The fact that Zimbabwe’s political self-destruction threatens to split the Commonwealth summit later this year comes as an unwelcome development for Commonwealth leaders, who had been assured that Robert Mugabe would no longer be president by the time they gather in Abuja, Nigeria, in December.
Mugabe himself is unlikely to be at the gathering of leaders from 54 countries, whose 1,3-billion people account for a third of the world’s population. Since he stole the presidential election last year Zimbabwe has been suspended from the decision-making councils of the Commonwealth.
As host of the summit, Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo has indicated that he will not be inviting the besieged Zimbabwe leader.
To evaporate any lingering doubt, Australian Prime Minister John Howard vowed this week that Zimbabwe would be barred from any Commonwealth decision-making until Mugabe is removed from power.
Howard’s uncompromising language reflects the extent of the dispute within the Commonwealth over Zimbabwe. The Australian leader feels strongly that Mugabe’s human rights record justifies his continued exclusion from the 54-nation body, not to say expulsion.
”Zimbabwe is a disaster, a human disaster,” Howard said in a national radio interview. ”It is quite unacceptable that Zimbabwe be allowed to resume participation in Commonwealth affairs until there’s a complete change of approach — and that can only happen with the disappearance of the Mugabe government.”
Howard chairs the troika of Commonwealth leaders, including President Thabo Mbeki and Obasanjo, tasked with monitoring the Zimbabwe issue. They agreed in March last year to suspend Zimbabwe, but they have differed angrily on renewing its punishment this year.
Mbeki spokesperson Bheki Khumalo warned this week that ”megaphone diplomacy” would not produce the desired results in Zimbabwe.
”Sanctions have been imposed on Zimbabwe for a number of months now with no result at all and we don’t think that using megaphone diplomacy will work,” he said. ”Our view is that the Commonwealth imposed the maximum penalty on Zimbabwe by suspending it for one year. We do not understand this business of Australia saying that Zimbabwe [should still be] excluded. You cannot impose a specific punishment on a country and then, because you don’t like it, simply decide to continue that punishment.”
Mbeki and the Department of Foreign Affairs maintain that their ”quiet diplomacy” will achieve the political transformation Zimbabwe requires.
For months they have been putting out the message that the democratic process in Zimbabwe will see Mugabe leave — probably before the Commonwealth summit, or at least by mid-2004. Khumalo repeated this week that despite their repeated denials the ruling Zanu-PF and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change were talking.
Mugabe has relished giving the lie to South Africa’s upbeat approach. Several times he has denounced speculation about his impending departure as ”wishful thinking”. His action this past week in closing the independent Daily News and allowing the illegal ransacking of the newspaper’s premises demonstrates that he is determined not to help even those who believe they are helping him.
Amnesty International declared: ”This latest action by the Zimbabwe government has sent a strong and clear signal to regional and international leaders that human rights are under siege in Zimbabwe.”
Going back 37 years to Ian Smith’s Rhodesian rebellion, the Commonwealth has grown used to being divided over Zimbabwe.
The ”old” Commonwealth members, comprising Britain and its former empire stalwarts, were accused of tolerating and even supporting Smith’s illegal regime. Today the Third World members — particularly Africans — are being painted as protecting Zimbabwe’s patently undemocratic rulers.
African leaders have taken a hard line in international forums against excluding Zimbabwe. They shunned a Lisbon summit with the European Union in February because the EU was not prepared to lift travel restrictions imposed on Mugabe. Parliamentarians from the 77-member African, Pacific and Caribbean (ACP) organisation have joined this show of solidarity.
They have threatened to boycott a gathering with EU counterparts in Rome next month if Zimbabwe government representatives are barred.
A similar protest is unlikely to hit the Commonwealth summit, but the organisation does not need another gathering split by Zimbabwe. With the bulk of its members being small and developing countries, the Commonwealth has found a very useful forum for expressing the needs and aspirations of the poor.
Little purpose will be served by the pro- and anti-Zimbabwe factions squaring off at Abuja. The worst impact will be an erosion of relations between Australia and South Africa, who represent the opposite polls of the argument over whether to embrace or eject Mugabe. Britain and New Zealand would be reluctantly drawn in to support the ejection camp, fully aware of the damage this will do to their unique organisation.