Robert Mugabe’s Zanu-PF party may resist a regional plan to deepen the Southern African Development Community’s (SADC’s) involvement in Zimbabwe’s reform process, in what would be a test for a region that appears to be slowly moving away from years of appeasement.
Southern African leaders, at a summit in South Africa last week, resolved to send representatives to monitor progress in talks on a road map towards new elections in Zimbabwe. SADC leaders want to see the road map in place by August when they meet again in Angola.
Three representatives would join the Joint Monitoring and Implementation Committee, the multiparty body that monitors implementation of Zimbabwe’s unity agreement, and “mobilise resources” for the body. Zanu-PF rejects this as interference in Zimbabwe’s internal affairs.
The decision to send a team of representatives was taken earlier this year at a meeting of the SADC troika on security and defence — made up of the presidents of Zambia, South Africa and Mozambique in Livingstone, Zambia, where the region took an unusually firm line against Mugabe, criticising intimidation and violence. But Zanu-PF said this week the Livingstone resolutions were rejected last weekend, a position dismissed by Jacob Zuma’s international adviser, Lindiwe Zulu, and Tomaz Salomao, the head of the SADC secretariat.
Zanu-PF spokesperson Rugare Gumbo said: “Contrary to what the MDC (Movement for Democratic Change) formations and the private media would like people to believe, the summit threw the Livingstone troika communiqué into the dustbin.” The decision to send a SADC team was not yet finalised, he said.
But the MDC insisted that, contrary to Zanu-PF’s refusal to allow the SADC team in, “the founding (SADC) document on defence and security [says] that SADC has a mandate to intervene in the internal affairs of a troubled member state such as Zimbabwe”.
Jameson Timba, the minister of state in Morgan Tsvangirai’s office and a close ally of the prime minister, said Tsvangirai was “satisfied with the outcome” of the SADC summit. The next stage would be talks to come up with firmer timelines.
A week after the summit, many Zimbabweans are still debating about who won.
After years of watching much-anticipated summits on Zimbabwe peter out, the meetings have, for Zimbabweans at home, become something of a reality game show. The communiqués released at the end of the meetings have become score cards, with Zimbabweans sifting through the diplomatic language to pick a winner.
This week’s debate centred on SADC’s announcement that it had “noted” the outcome of last month’s meeting of its troika in Zambia. Zimbabwe’s foreign minister, Simbarashe Mumbengegwi, said “noted” was diplomatic talk for “rejected”, but the MDC said it meant regional censure for Mugabe.
Mugabe had hoped to have the Livingstone resolutions set aside and for endorsement of his bid for elections this year, a broadly unpopular plan supported by a radical core of loyalists. The SADC instead demanded that Zimbabwe “move faster” to come up with a road map for elections by August.
Zuma’s report on Zimbabwe in Zambia criticised the lack of movement on electoral regulations and media restrictions. Zanu-PF hardliners responded to the report with vicious public attacks on Zuma, from which Mugabe’s handlers later retreated. In a bid to smooth things over with Zuma ahead of last weekend’s summit, Mugabe met Zuma at his official residence. State media reported glowingly on the meeting, saying Mugabe had had pictures taken with Zuma’s family. “It was like a family reunion,” said a reporter.
But other reports suggested clashes between Mugabe and Zuma.
According to Zulu, the meeting drew “mixed feelings with some expressing displeasure and discomfort”.
On the SADC’s vague communiqué, Zulu said the wording did not matter. “Whether you use ‘noted’ or ‘endorsed’, it means the same. The leaders used ‘noted’ because it is the language they felt like using on that day. If people want to be honest, they will tell you what happened during the meeting and what was agreed and what was not.”
Her remarks will further anger Zanu-PF, which already wants her removed from the process because of her abrasive style.