Thabo Mbeki Must Intervene in Zimbabwe (by Seth Naicker)
In the back and forth concerning the role South Africa must play in the crisis of human rights abuses under the reign of Robert Mugabe and his cronies, it is my belief that we must see some form of serious intervention.
I understand the need for diplomacy, which always calls for "you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours." But when endless reports have been publicized of the atrocities that the people of Zimbabwe are facing, South African President Thabo Mbeki must engage ways to ensure that we as a South African people do not repeat history in our failure to act for justice -- as Bishop Tutu rightfully pointed out in the tragedy of Rwanda.
Mbeki can use people like Dr. Gerrie Lubbe, Dr. Allan Boesak, Bishop Tutu, and many other social activists who should be strategically commissioned to have a round-table discussion with Mugabe and his crew.
While the world, and even South Africa, remains largely disengaged from this crime against humanity that is occurring in Zimbabwe, people are dying. Must someone declare that there is genocide taking placing before the United Nations, the African Union, and world leaders will make a stand?. If this is the case, let me proclaim, "There is genocide taking place in Zimbabwe!" -- a genocide that may be ethnic, it may be cultural, but most definitely political.
For all that Mugabe has seen in his lifetime, one cannot understand how elder Mugabe can allow his people to suffer at his hand. At one time in our not-too-distant history, Mugabe was one of the most celebrated African leaders. How has this former champion of his people become the enslaver and dictator?
Let us work to mobilize our networks and resources, and our power and influence to aid the people of Zimbabwe. Do what you can to see this hypocrisy and abuse of human rights come to an end.
Seth Naicker is an activist for justice and reconciliation from South Africa. He is currently studying and working at Bethel University, in St. Paul, Minnesota, as the program and projects director for the Office of Reconciliation Studies. He can be reached at: seth-naicker@bethel.edu or smnaick@hotmail.com
Add to:
Category: Africa, Human Rights
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Seth Neicker wrote:
At one time in our not-too-distant history, Mugabe was one of the most celebrated African leaders. How has this former champion of his people become the enslaver and dictator?
A committed Communist through almost all of his political career, Robert Mugabe has never been a true champion of the people. He has claimed that title, as do most of those who embrace the brutal ideology of Marxism, but in truth he was a dictator from the beginning.
Mugabe isn't "becoming" anything other than what all Marxists become, the only difference is that now he has become enough of a tyrant that no observer with even a shred of understanding and honesty can deny it.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | May 27, 2008 7:01 PM
Wolverine: "Mugabe isn't "becoming" anything other than what all Marxists become"
Like Mikhail Gorbachev?
Posted by: carl copas | May 28, 2008 11:53 AM
Here's Gerson's take in the Washington Post about Mbeki and his thought process:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/27/AR2008052702556.html
An excerpt:
"In late April...President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa -- Zimbabwe's influential neighbor -- addressed a four-page letter to President Bush. Rather than coordinating strategy to end Zimbabwe's nightmare, Mbeki criticized the United States, in a text packed with exclamation points, for taking sides against President Robert Mugabe's government and disrespecting the views of the Zimbabwean people. 'He said it was not our business," recalls one American official, and "to butt out, that Africa belongs to him.' Adds another official, 'Mbeki lost it; it was outrageous.'
"It is also not an aberration. South Africa has actively blocked United Nations discussions about human rights abuses in Zimbabwe -- and in Belarus, Cuba, North Korea and Uzbekistan. South Africa was the only real democracy to vote against a resolution demanding that the Burmese junta stop ethnic cleansing and free jailed dissident Aung San Suu Kyi. When Iranian nuclear proliferation was debated in the Security Council, South Africa dragged out discussions and demanded watered-down language in the resolution. South Africa opposed a resolution condemning rape and attacks on civilians in Darfur -- and rolled out the red carpet for a visit from Sudan's genocidal leader. In the General Assembly, South Africa fought against a resolution condemning the use of rape as a weapon of war because the resolution was not sufficiently anti-American."
It's not promising.
Posted by: Eric | May 28, 2008 11:54 AM
Carl,
Mikhail Gorbachev, the author of perestroika and the last Premier of the Soviet Union, is what we call "An Exception That Proves the Rule".
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | May 28, 2008 3:03 PM
Wolverine: "Mikhail Gorbachev, the author of perestroika and the last Premier of the Soviet Union, is what we call "An Exception That Proves the Rule"."
LOL.
Wolverine, I've always wondered where that phrase, "Exception That Proves the Rule," comes from? Any idea?
Posted by: carl copas | May 28, 2008 7:07 PM
Carl,
Not sure where the phrase comes from, but let me tell you what I mean when I apply that to Gorbachev.
Mikhail Gorbachev was, as far as I can tell, a committed Marxist but he was also a Russian patriot and I use that in the better sense of the word -- he had a genuine concern for the welfare of his nation. His political skills allowed him to maneuver to the top of the Communist Party while his patriotic impulses led him to pursue a reformist agenda. But at the same time he could not make a clean break with Marxism.
That conflict between reformer and Marxist led to a reform effort in which he offered more openness and more freedom to criticize the Soviet Government, but the basic principles of central planning and single-party rule were left in place.
This proved to be an untenable position: the reforms did not improve quality of life in Russia by very much, but they did threaten the party bosses enough that they eventually attempted a coup. The coup failed, but in the process the Communist Party itself lost its grip on power, and Gorbachev lost power to Boris Yeltsin.
Another example to consider is China, where a reform-minded leadership has taken a very different approach, loosening the strictures of central planning in the economy while retaining tight control over the country's political life. So far they have managed to reform their country's politics somewhat, but in order to do that they had to largely abandon Marx.
There was much to admire about Gorbachev. I consider him more of a tragic figure than a beaten enemy, but his example shows that hard-line Marxists cannot remain in power except as oppressors. Gorbachev did not want to be a oppressor, which is why he's on the lecture circuit now. Most Marxists are more determined to remain in power, and less concerned about the actual well-being of the proletariat.
The bootom line is that the only way for a Marxist leader to avoid being a tyrant is to give up on Marx.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | May 28, 2008 8:05 PM
I agree with Eric although we would like Mbeki it is looking very unlikely, as the run is around the corner the international community needs to step in its not acceptable to have election monitors come in 2 weeks before the election and leave. Mugabe has KILLED over 50 members of the opposition which has gone unnoticed. This also comes in the urban areas. Please give the Zimbabwaen people hope and make this non-legit runoff happen without further violence but also prepare for a good possibility of more Mugabe. 200 poll monitors is not nearly enough and results posted outside the election polls is up in the air. we will see what happens
Posted by: evan | May 28, 2008 10:09 PM
Wolverine, you've captured the dilemma that Gorbachev found himself in. I, too, admire him--had the pleasure of hearing him speak in person some years ago. A very charismatic, magnetic figure.
Will have to think more about the inevitability of Marxist tyranny. The Sandinistas relinquished power voluntarily when voted out of office. And certainly, there have been Social Democrats who held office in Western European nations who were at least philosophically Marxist.
But generally speaking, I tend to agree with you. The horrible totalitarian regimes in the old Soviet Union and East Germany were not good advertisements for Marxism.
Posted by: carl copas | May 29, 2008 10:30 AM
Carl,
You raise a fair point: there are social democratic parties in Europe that take at least some inspiration from Marx but have been able to work within a democratic government. That was kind of what I was getting at when I mentioned "hard line" Marxists. If I had this to do over again I might have been a bit more precise and written about Leninism or Maoism.
The thing is that from what I can tell, Mugabe came from that Leninist-Maoist line, and given their track record it shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone that once in power he would seek to impose an oppressive, totalitarian, single-party state.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | May 29, 2008 1:33 PM
Wolverine: "The thing is that from what I can tell, Mugabe came from that Leninist-Maoist line, and given their track record it shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone that once in power he would seek to impose an oppressive, totalitarian, single-party state."
Makes sense to me. I think it was Reinhold Niebuhr, or maybe Walter Lippman, who argued that hardline communism represented the "arrogance of power" at its worst. By "arrogance of power" meaning disregard for human limitations, lack of respect for proportionality, and little to no sense of tragedy and irony. In its heyday, communism contended that we could create a utopia if only we reordered, by violence, economic structures and class relations.
Such hubris. We are better off with it consigned to the dustbin of history, though arrogance and hubris will rear their ugly heads in other ways, to be sure.
Take care of yourself Wolverine.
Posted by: carl copas | May 29, 2008 4:19 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?