the rule of law, created pre-election conditions or just general conditions for free and fair election, committed to equitable, legal and transparent land reform, made a good faith effort toward ending the war in the DRC [Democratic Republic of Congo], and subordinated the military and the police to the civilian government, then these were some of the things the U.S. Congress was prepared to do.
One is to pursue debt relief for Zimbabwe, and not only any bilateral debt, but to go to the international financial institutions and really make the case for Zimbabwe's debt. To establish a Southern Africa Finance center, which I know has some controversy around it as to whether its purpose was to serve Southern Africa or Western interests, but the fact that there would be some center there where we would engage economically and financially with Zimbabwe is important.
We would also offer US$20m in assistance for land reform, land reform that was transparent and equitable; and also US$6m to support democracy and governance programs. There was a sense of Congress in that bill that if, in fact, Zimbabwe did not move toward a restoration of the rule of law and those conditions I have just laid out, that we would begin discussions with our allies to implement what we now know as "smart sanctions" that would impose travel and economic sanctions against individuals.
I am really sorry to say that rather than the Zimbabwe government focusing on the incentives that were built into this bill that were concrete - the US$26m that was there for land reform and democracy and governance was real - they focused on a sense of Congress that actually was not even binding in the law and made political hay out of that for the elections that somehow this was more piling on Zimbabwe, and that was unfortunate.
The elections were flawed and since the elections we have seen reports that human rights violations are continuing. This will not move Zimbabwe forward. I am hoping that we will hear from the ambassador today on how Zimbabwe in fact plans on moving away from what we've seen over the past year, and moving more toward the kind of government that Southern Africa needs and indeed, Africa needs.
Malik Chaka: I think that we can all agree that there is a post-electoral crisis in Zimbabwe today. The crisis is first and foremost a political crisis. I would argue that the crisis only emerged after President Mugabe's attempt to get the power, through a referendum in February 2000, to change the constitution. And for the first time he suffered an electoral defeat. Things have gone downhill since then.
The Zimbabwean people rejected his attempt to concentrate more power in his hands. You also saw that there were differences of opinion in Zimbabwe. Prior to the parliamentary elections of 2000 there were three opposition members in parliament. After those elections there were 57. I think that Mr. Mugabe felt the ground shift under him. And the 57 places the opposition got were out of 120 that were contested, despite the fact that there were areas where they couldn't go and campaign, despite the fact that they didn't have access to television, they didn't have access to the radio.
So quite clearly we have a political crisis. And this political crisis deepened leading up to the presidential elections where a number of different observers said the elections were not, in fact, free and fair. People in urban areas had fewer polling places despite the fact that the government was warned that you were going to create lines and people would have to stay in line for days in order to vote. In rural areas you had situations where there were more polling places almost than there were people. The government's use of force; the government's use of terror: You see an identity here between the ruling Zanu-PF and the government. Some people will point to the Zanu-PF people who were killed, but if you look at the numbers most of the blood is on Zanu-PF's hands, and it is on Zanu-PF's hands because it also had state power. They had the police on their side.
Political crisis is also reflected in the gutting of the judiciary. Zimbabwe was a place where you never knew what the courts would say. You had independent jurists who were respected. On some issues they sided with the opposition. What happened to those justices who sided with the opposition? They were told things like: 'I would resign if I was you because I can't guarantee the safety of your family.' And what we've seen over the last three years is a decimation in the ranks of the judiciary.
We also have a humanitarian crisis that everybody is talking about now. We can talk about genetically modified organisms if we want. I don't think that's the crux of the matter. Zimbabwe was the breadbasket of Southern Africa. You had famine before in 1991, 1992, it was Zimbabwe that had food stocks that helped other folks in the region. That's not the case today.
We also have an economic crisis. You have economic schizophrenia going on. If you go to the bank in the beautiful city of Harare and you give them ten U.S. dollars they will give you 550 Zim dollars. If you walk outside the bank and you change money on the street, the rate is not one to 55, it's one U.S. dollar to 700. What does that do to businesses and industrialists? The country is going down fast and these crises have to be addressed.
On the political crisis, the two sides need to sit down at the table and come to some agreement to end the political war that's going on. On the humanitarian crisis the government must work with NGOs, with donors to make sure that food is available without any political requirements on those people in need. And the government has to get control of the economic crisis, if not, irreparable harm will be done to Zimbabwe.
Some folks ask: Why do you always talk about Zimbabwe? Zimbabwe is an important African country. The crisis in Zimbabwe is impacting Mozambique, is impacting South Africa, is impacting Zambia, Botswana. It's impacting the most economically important region on the entire continent. Zimbabwe is not the Gambia. Zimbabwe is a country with infrastructure. It has well-developed commercial agriculture, had great human resources which are now running away to South Africa, to London, or to other African countries. We need to help Zimbabweans resolve the crisis that they face because Zimbabwe is not only important to Zimbabweans, Zimbabwe is important for Africa.
Ambassador Simbi Mubako: I must say, you flatter us a great deal by placing so much importance on us. Zimbabwe is only a small nation - 13 million people, underdeveloped in many ways. It has got some advantages, it is true, has made some progress over the 22 years of independence, some of which have been acknowledged inadvertently but which are nevertheless true.
It has been said, for example, that Zimbabwe has got a very high rate of literacy. Yes. And it should be remembered that literacy rose to those heights during the 22 years since independence. Before independence Zimbabwe had only one university with only 1,000 students. And now there are 10 universities in the country with many thousands of undergraduates going to those universities. All that achievement was realized in the last 22 years.
Zimbabwe also has very good infrastructure. In the health field, for example, you will find clinics and health centers in almost every village. Again that has been an achievement over the last 22 years.
Mention has also been made that Zimbabwe has been the breadbasket of the region. It is true to some extent and to some extent it has been exaggerated. In the good years we have been able to produce surpluses which have been made available to our neighboring countries when they were in need. But it is not true that we have always had enough food in the country.
The country is particularly prone to drought. We had a very serious drought in 1947 and that is the first time we had food aid from the United States- yellow corn. It came through Kenya and that is why in my country today yellow corn is referred to as 'Kenya.'
And that was in colonial times. White farmers were in full control at that time. In 1962 there was another drought, and that was [Ian] Smith's time. In 1972 there was yet another drought. In '82 there was another drought. And in 1992 there was a very serious drought. I remember that because I was a minister of government at that time and took part in efforts to relieve that drought. We had to ask for food aid from abroad.
It is not true that we have always had sufficient food for ourselves. Whenever these cyclical droughts come about, there is always crisis. We have never managed to beat the effects of drought. Only one country in the region seems to have succeeded so far, and that is South Africa. And the main reason is the size of South Africa and the fact that they have two seasons. Like in the United States, you may have drought in one area but you have a rainy season in another. South Africa is very much like that.
I can only refer to a few of the points that have been made by others. I will not dwell very much on the comments made by Mr. John Prendergast. I think everybody who has followed Mr. Prendergast's comments on Zimbabwe knows he is lying. No one is surprised by what he says. You know what he says before he says it. That's his job. He is one of the many lobbyists in the United States and in the world who lives by crisis. If the Zimbabwe crisis goes they will want to create another crisis.
John Prendergast: Thank you for keeping me employed, Mr. Ambassador.
Ambassador Mubako: So, all his talk about the crimes is just so much rhetoric and I think they should just be dismissed out of hand. He says there was a stolen election. Well, where is the evidence? From the point of view of the Zimbabwe government, from the point of view of Africa, the majority of people who observed the elections, they were not perfect but certainly they were not stolen.
I will be the first one to admit that there were some flaws but I would also add that those flaws were no greater than the flaws in the election which you had in Florida (audience laughter). We had no hanging "chads", no "dimples" and we didn't have the 700,000 black voters who were excluded from the vote in Florida; we didn't have that number.
I do admit that the administration of the election in Harare - and it was only in Harare - was defective. The opposition managed to go to the courts and got an extension because of that. Which is something to be said in favor of the judiciary. More people were able to vote. But still, that defect need not have been there. That was a small defect, in my view, compared to your own elections here.
There was no stealing of elections. The fact that the opposition rejected the election is an African disease. Each time an opposition loses in Africa they will cry foul. That was the case in Mozambique in the last election. That was the case in Uganda. That was the case in Tanzania, and even in Lesotho recently, where everybody could see that the opposition lost badly and they have gone to court to challenge those elections. And in Zambia they have done the same.
Oppositions in Africa have not learned to be democratic, to accept defeat when they are defeated. They accept victories. The fact that the opposition in Zimbabwe won 57 seats should be accepted as a democratic advance. Personally I am very happy that we have a strong opposition now rather than the three that we used to have before. But Zimbabwe seems to be blamed for the fact that we have a strong opposition.
Even in the presidential election it is overlooked that the opposition won the city of Harare. The government of the city of Harare is now under the opposition. They accept it, the same election where they lost [the presidency]. To me it's just an African disease. We have not yet learned to concede.
And there was no stolen land. The land in the first place was stolen from Africans. This is the history that Mr.Prendergast either doesn't know, or wants to overlook. The fact of the matter is that since 1890 and after each of the world wars, Africans were driven from their land at gunpoint and were not rewarded by anybody.
Those lands were given to white farmers. That is being forgotten and he wants to say that it is the Mugabe government stealing land from white farmers. There is no land being stolen from white farmers it's only being restored to its original owners.
And on the "theft" of Congo's minerals, again, I can only say that is utter rubbish. Zimbabwe is in the Congo at the invitation of the Congolese government. Any mining activities it undertakes is in conjunction, is joint ventures with the Congolese government itself. So the question of theft there doesn't arise.
Then there has been mention about the judiciary by Malik Chaka. Well that's something that touches my heart since I was a member of the judiciary and, to some extent, still am today. Again, in my view, we have had problems but those problems are over. We are able to criticize our judges just as you do here. We follow with great interest the way you treat your judges and find that, in fact, judges here are sometimes treated even more harshly than we treat our judges in Zimbabwe or in Africa.
Let me end by saying that in our perception we have crisis but the most serious crisis for us at the moment is the food crisis. It is a temporary one, we hope. The reason for that is because of the drought situation. We hope we will get good rainfall and Zimbabwe will back to its former position of being able to produce surpluses.
We also have an economic crisis. Again, I would be the first one to admit that our government has not managed to resolve that crisis, has not managed to find a solution yet. Part of the problem is, of course, the attitude taken by rich nations like the United States and the United Kingdom inasmuch as they have imposed sanctions without saying so. They have blocked our way to the World Bank, IMF and many other sources of funds. That has created a kind of dislocation that we have not yet found a solution to. I am confident that a solution will be found.
Leonard Robinson: Now I did not posit this forum as a debate. But I think we will have one because Malik Chaka has already tapped me on the shoulder and indicated that he wishes to respond to the ambassador's remarks. So I'm going to call on Mr. Chaka to respond first and if there are perhaps other members of the panel who would like to comment as well, not necessarily to what the ambassador has said, but on other things, before I raise a question.
Malik Chaka: I'd like to briefly respond to the ambassador on the fairness of the elections. Elections are not stolen on election day. He would have to agree with me that there were "no-go" areas for the opposition. The ruling party could go wherever it went because it had the police to take them there. There were large areas where the opposition couldn't go because they would have been subjected to violence. The ambassador said two interesting things. One, he talked about the strength of the MDC in Harare. The other thing he talked about was how mangled and messed up the election was in Harare. Who would that have impacted on? The MDC did go to court; the judge did say that the election would be extended for another day. Police chased people out of the line, sent them home before the time decreed by the court had passed. I saw a remark made by president Mugabe the other day. he said: 'look, if these courts rule in ways that are inimical to our interests - I think 'our' means Zanu-pf - then we're just going to disregard their rulings.'
On the land question: The question that has to be asked about the land is real. The Africans were dispossessed at the point of the gun, no ifs, no ands, no buts. The choice farmland went to a small number of white farmers; I won't argue with that. What I would point to is that in 22 years in power, Zanu-PF did not come up with an effective land distribution program.
Now it can be argued that for the first 10 years their hands were tied by the Lancaster House agreement. But from 1990 to 2002 they can't make that argument. I would also point out that Zimbabwe's finance minister - the internationally respected finance minister, Simba Makoni - has said that food shortages are a result of the drought and the "fast track" land redistribution. Malik Chaka didn't say that, but Simba Makoni, a minister in the Mugabe government said that.
One of the issues that came up when Dr. [Pearl Alice] Marsh and I were in Zimbabwe was the question of whether the Grain Marketing Board is an impediment to responding to the famine. And I had an opportunity to meet with the ambassador who I consider a frank, sharp legal mind and a Zimbabwean patriot. We talked about ways that the monopoly of the marketing board might be abrogated so that folks could respond more effectively to the issue of the food shortage.
When we talk about land, nobody has said a mumbling word about the 250,000 farm workers and their families who were targeted with violence, chased off the land and who now have no access to food and no access to work. Zimbabwe needs land reform but 'fast track' has been a disaster.
Dr. Pearl Alice Marsh:We all kind of chuckled when the ambassador reminded us of the election in this country where clearly the person presently occupying the White House did not win the election, by some assessments.
But I caution the ambassador not to take comfort by analogizing that Zimbabwe is behaving as badly as maybe the United States has behaved in elections.
I just came back from the state of Louisiana and where I talked to my relatives in their eighties who have been trying to get the road paved for many years. And who are dealing with the kind of corruption in local government and local politics that we've described as having taken place in Zimbabwe. It isn't good enough to say that what's good for the goose - the United States - is good for the gander - in Zimbabwe. Both in the United States and in Zimbabwe it is the role and duty of the government to protect the political space in which citizens come and express their will. The government should not be an impediment.
The Zimbabwe government should not take comfort that the political environment that it created prior to the elections is reminiscent of the political environment that we saw in the South in the 1950s and 1960s when African-Americans were trying to get the vote.
It shouldn't take comfort that Zimbabwe's government is behaving toward Africans the way that racist government in this country behaved toward my relatives and people in the South. I know that it's a struggle to bring a country from colonialism to post-colonialism and then to really project Zimbabwe into a leading democratic and economically powerful country in Southern Africa. And maybe we're asking too much by asking Zimbabwe to be better than America.
But I think that the Zimbabwean people are asking for Zimbabwe to be better than America. I think, as a policy person, someone who solves problems, I'm not willing to abandon Zimbabwe. But I am willing to ask Zimbabwe to engage us in not only making Zimbabwe a better place, but to help us make America a better place. Zimbabwe should become an example for America, not an excuse for Zimbabwe behaving the way it did in these elections.
Ambassador Mubako: Let me start by agreeing with Dr. Marsh. When I made a comparison with the United States, I was not trying to make an excuse about Zimbabwe, I was merely trying to show that human frailty is not a monopoly of Zimbabweans or of Africans. It is difficult to conduct democracy anywhere. And when people make an effort, they should not be crucified as if no-one else makes mistakes.
Again I want to stress that I know that there have been mistakes and failings in the Zimbabwe process. And I, myself, would like to see those corrected. But what I would not accept, and what most Zimbabweans I know would not accept, is to paint Zimbabwe as if it is the worst country that has ever existed on this earth. That is simply not the case.
The faults which exist can be corrected and will be corrected. But our friends in the world are not doing us any good by this wholesale attack on Mugabe and this wholesale attack on Zimbabwe. That way you only make Zimbabweans united behind Mugabe rather than want to criticize him.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
We will not be able to criticize him when you outsiders or foreigners - who are our friends at the same time - sort of make the kind of irresponsible, I should say, and irrational attacks such as we have heard from Mr. Prendergast, for example.
When those kinds of attacks are made, Zimbabweans will be forced to pull together and defend Mugabe. I am not saying I agree with Mugabe in everything that he says - there are many things I disagree with.
You might want to know that I used to be in his government and that I resigned at one particular point because I did not agree with certain policies. And one of them, incidentally, was the slow pace of land reform which Mr. Malik Chaka has pointed to.
I agree that the land reform process should have been speeded up, in spite of the fact that we had our hands tied by the Lancaster House agreement and that we were let down even by the Americans who promised funding and then withdrew it.
I think what is being done now should have been done a long time ago. But the fact that it was not done in time should not now make us turn away from what is being done which is quite good. 'Fast track' is not a disaster. 'Fast track' is in fact a necessity. Without it we would have bloodshed in Zimbabwe.
Leonard Robinson: The election is a fait accompli. Mugabe is still in power.To the panelists, what are your resolutions and prescriptions for how Zimbabwe can move forward? Particularly with regard to election reforms and trying to restore, if you will, the independence of the judiciary? John?
John Prendergast: You're partly right, Mr. Ambassador. We both probably have jobs because of the Zimbabwean crisis. Your president probably would have lost and if there weren't any wars in Africa I would probably be some hack sportswriter on some local Indiana paper. Either way neither one of us would be up here right now.
I'd like to actually take the comparison that you made and take it one step further and bring it home as you were trying to rightly do, bring it home to America.
But just to point out a few differences. As far as I know, notwithstanding the hanging chads, the democrats, the Gore campaign team did not murder or torture republicans during the campaign. As far as I know, the U.S. army has not threatened the families of [Supreme Court Justices] Clarence Thomas or Sandra Day O'Connor or forced them to resign.
As far as I know, farms that have been repossessed in the midwest - a crime in and of itself - were not given to the governors of Kansas or Nebraska or some members of the executive branch [of the federal government].
As far as I know, the U.S. government has not denied surplus cheese or food stamps to people supporting whatever losing party. When that happens, I think we should have another debate and make comparisons. Certainly there are terrible inequities here in this society. But we are talking about a scale of abuses against the people of a particular country, the country of Zimbabwe, that go far beyond that.
In terms of resolutions and moving forward, I don't think it's hopeless at all. Part of it is what Dr. Marsh was talking about, the kind of spirit one perceives in terms of the commitment of Zimbabweans to their society.
I think that, specifically, we're at a crossroads here. For the first couple of months after the election there was some hope that negotiations could be undertaken between the MDC and the Zimbabwe government - between the MDC and Zanu-PF actually - to move forward on an agenda that would include all of the essential questions. That effort is still being pushed by Presidents Mbeki and Obasanjo but I don't think it has a chance of working.
Right now the question is, how can we get change at the top of the leadership so we can have a chance for more substantive change throughout the country? For negotiations to produce that result, that change, I think we need South Africa's help. South Africa would have to bring to bear its considerable influence to bring Zanu-PF back to the table to make that happen. That probably isn't going to happen.
Therefore, the way forward is going to be a very circuitous long term way forward: additional pressure mounted internationally, isolation of the government of Zimbabwe mounted internationally until it changes its policies.
Dr. Pearl Alice Marsh: I don't have a particular prescription for Zimbabwe, but I will remind the ambassador that in the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act we tried to signal that if in fact the Zimbabwe government would embrace the kind of political reform, the kind of commitment to rule of law that is the norm, that there were incentives. We would be willing to partner with Zimbabwe in that recovery.
Mr. Ambassador, you talked about the sense of being under siege. I distinctly recall that when this bill was passed we were quite pleased that we had kind of telescoped this willingness to engage Zimbabwe. And the way it was played in Zimbabwe by President Mugabe was that we were trying to impose sanctions again. The sanctions clause, one, was just a sense of Congress, and two, just limits on travels and perks that a few elites in Zimbabwe would have had. My question is, why was it that Zimbabwe didn't respond to the incentives that were offered in the bill and why was it that the President and Zanu-PF played up the so-called sanctions provision rather than the incentive provision? It made no sense to me.
Dr.Linda Heyward: One gets the sense of big stick - America kind of saying 'you've got to take this'. From the Zimbabwe perspective, whether it is articulated by Mugabe it is understood by average people that here again, whether it's whites, whether its Europeans, they're telling Africans what to do. That particular vision of America may have advanced further if South Africa maybe had been brought into the picture. I get kind of concerned when Africans are always told, 'You got to go this route.' I just think that Africans should have some say in how they want to see their future. Now I'm not saying that Mugabe is the light for Africa, I'm just saying that we have to step back sometimes and think of the policies in terms of colonialism, the history or racism that Africans have experienced.
Malik Chaka: I would just like to ask Dr. Heyward who is the 'they' in this context in Zimbabwe? What we have is a deeply divided society. There are people on both sides. Is 'they' the government? Is 'they' the folks who have violated the rule of law? Are 'they' unleashing state power on defenseless civilians? I think we need to define who 'they' are in the same way that. a lot of times. we need to define who 'the people' are. If land reform is land reform to correct a historical injustice, and the fat cats are getting two and three farms and small holders are not getting any, I would argue that that is not a good thing. In this context who is 'they'?
Dr. Linda Heyward: I'm not a specialist on who 'they' are, but I know that you can find those levels of officials and spokesmen who would advance that vision.
Ambassador Mubako: All I can say is that what we can ask of our friends outside is that youshould not take sides. If you want to be of any real use to us, to Zimbabwe, or to Africa, in fact, you should not go there with your mind made up that you want to support this party rather than the other party. You should be honest brokers and not people who want to impose a specific leader or party in power. If you come to help we will be able to find the solutions ourselves. There is nothing that prevents Zanu-PF and MDC from eventually coming to an agreement. They willcome to an agreement. We live together and we can do it. The position that a lot of you are taking at the moment actually helps to divide us.
