Blair, Mugabe and the Zimbabwe crisis

ON WEDNESDAY, February 21, 2007, President Mugabe will turn 83.
For better or worse, Zimbabwe’s post-colonial history is inextricably linked to this man and yet he remains as much an enigma as his is regarded a villain or warrior depending on who you talk to.
In trying to understand Mugabe, my attention was drawn to a story that was published in the Herald on Saturday, 17 February 2007, “Zim, UK talks off: President”, written by the editor of the newspaper, Pikirayi Deketeke in which he reported that the mediation efforts of former President Mkapa in the rift between Mugabe and Blair had been shelved. What was more interesting to me were the comments made President Mugabe on a number of issues in an exclusive interview with Deketeke.
I believe that there is merit in repeating what the President said and try to locate it with the broader debate about social contracts, rule of law, dictatorship, human and property rights, succession, constitutional amendments, and 2008 or 2010.
This is what the President said:
THE MKAPA INITIATIVE
"I did not want to put him (Cde Mkapa) to a task that will be too insurmountable for him," said President Mugabe. This confirms that the so-called Mkapa initiative that came on the back of Kofi Annan throwing the towel was indeed a brain child of President Mugabe in as much as the proposed harmonization project. President Mugabe then confirmed that British Prime Minister Mr. Tony Blair’s government did not want talks. The agenda for such talks remains a mystery but it is self evident that there may have been no merit proceeding with such a meeting. The intervention of President Mkapa was widely misunderstood in as much as President Mugabe’s role in the initiative and what he hoped to achieve.
I have no doubt that President Mugabe will be reflecting as he should do on his birthday when his family and friends wish him many returns on the past 27 years of self government and the costs and benefits. However, for the majority of Zimbabweans who have accepted the link between the land question and the current state of the Zimbabwean economy will also reflect on whether it is the case that if Mr. Blair apologized to President Mugabe for the alleged interference in the domestic affairs of Zimbabwe as well as agreeing to compensating the settler farmers for the expropriation of land, the economy of Zimbabwe will change for the better.
I have no doubt that many Zimbabweans will expect President Mugabe to give a candid assessment of his tenure and the extent of contribution of the land question to the current state of the nation.
BLAIR v MUGABE
President Mugabe then proceeded to say: "The Blair government is a queer government and Blair, of course, behaves like a headmaster, old-fashioned. ‘Zvandataura ndizvozvo.’ Do it or if you don’t do it, you remain punished and an outcast."
I have no doubt that many would argue that what President Mugabe accuses the Blair government of doing is precisely what they accuse him as well of doing. Some have said that a government that fails to take responsibility for its own failures is a queer government. Would it be justified to describe the behavior of President Mugabe as old fashioned not only because he is 83 but the ideas that inform government policies and programs may not be different from the Stalin ideas?
The people of Matebeleland and the many that are now using foreign addresses because they remain punished and outcasted by the Mugabe government will see no difference between Blair and Mugabe.
By criticizing Prime Minister Blair and his government, President Mugabe is communicating to the world that he would never be the same as Blair. Based on this, it is clear that in as much as people describe President Mugabe as an old fashioned dictator he thinks otherwise.
It is important, therefore, to appreciate and acknowledge that President Mugabe has not been persuaded by all the criticisms to accept the proposition that in the final analysis he may not be any different from what he perceives the Blair government to be.
BLAIR – MUGABE BRIDGE
It was reported that when President Mugabe received the current British Ambassador to Zimbabwe, Mr Andrew Pocock, in February last year, he asked him to help build bridges between the two countries. He said Ambassador Pocock tried but was spurned and told not to talk that language.
The British government told him that the "Zimbabweans know what they must do" before there could be any talks "We say let them go that way and we go our own way, but we have not taken any action against them. "They (British) have lots of property and over 400 companies operating here, but we do not want to be vindictive," said President Mugabe. He, however, said there was a limit to which Zimbabwe can go in conceding to such behaviour.
It is apparent that President Mugabe would like to build bridges with Prime Minister Blair. When the British government says that Zimbabweans know what they must do, to President Mugabe it can only mean regime change. I am not sure whether in President Mugabe’s mind this may mean a change in the style and substance of governance and also an honest and candid appraisal of why Zimbabwe may be described as a failing state. I am sure many may argue that Zimbabwe is not yet in the category of Somalia, Dafur, Ivory Coast, Liberia or DRC. However, it is clear to any rational mind that the Zimbabwe of today does not reflect the stolen promise.
When a country breaks a world record in terms of inflation, unemployment, and general economic decay I think that it is futile to invoke third parties like Blair as if to suggest that if the British government had honored the Lancaster House promises, Zimbabwe would have made a record in making good the promise of independence to the majority of its people.
President Mugabe’s statement above is pregnant with a sinister threat to British owned companies that believe that they are safe as long as the Blair government does not see the Zimbabwe problem in the colonial context and reparation mode. President Mugabe is effectively saying how is it that the British government is saying that Zimbabwe is a failing state when its corporate and individual citizens continue to profit from Zimbabwe.
He is also saying that why would the British government choose to impose travel restrictions of him and his team while turning a blind eye to the interests of British companies that have unfettered access to Zimbabwean resources. In the circumstances, the President is effectively saying when we go our way of expropriation; do not blame us for not trying to engage the British.
Some may not know that my business interests in Zimbabwe are owned by two English companies pursuant to the acquisition transaction that I negotiated and concluded in 1996 with a British company. The illegal and unconstitutional seizure of my companies through a manufactured decree has an English connection. Without this English connection, the expropriation of my assets may have been concluded without any recourse but the government of Zimbabwe has discovered that their actions have no legal force without the consent of the English justice system and hence the litigation in England.
When I negotiated the acquisition transaction, I did not see merit in inheriting the two English companies but now I have come to realize that in as much as we condemn the British for colonizing us, the two judgments that I have received so far have reinforced my belief in the rule of law and the protection offered by a legal system that operates on the basis of justice and equity.
WHO IS CULPABLE FOR THE ZIMBABWE CRISIS
President Mugabe then said the Blair government was hiding behind accusations of lawlessness, human rights abuse, dictatorship and lack of democracy.
"I would like to see an African country that has gone this length in those directions . . . abiding by the rule of law, accepting the reign of human rights and establishing democracy. "You also have non-governmental organizations here telling them (British government) the opposite of what we are. In the meantime, they are enjoying the freedom of organizing our people without hindrance. "But we are hoping that with the departure of Blair (who is expected to step down as British Prime Minister this year) there will be a better situation there and they can be talked to," said President Mugabe.
It is clear from the above that President Mugabe genuinely believes that the accusations leveled against his government of lawlessness, human rights abuse, dictatorship and lack of democracy are baseless and unfounded. In this construction, anyone who accuses President Mugabe’s government of such falsehoods can only be a Blair puppet.
It is important, therefore, to read carefully what President Mugabe is saying so that those who will have the privilege of writing an honest record of the man will correctly record that even in the twilight of his reign he never saw any problem with his regime but only saw enemies violently cause confusion.
When I wrote about Tekere’s take on Mugabe some may have misunderstood my perspective. In the mind of President Mugabe, he is the best democrat in the world and he has honorably served Zimbabwe and protected the Republic from enemies like Bush and Blair.
However, an honest assessment will confirm that the problems of Zimbabwe predate both Blair and Bush and indeed MDC.
It is also evident that President Mugabe believes that Blair is the root cause of Zimbabwe’s problems and, if anything, when Blair goes Zimbabwe will start working again.
I am not sure that President Mugabe is aware that I am one of the victims of his government. My case is not only a human rights issue but a property rights matter with a nice English twist. The President is not honest when he says that the perception that there is lawlessness in Zimbabwe is a creation of Blair.
I have written an open letter to President Mugabe highlighting the utter disregard of the law and the systematic and orchestrated abuse of the state to disable my constitutional rights and then through an outsourced vulture like structure proceed to expropriate my assets using draconian measures that offend any civilized person. I should like to believe that Blair had no input in my predicament. If I was the only one to be a beneficiary of the tyranny of the state, then people may be justified in saying that you deserve it. Even under this construction where rational minds would find justification in the use of state machinery to steal my companies on the mistaken notion that the government of Zimbabwe was somewhat involved in the acquisition is something that continues to baffle me about the capacity of Zimbabwean minds to be blinded by personal prejudices even when facts are presented before them.
Having chosen to use the legal route, I had hoped that President Mugabe had managed to create an honest and transparent government capable of reading court papers but unfortunately I have come to the inescapable conclusion that Blair is right when he says that Zimbabweans know what they must do.
Judging from what I have read so far even on my case, I do not believe that it is appropriate for anyone to intervene in the Zimbabwean tragedy until Zimbabweans can honestly confront President Mugabe who may have created an ivory tower to tell him that he is wrong when he makes the point that it is Blair’s fabrication that has created the mess.
MUGABE & THATCHER
The President then said the situation was a lot better during the era of Mrs Margaret Thatcher, who was British Premier from 1979 to 1990. Although they differed quite a lot with her, she was amenable to discussing issues. President Mugabe recalled an incident in 1982 when six white Air Force of Zimbabwe officers were arrested on suspicion of complicity in the destruction of 13 aircraft at Thornhill Air Base in Gweru. The British demanded their immediate release and Thatcher denounced the arrest but the Zimbabwe Government insisted on a full investigation and trial.
"I said if the British cannot be arrested when they commit crime, then we would rather all the British left our country and I can open the doors of my country for their departure any time," Mugabe said.
He said the British then got frightened as they thought "I was going to be another Amin".
Idi Amin, who ruled Uganda from 1971 to 1979, deported 90 000 Ugandan Asians who held British passports. President Mugabe said he later met Mrs Thatcher in 1983 in New Delhi, India, and she proposed lunch to discuss the issue. He said Thatcher explained that she did not mean that the British could not be arrested if they committed crime, but wanted them to be given a fair trial, which is what the Zimbabwe Government was doing. The issue was then resolved amicably.
"We shook hands with Thatcher, but Blair will not do that," said Mugabe.
It is clear that President Mugabe honestly believes that if Thatcher was still at No. 10 Downing Street, Zimbabwe would be working as she was mature enough to resolve problems in an amicable way.
In as much as people would like to believe that President Mugabe is responsible for the economic meltdown, he believes that there is a conspiracy involving Blair and possibly Bush. It is also clear that he believes that he is unfairly targeted for doing well for his people.
MUGABE/CHIRAC & SANCTIONS
Asked to comment on the rationale or appropriateness of inviting African heads of state as one group to meet with a single leader of a developed country, President Mugabe said it was not right.
"That principle is wrong. It doesn’t matter which country. Kungoti tidaidzwe the whole African continent kuenda kunyika one, it’s not right. "We might be poor, but it is not right to do that. "Let there be meetings with our delegations . . . that is better in my view," he said, adding that inviting the continent to meetings such as the EU-Africa summit was better. African leaders this week gathered in Cannes for the France-Africa summit where they met French leader Jacques Chirac. Zimbabwe did not attend the summit because it rejected an invitation with conditions on who should represent it.
I have no doubt that even President Chirac will be confused when he reads what President Mugabe is now saying about him. In the build up to the France-Africa summit, the government of Zimbabwe was complementary on Chirac’s independence from the Blair-Bush axis of evil and to the extent that Chirac had the courage to send the message to President Mugabe that he must reflect on the problems at home and is so doing he will discover that Blair and Bush may be his best friend. It would be interesting to discover when President Mugabe discovered that it is wrong for African countries like sheep to meet with a single leader of a developed country when he was one of the participants in the Sino-Africa summit and yet he did not make the same observations. Any leadership that is guided as a matter of principle by hypocrisy is necessarily a dangerous leadership.
It is common cause that if President Chirac had invited President Mugabe he would be heralded by the Herald as a great man. If President Chirac has created an administration that is capable of gathering its own intelligence that can properly inform his decisions, I believe that it is irresponsible for Zimbabweans not to use President Mugabe’s birthday as a day to tell him that his views about the conduct of his government have no relevance to the reality on the ground.
In choosing to use President Mugabe’s own words, I think that it helps many who may not get the real picture that Zimbabweans have different realities to start to reflect like Chirac has done that there is no wrong time to do the right thing. In the final analysis there can never be a wrong time to start adding your voice to something that is wrong. The salvation of Zimbabwe lies in people being able to fully comprehend and digest what informs the decisions of their adversaries.
Some are beginning to talk of the need for a social contract as a way forward for Zimbabwe forgetting that the framework of such contracts involves the working people only who ordinarily are represented by the unions, the employers who ordinarily have interests in the productive sector, and the government. However, with the fast diminishing formal sector and a divided organized labor grouping as well as an employer group that is not representative, it is a mockery and insult to any rational Zimbabwean to suggest that salvation can be located in a vacuum.
While Gono chooses to talk about social contracts, his boss is talking about Blair’s exit as the day of salvation. Could President Mugabe be warning Gono not to go beyond the standard text of blame everybody except you?