Zuma’s speculative and silent diplomacy

By Takura Zhangazha 

President Jacob Zuma is a man of few words. This would perhaps explain the brevity of his press statement at the end of his two day visit to Zimbabwe, a visit that was intended to ensure a resolution of the Zimbabwean inclusive government’s problems. 

He also decided, true to fashion, to not field any questions from an eager press corps that had been patiently waiting to hear something substantive from the SADC-appointed facilitator. 

But perhaps, apart from his lack of a willingness to talk to anyone other than the three political principals, President Zuma went one further than his predecessor Thabo Mbeki. He went from quiet diplomacy to chart the previously unexplored waters of speculative and silent diplomacy. And in saying this I am not attempting an immediate comparison of the style or substance of either President Zuma or Mr. Mbeki. 

But given the character of the nearly three year mediation in Zimbabwe’s political crisis, President Zuma, like former President Mbeki, cannot escape criticism, even if he has not yet asked that now infamous question of his predecessor: ‘Crisis? What crises?’ 

I have referred above to President Zuma as having brought into my mind a new phrase, that of ‘speculative and silent’ diplomacy. This is primarily for a number of reasons. The first being that given the hype about his visit to Harare, and for two days at that, public expectation of either finality or literal progress on ‘outstanding issues’ was phenomenally high. These expectations were also about anticipation of firm leadership vis-à-vis his facilitator’s role. 

Depending on which side of the political divide one stands on, this role  would have been either that he firmly rein in President Mugabe or alternatively assuage Prime Minister Tsvangirai. Well, given the short nature of his statement, as well as its very vague statements, President Zuma did not assert that expected leadership. This is not to say diplomacy is done by stamping your foot down, but surely something to that effect was needed. But perhaps this would be to expect too much of the President of another country. 

And because one cannot realistically have expected messianic feats by South Africa’s President over and about a Zimbabwean problem, analysis must therefore focus on the full import of what in my view is speculative and silent diplomacy. 

In reading President Zuma’s statement, the reference that is made to a ‘package of measures to be implemented concurrently as per the decision of the SADC troika in Maputo’, without even as much as hinting what this is or at least means is potentially beyond even the phrase ‘speculative’. Either it means we are back in Maputo, and therefore President Zuma’s visit was unnecessary. 

Further still the vague belief that President Zuma expresses in the implementation of a ‘package of measures ’ that no one apart from the political parties knows anything is puzzling. Assuming that there is a package that is reasonable in the view of the political parties, the fact that it has to be discussed on three days, March 24, 26, 29 and 31 speculatively assumes that whatever was agreed while he was here will hold firm. 

But given the character of the Zimbabwean negotiators it is least likely they will carry through what Zuma wants, even over the days announced. This is because if one were to attempt to count the number of outstanding issues during the life of the GPA, there is no one moment where they are completely certain or again, non-negotiable. 

The silent diplomacy component of President Zuma’s visit and statement is to be found in the secrecy of both the talks and their outcome. In previous negotiations where the facilitator has been in direct attendance, the secrecy would have been confined to the process of the talks. Following these, there would have been a somewhat elaborate statement on the results of these talks and journalists would be been permitted to field questions. 

In President Zuma’s instance, secrecy was both during the process as well as in his final statement.  Even where the political parties meet on the designated days next week, it is evident that they will take a leaf from President Zuma’s conduct.  And perhaps we will never know what the ‘package’ entails until the next SADC summit. 

In the final analysis, President Zuma’s latest round of direct mediation in Zimbabwe’s crisis was primarily impolitic. This is because the facilitator did not in any way seek to demonstrate his understanding of the political expectations of his role to the Zimbabwean people.  It may be agreed that not all Zimbabweans ever had confidence in the talks, but surely they have come to accept them as necessary together with a limited feedback from the facilitator. 

President Zuma did not account to anyone but the political parties, neither did he demonstrate a sense of urgency for the Zimbabwean public to have confidence in his ability to bring matters to a heel. But perhaps that is his business, and he is particularly under no obligation to ingratiate himself with the people of Zimbabwe. 

Whatever secrets are over what happened during his visit, he has indeed allowed students of international relations to begin to worry whether their lecturers will introduce a new assignment question; ‘Speculative and silent diplomacy’ Discuss.

[newsletter]