Why Mbeki’s exit may be good for Sudan and Africa

By Marial Wuoi

September 17, 2008 — Thabo Mbeki was once touted as the new generation of African leaders alongside Museveni of Uganda and Paul Kigame of Rwanda to name just a few. This new brand of leaders was considered reform-minded and will confront the old guard that is running many of the failed African states such as Zimbabwe and Sudan. Instead, Mbeki has embraced the likes of Robert Mugabe and he is now defending Omar al-Bashir from being the impending arrest by the ICC. As surely as the sun rises slowly in the morning and sets in the evening, Mbeki’s star is fading. A New generation of African leaders is taking over and they are being led by Mbeki’s political nemesis: Jacob Zuma.

Characteristic of how political enemies are dealt with in other African countries, Mbeki tried to block Zuma’s path to presidency by trumping up some corruption charges. However, the highly developed and independent judiciary saw through this smoke screen and cleared Mr. Zuma of any charges. It is now all but certain that he will ascend to South Africa’s highest office in less than a year and things will change. Far from engaging in what he calls “quiet diplomacy”, Mr. Mbeki should have been more forceful with his long time friend, Robert Mugabe,who is now reigning over one of the worst economies in the world. He prodded Mugabe to come to term with the flight of millions of Zimbabweans instead of using his immense leverage to force Mugabe to honor the results of the March elections and exit. Without Mbeki, Mugabe is powerless and would have fallen long ago. South Africa remains Zimbabwe’s trade partner and its ports the major point of transits for goods destined for the landlocked Zimbabwe. Using this powerful leverage would have been enough to change Mugabe’s attitude.

Instead, Mbeki pursued pan-African inspired policies of the discredited and now defunct Organization of African Union (OAU), which was more of a dictators’ club, where they promised each other to not interfere in other country’s internal problems. As Zimbabwe was crumbling under the weight of its internal turmoil and repression, South Africa was quietly “talking” to Mugabe to relent. It wasn’t working as evidenced by the exodus of millions of Zimbabweans who were facing certain death and starvation in their own country. Even the recently reached agreement is not much consolation to Movement of Democratic Changes (MDC) supporters who have been traumatized by the security establishment in Zimbabwe. Mbeki’s explanation has consistently been that pushing Mugabe to the corner is not wise and would have made things worst inside Zimbabwe and create a refugee crisis for South Africa. In the end, his worst fears were realized: millions of Zimbabwe fled state-sanctioned violence and South Africans attacked these helpless people believing that they were competing for meager jobs in their own country.

With this measly track record, Mbeki will have little to show in terms of real leadership. His current project in the spirit of pan-Africanism is to get al-Bashir off the hook and he is justifying this in the same way he justified his acquiesce to Robert Mugabe: that is, indicting and issuing an arrest warrant for al-Bashir will lead to more instability in Sudan and endanger fragile peace prevailing in the country. I dare Mr. Mbeki to sell this baloney to millions of Darfurians currently languishing in the most inhospitable refugee and internal displace camps in the world. They will ask to know what peace Mbeki is talking about. What peace is there when the security cabal in Khartoum just casually murder defenseless refugees under the nose of the so-called UNAMID troops and the best response from the international community is a statement of condemnation? It is not a surprise that ICC prosecutor took a bold action to follow the trail of evidence however higher up the echelon of power it leads.

When Mr. Mbeki talks about the need to protect al-Bashir in order to preserve the status quo and maintain this false façade called peace, he must also take into account that peace must be enjoyed by all Sudanese. It is not a peace when others enjoy quiet sleep while others are under constant barrage of bombardments and terror. It is a shame to most Africans that the West is more outrage by the murderous campaign of terror being carried out in Darfur while African leaders like Mbeki are busy looking for ways to get al-Bashir out of his current predicament. Those being killed and raped in Darfur are our own brothers and sisters. They have more in common with the rest of Africa than those ruling Khartoum who take pride in playing up their Arab roots and abhor any association with the black continent. Is this the kind of legacy that our leaders will leave the next generation of leaders? A legacy of cowardice and low self esteem? I am proud of the leadership Yoweri Kaguta Museveni has shown by recognizing the mortal danger that Islamists in Khartoum pose for the rest of Africa. Museveni understands that given the chance, the Islamists in Khartoum will destabilize much of Africa to preserve themselves in power. If we had visionary leaders like Museveni running neighboring countries like Kenya and Ethiopia, Sudan would be enjoying a more equitable peace today than the one Mr. Mbeki is purporting to preserve.

But there is hope. Mr. Mbeki is enjoying his last term as he is barred by the constitution from running and Jacob Zuma is likely to take the helm. If this change takes place, South Africa’s foreign policy will be characterized by a marked shift from that of soft diplomacy to that of a more hands-on. Leaders like Zimbabwe’s Mugabe will no longer enjoy business as usual. Sudan’s al-Bashir will not enjoy the moral support that he is currently having from all corners of Africa. He will have to face the ICC alone.

Mr. Mbeki’s legacy will be a mixed one. On the internal front, he has reigned over a rapidly declining economy in recent South Africa’s history. The chaotic economy was recently manifested by xenophobic attacks on immigrants from Zimbabwe. His foreign policy has been largely disconnected from the path taken by most SADC countries. While most SADC members wanted to take punitive measures against Zimbabwe, South Africa remained engage and weary of any measures against Mugabe. It is therefore correct to assume that a post-Mbeki South Africa will be more responsive to the flight the oppressed across Africa. This will be a good news to the millions of Darfurians whom Mr. Mbeki erroneously believe are enjoying a peace thanks to al-Bashir’s reign of terror.