When the South African government announced that President Jacob Zuma was planning yet another trip to Libya to facilitate a peaceful resolution to the conflict, several questions immediately rose in my mind.
What were the South African government and the African Union (AU) trying to achieve? What conditions had changed since the first trip? Would Zuma speak to the right people this time around? Why was he optimistic that he could deliver something? What drives Zuma to keep going back to this thing?
Or was South Africa trying to wriggle itself out of a mess it helped to create when it voted in support of the no-fly zone? But then, if you rewind to the pre-Polokwane period, you would remember that Zuma was always sold to a sceptical audience as a consensus-seeker, as a leader who listens and a peacemaker.
On his return from exile, Zuma is credited with being one of the key peace brokers in KwaZulu-Natal in the Nineties, when the war between the ANC and the Inkatha Freedom Party was decimating the population and peace prospects looked thin on the ground.
Msholozi is believed to have shuttled between his comrades in the United Democratic Front and enemies in the IFP to pull off a major feat. When he was deputy president he also completed the truce negotiations in Burundi, which had been started by Nelson Mandela. In addition, he had a special relationship with the Brother Leader, who had supported him in his fight against president Thabo Mbeki.
So he has experience and all that, but did he really think he could pull off a miracle and save Libya from further implosion? His confidence and persistence suggests he did.
After all, President Zuma had had all the time since the first failed mission to reflect on the lessons learned. But this week all we did was watch a replay of that first encounter. Zuma flew into Libya, was met with pomp by Muammar Gaddafi, they posed for cameras in camaraderie, the Brother Leader promised that he was ready for a cease-fire but would not step down and the minute Zuma left full fighting resumed. (The last time, it was Gaddafi who continued to bomb the rebels.
This time it was Nato, signifying the changed power relations.) And, as was the case the last time, no sooner had Zuma landed back at OR Tambo international airport, the rebels denounced his mission and rejected his mediation efforts.
After the last visit Zuma’s office announced he had made a “breakthrough”. This time around he was much more guarded, merely reporting what transpired and reiterating the AU position that Nato should stop bombing Libya.
“The president is satisfied with the progress made and is happy with the frankness of the discussions, which have enabled him to gain an understanding of where the Libyan government stands on issues and the way forward,” read the statement. “We call on all leaders in Libya to exercise decisive leadership to find a solution to the crisis in the country and to put the interests of their country first. Nothing other than a dialogue among all parties in Libya can bring about a lasting solution. We will also reiterate the AU call for Nato and other parties to respect the AU’s role in searching for a solution in the matter.”
No premature breakthrough this time, but what are we to expect now? Zuma says he will give a report on the visit to the chairperson of the AU’s ad hoc high-level committee on Libya, President Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz of Mauritania.
African leaders have recently been vocal about re-asserting control on the continent and reminding the West that Africans should be left to solve their own problems. It is a cogent argument, given that when Western countries intervene in conflicts here they usually do so in a partisan manner, and mainly in pursuit of their own interests. But as has been pointed out before, Nato joined the conflict when Gaddafi was butchering his own and the AU was predictably quiet.
African leaders must know that the time is long past when we would cheer for Kwame Nkrumah’s “Africa for Africans” call in a vacuum. And given Nato’s active role in leading the siege on Gaddafi, can they conceivably execute their mission without speaking to Nato?
Zuma’s trip to Libya was limited to encounters with Gaddafi. He bizarrely omitted to meet the rebels in Benghazi and made no contact with Nato. It would be harsh of us to laugh off the president’s attempts, but there are way too many questions, contradictions and loopholes in our foreign policy endeavours.