Zimbabwe: In the Shadow of September 11th

In the Shadow of September 11th.

Brian Raftopoulos, Associate Professor, IDS, University of Zimbabwe.

Like millions of others around the globe I have been coming to terms with the recent bombings in the US, and trying to understand the longer significance of the tragedy on global politics, and more specifically on developments in Zimbabwe. As with all such acts of terror, most of the victims were ordinary, working men and women, going about their daily lives, in the context of larger geo-political concerns over which they have little control. The loss of some 5000 lives in the heart of the world’s only superpower, demonstrates the vulnerability of all states to the determined purveyors of such violence. However, as people all over the world share the tragedy of those who have lost their lives, and the pain of the surviving family members, there is also growing concern about the forthcoming response of the US government.

Since the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, dual symbols of American economic and military global domination, the Bush administration has quickly gone on to a war footing. The language of this mobilsation has predictably centred on the contrasts between ‘freedom’, ‘civilisation’ and ‘democracy’ on the one side, against ‘terror’ and ‘cowardice’. Most of the discussion of the event has been portrayed as the work of terrorist madmen, outside of any serious historical context, and with little sense of the contribution of American foreign policy to the creation of such inhuman acts. President Bush has called the attacks ‘a new kind of war’ for the 21st century. However it is clear that the only novel aspect of this event has been its explosive unfolding on American soil. For the most part the American understanding of terror is its occurrence in foreign lands, in ways unrelated to America’s contribution to such terror. Yet a cursory look at 20th century history will reveal that the tragedy of New York and Washington is one of the legacies of US foreign policy interventions, in what the historian Eric Hobsbawm has called ‘The Age of Extremes’. For the US regularly deployed its military might in the last century, in ways that often perpetuated repressive politics. In this regard its uncritical support for Israel, and unpopular regimes in the middle east such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan, has been at the centre of a growing destabilsation of politics in that region, and indeed at a global level. Remember also that the Mujahadeen forces in Afghanistan were also created with US assistance.

To say all this is not to support the recent terror, but to begin to think in broader terms about the creation of global political and economic conditions that will reduce the possibility of a recurrence of such dire interventions. In the first instance, those responsible for this outrage must be brought to justice, but in ways that do not create the conditions for a reproduction of the conditions which gave rise to this tragedy. The Bush Administration has embarked upon the creation of a ‘Global Coalition against Terrorism’ involving the NATO countries, as well as states with a dominant Muslim population such as Indonesia. His rallying call to this coalition is, ‘If you love freedom you must join us.’ It needs to be remembered that this new call for international cooperation is coming from a President who has turned his back on other attempts at such cooperation, such as the Kyoto Treaty on the environment and the Anti-Ballistic Missile agreements. Instead the new US administration has set its sight on spending billions of dollars on a Star Wars defence system. If one thing has been made clear in the recent bombings, it is that such missile defence systems are an absolute waste of time, when attacks on America are more likely to be made in low-tech forms from within.

In the light of these considerations, it is necessary for the US to proceed very carefully in the next week. Pakistan is in a delicate situation as it seeks to reconcile its close relationship to the US, with the need to placate strong anti-American sentiments in the region. A mistaken intervention in this area could further destabilise this region, at a time when both Pakistan and India have nuclear capability. Moreover the escalating conflict in the Middle East must be a central concern if the Osama bin Ladens of the Arab world are to be effectively isolated. A day after the attacks in the US the Israeli government launched an attack on Palestinians in the city of Jenin and the towns of Arraba, Tammon and Tobas, using American F16 warplanes, apache helicopters and tanks. One commentator called this attack ‘an unashamed opportunist response’, and indeed, the rapidity with which the Sharon government has sought to capitalise on the American tragedy has been all too apparent. An agreement in the Middle East that provides justice for Palestinians is more important than ever, and yet it has never seemed so far off. Clearly these are some of the major concerns that need to be addressed in the longer term for the sake, not just of American security, but for a more peaceful international climate.

For Zimbabwe, the immediate effect of these events is that the Zimbabwe Democracy Bill is likely to fall off the American agenda in the near future, in the same way that the world has disappeared from global news coverage in the last week. The restrained responses of the Government of Zimbabwe to the events in the US, indicate the Mugabe regime’s understanding of the space that has opened up to them. As the attention of the US and the UK turns to dealing with ‘global terrorism’, it is likely that that President Mugabe and his party will intensify their attempts to find ways of distorting the terms of the Abuja agreement. It must be remembered that the Agreement commits the various parties to the following:

Ø Land is at the centre of the crisis in Zimbabwe and cannot be separated from other issues of concern to the Commonwealth such as the rule of law, respect for human rights, democracy and the economy.
Ø Such a programme of land reform must be implemented in a fair, just and sustainable manner, in the interests of all the people of Zimbabwe, within the law and constitution of Zimbabwe.
Ø The crisis of Zimbabwe also has political and rule of law implications which must be addressed holistically and concurrently. The situation in Zimbabwe poses a threat to the socio-economic stability of the entire sub-region and the continent at large.
Ø The need to avoid a division within the Commonwealth at the forthcoming CHOGM in Brisbane, over the Zimbabwe situation.

Clearly from the agreement and the subsequent visit of SADC leaders to Zimbabwe, there is need for an holistic approach to the Zimbabwean crisis, that does not isolate the land question from broader political concerns. However there have been some concerns expressed by civic groups that were not allowed access to the SADC leaders, that there is a certain vagueness about the provisions of the agreement, and in particular that Abuja did not make explicit provisions requiring the government stop:
Ø Its systematic campaign of violent intimidation of political opponents.
Ø Its concerted campaign to curtail freedom of expression and to silence the independent press.
Ø Its attempts to undermine the independence of the judiciary.
Ø Its incitement of racial hatred.

These concerns are important given the response of the Zimbabwean government in the post-Abuja period. The Government is pursuing the following tactics in order twist Abuja for its own purposes. Firstly, there is the continued isolation of the land question from the broader political and human rights concerns expressed in the agreement. The entire thrust of the government’s response has been to spin the many issues once again, around a single factor, namely the land. There is thus a continuity in this authoritarian message. Secondly, and as a logical extension of the first strategy, the government is keen to move on a financial package, through the UNDP to ‘settle’ the land question thus seeking to by-pass the broader political concerns expressed in the agreement. In crude terms the government is very keen to get its grubby hands on the loot, with little political cost. Thirdly the regime, through its current hearing before the supreme court, is attempting to seek a constitutional justification for its ‘fast track’ programme, hoping that its newly constituted bench on the Supreme court will provide it with such constitutional cover. This is a clear case of what Okoth-Ogendo has called ‘Constitutions without Constitutionalism’. Fourthly the government’s propaganda machine has gone into overtime in disputing all allegations of regime violence and in fabricating alternative sources of such violence.

These strategies are clearly geared towards causing disputes around the Abuja agreement and thus dragging out its implementation for as long as possible before the 2002 elections. This regime is still reliant on a violent political strategy to survive, especially around the issue of farm workers who could threaten its support base in the Mashonaland areas. It is unlikely to give up on this survival strategy easily. In will therefore seek other ways of carrying out this strategy in the context of current constraints. However it is likely to find such a strategy more problematic, as not only civic and opposition groups continue to report on its deployment of violence, but the credibility of the SADC leaders and the Commonwealth is linked to the manner in which the agreement is overseen. Presently there is an urgent need for clearer monitoring procedures of the terms of Abuja, and a stricter time-table for the achievement of its provisions. More generally it is essential that acceptable conditions are created for the 2002 elections, and this has now become the lobbying focus of all the major civic groups.

As we all await, with apprehension, the response of the Bush administration to the attacks on US citizens, it is important to keep our eye on the tragedy unfolding on our own soil. We can only hope that the world will not witness another damaging nationalist response from the US that will continue to feed other regressive nationalisms, not least the grotesque absolutisms that have marked Zimbabwean politics.