Africa's problems require African solutions
By Fiona Forde
It was to Sharm el-Sheikh that 29 Israeli, Arab and world leaders travelled in 1996 in an attempt to bring peace to the Middle East.
Bill Clinton boldly dubbed it the "summit of the peacemakers". And, not surprisingly, many observers questioned his daring back then. No sooner had they left the Red Sea resort town than the Arab world was burning with the notorious peace process teetering on the brink.
And it was from here that 53 African leaders and delegates departed on Tuesday night, armed with as much symbolism and rhetoric, and some would say as little substance, as the crew before them. On the surface, not much more than a call for talks to broker a solution.
This time the issue at stake was the ongoing Zimbabwe crisis. Robert Mugabe had been sworn in as the country's sixth president on the eve of the summit, with 85 percent of votes to his credit from last week's one-man race.
As the world began to tut-tut at his blatant disregard for democracy, members of the African Union (AU) jetted into Sharm-el-Sheikh for a meeting that was intended to address water, sanitation and rising food prices, but was overshadowed by the troublesome leader of the southern African state.
How to deal with a man who was once one of the most respected liberation icons on the continent, but who then proceeded to preside over the decline of what Julius Nyerere once dubbed the "bounty" of Africa, would be no mean feat.
A man who began to dig in his heels when the world condemned him. An African leader who puts words to the unspoken and deep-seated anti-West sentiment that is shared by most other African leaders. And at the same time, a dictator who shares the same closet secrets as many of them.
Africa, though not the AU, has been here before with Robert Mugabe. In 2000, 2002 and 2005. AU President Jakaya Kikwete was not in an enviable position.
During the summit's opening ceremony, UN Deputy Secretary-General Asha Rose Migiro described it as "a moment of truth" for the African leaders gathered in her midst, a time to step up to the podium and practice what they preached. The world powers were putting it to the AU: Get involved and strike the right chord.
Some of them did just that when they spoke up in the closing session. A handful, it has to be said. Leaders "used the kind of language I've never heard in a summit like this before," according to one Tanzanian delegate.
Botswana called for Mugabe to be banned from all future Southern African Development Community (SADC) and AU meetings. They said his sham elections did not confer legitimacy on his presidency.
Nigeria was equally daring in refusing to recognise Mugabe as a head of state, a move that could also be interpreted as a slight against its arch-rival South Africa, as Zimbabwe mediator. Kenya raised its voice. Sierra Leone followed suit. Then Liberia, followed by Senegal and Tanzania in slightly more neutered tones.
"I wasn't going to make my position known publicly," said Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade.
"It wouldn't have been helpful." There wasn't a whisper from Namibia. "Silence speaks for itself," a Namibian delegate claimed. Or indeed from a host of other leaders.
And the majority refusal to openly condemn Mugabe forced the AU to finally agree to disagree. With the first prize out of reach, they opted for the next best - a call on Mugabe and his arch rival Morgan Tsvangirai to form a Government of National Unity, sooner rather than later.
And there was a nod in Thabo Mbeki's direction with a recommendation that the talks remain at the SADC level, but with a permanent presence on the ground to seize the momentum for a settlement.
Like Sharm el-Sheikh in 1996, no real substance, on paper at least. And certainly no reflection of the harsh verdicts handed down by a handful of leaders, because black-brother politics still won't allow such sentiments public breathing space. That's not to say their words won't echo.
Like Harare in 2002, when another of Mugabe's disputed presidential victories also brought talking heads to a table, Mugabe is so far agreeing to toe the line.
"He has not objected to me yet," Kikwete told Independent Newspapers, although Tsvangirai has insisted on a clause to all future negotiations: No peace, no talks.
But it's not Tsvangirai that's the worry right now. Six years ago, with the world focused on Zimbabwe just as it is today, Africa thought it had seen the end of Mugabe's reign of terror. Promises were made.
Assurances were given. Agreements were in place. Within months, it was falling apart. By then the glare of the world was elsewhere. And Zimbabwe has continued its steady decline ever since.
Africa is back where it was in 2002. And it calls the futility of Tuesday's resolution - no more than a call for talks - into question.
Would it have helped matters if Kikwete could have urged all his peers to take a hardened stance and not recognise the 84-year-old Zanu-PF leader as one of them? To condemn his actions and force him out?
It's what the world seems to have been waiting for. It would've caused an international stir. It would also have marked a first for inter-African relations. Kikwete would have become an instant darling of the West. But hell would've known no fury like Mugabe's wrath had that happened.
The old man would have well and truly flipped if his black brothers ousted him from his African club. The TV-footage of him ranting at a British journalist on Monday would have been nothing compared to the fury he would have unleashed, no doubt on his own people, if he were toppled in principle from his presidential perch.
There is no denying that Mugabe's entitlement to a powerful seat is not legitimate. Reports from three credible observer missions have said as much.
The SADC, the Pan African Parliament and the AU concur in their observations that the poll was fatally flawed and does not represent the will of the people of Zimbabwe.
But the situation is such that it would be foolish to exclude Mugabe at this point. Both the AU and the SADC need to work with him and not against him, because dismantling the powerful Zanu-PF after all these years will be no mean feat. A peaceful transition in Zimbabwe can only happen with all the main players on board.
Unspoken words in Tuesday's resolution are directed at the rest of the world: The AU won't pander to global powers. But they refrained from using the language of Mugabe's spokesperson George Charramba - "the West can go hang a thousand times" - confirming the view that Africa's problems require African solutions.
http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=84&art_id=vn20080704061956275C524259
