Re-engagement: Folly of forgiving the unrepentant
By William Muchayi
The Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, popularly known as Chatham House, an internationally acclaimed think tank, faces a credibility crisis in its quest to re-engage the discredited 90 year old Robert Mugabe unconditionally from the wilderness, a gesture synonymous with rewarding vice by virtue.
In the University of Pennsylvania’s 2013 Global Go To Think Tank’s Report, Chatham House is ranked the second most influential think tank in the world after the Brookings Institution, and the most influential non-US think tank.
Among its aims , the institution strives to promote debate on significant developments in international affairs and policy responses with its ‘ independent research’ and analysis on global , regional and country-specific challenges intended to offer new ideas to decision makers on how these could best be tackled from the near to the long term.
However, the London based institution has become the subject of ridicule and scorn among many especially in the developing world and Zimbabwe in particular, for, far from being independent and objective, it has succumbed to the whims, selfish and materialistic machinations peddled by its donors who range from multinational corporations, governments and other organisations at the expense of many innocent souls.
Just recently, Chatham House raised eyebrows when it hosted Mugabe’s blue-eyed boy Walter Mzembi , a well known looter who is not only a beneficiary of the dictator’s corrupt and patronage system , but, an accomplice in the reign of terror the country has witnessed of late, a gesture synonymous with giving Boko Haram a platform at Trafalgar Squareto lecture on terrorism .
As if this propaganda by Chatham House on Mugabe’s behalf isn’t enough, just recently , the think tank published a long report on Zimbabwe authored by Knox Chitiyo and Steve Kibble entitled ; ‘Zimbabwe’s International Re-engagement: The Long Haul to Recovery.’
The involvement of Knox Chitiyo , a known Mugabe apologist and former senior lecturer in History and War Studies at the University of Zimbabwe in authoring the report not only raise eyebrows on its objectivity, but , subjects Chatham House to a credibility dilemma for, many who have endured Mugabe’s dictatorship find the institution irrelevant.
Chitiyo and Kibble ‘s report is nothing of an objective analysis of Zimbabwean politics but just a Mugabe propaganda drive to be readmitted into the international community unconditionally after years of isolation . As the report draws its conclusion from flawed premises, that conclusion can hardly be valid.
In the report , the authors advocate for Mugabe’s re-engagement , for , ‘The government (Zimbabwe) has also demonstrated through its dialogue with the local and business sector and other stakeholders , and through its investment and re-engagement drive which it is taking the situation seriously and is prioritising economic recovery…’
Not only that, Chitiyo and Kibble advocate for Zimbabwe’s re-admission to the Commonwealth as well. The credibility of the report by Chatham House renders the highly acclaimed institution laughable and at worst suspect for , all available evidence contradicts Chitiyo and Kibble’s findings .
The World Bank Doing Business Report recently ranked Zimbabwe 158th out of 183 countries high on the heels of the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index that rated Zimbabwe poorly at number 133 out of 143 countries over the past 5 years.
This narrative by Chatham House that portrays Zimbabwe as a favourable destination for capital investment is a big lie peddled by the Africa rising evangelists who happen to be multinational corporations and governments scrambling for the country’s lucrative mineral wealth and by coincidence, are Chatham House’s main donors as well who have no regard for the plight of the impoverished Africans.
And, in any case, who is Mugabe engaging in dialogue with in the country to resolve the deepening socio-economic and political paralysis that grip the nation besides him carrying a begging bowl when he interacts with the international community?
Not only that, Chitiyo and Kibble’s report advocates for the complete removal of sanctions unconditionally as if the punitive measures were imposed for no apparent reason. Naively, Chitiyo argues that sanctions have not been effective, that they have been at best a blunt instrument and at worst counterproductive, for, they have not changed behaviours.
With due respect , one wonders , what incentive is there for Mugabe to implement reforms today with the punitive measures scrapped which he failed to when he was under sanctions? As proof that Chatham House’s offensive in Zimbabwe is driven by economic motives more than anything else, the report concludes, ‘the real challenge for Zimbabwean politics is not simply electoral democracy: It is to create a genuinely inclusive participatory democracy.’
Indeed, one wonders how a genuine inclusive participatory democracy can be achieved in a pariah state of Mugabe’s when the dictator is allergic to reforms let alone create an even political playing field that guarantees elections aren’t rigged in broad daylight ?
Given all the facts on the ground, it’s not an understatement, contrary to Chatham House’s stance, that the removal of sanctions by the EU on the Mugabe regime is driven by anything else other than the West’s insatiable appetite for the country’s lucrative mineral resources as evidenced by Chitiyo and Kibble’s findings who observe that , ‘Zimbabwe is a major producer of platinum, gold, Ferro-chrome and diamonds.
Zimbabwe is thus on the cusp of becoming the global major mining power…’ Can the West, with its unquenchable appetite for investment and exploitation of Zimbabwe’s wealth in spite of Mugabe’s atrocious human rights record afford to leave the Chinese alone in the race for the Second Scramble for Africa?
Indeed, didn’t the Belgium based Antwerp World Diamond Council admit that it lobbied on Zanu PF’s behalf for the removal of the measures in order to secure Zimbabwe diamond sales from its auction floors? And, in its invitation letter to the Zanu PF regime, Chatham House believes , ‘prospects for investment in Zimbabwe remain strong.’
As recently observed by Amnesty International, despite the new constitution being in effect for a year in the country, government is yet to amend or repeal all the laws rendered unconstitutional and continues to use them. Where is the justice Chatham House and the West claim to champion when they dine and wine with the devil for the sake of their economic interests at the expense of millions of innocent citizens who have been reduced to paupers?
What justification is there for the West to claim high moral ground when they attack Putin’s dictatorship in Russia, for, in the eyes of the world their foreign policy is as bad as the former’s in their dealings with Africans. As if the insult to many Zimbabweans isn’t enough, the Chatham House report endorses the disputed July elections as it refers it to ‘A landslide victory by the Zimbabwe African National Union in Zimbabwe’s elections in 2013.’
The premise upon which this conclusion is reached at is the endorsement of the sham poll by SADC, COMESSA, AU and the UN, and ultimately, this ‘confirmed Zanu PF’s grip on power.’
Assuming that Chatham House is a genuine and independent think tank and not a front for greedy capitalists , how can it justify this assertion considering that almost a year after the disputed elections , the electronic voters roll is yet to be made public with the ZEC chairperson alleging that it has disappeared? Who is fooling who here and can Chatham House afford to sink all that low to the extent of being embroiled in Zanu PF propaganda at the expense of its reputation?
In addition, Chitiyo and Kibble praise Zanu PF’s indigenisation and land reform policies as a success, for, ‘indigenisation is not unique to Zimbabwe. Nor is the 51 percent figure astronomically high, it is now commonplace throughout Africa.’ If that is the case, why is there a rethink in Mugabe’s policies vis-à-vis indigenisation after the country struggles to attract investment almost a year after the ‘landslide victory’?
Even the EU bloc that appears to be warming up to the carrot Mugabe dangles before them also share the same sentiments millions of Zimbabweans have over the controversial policy being celebrated by Chatham House .
Ado Dell’Ariccia, the EU ambassador to Zimbabwe recently expressed reservations over Mugabe’s indigenisation policy arguing that,’ There was lack of clarity in the policy (indigenisation) and we can only welcome the government stance especially if it dissipitates the fears of the international community. The message is positive but words alone are not sufficient.’
How else can Chitiyo and Kibble’s endorsement of Mugabe’s indigenisation policy be explained when the rest of the international community including Zimbabweans themselves do express their reservations?
Just last month , Malcolm Francis , a white commercial farmer and his daughter Catherine were murdered in cold blood in Guruve Mashonaland Central Province in an alleged racially motivated crime not detached from the ongoing farm invasions being spearheaded by Mugabe who is now elevated to the status of a saint by Chatham House.
This is not a unique case for it’s consistent with an ongoing pattern as evidenced by threats made by Temba Mliswa , Zanu PF’s Mashonaland West provincial chairman who still insists that the remaining white commercial farmers ‘illegally’ occupying farms must vacate with immediate effect before they are forced to , all these threats being blessed by Mugabe.
With all this evidence, what message does the EU and Chatham House send to Mugabe and his cronies as they start to extend an olive branch to the dictator who isn’t only unapologetic but doesn’t show any remorse for the wrongs he committed against his people?
Indeed , the misleading observation by Chatham House to the effect that , ‘Zimbabwe is thus on the cusp of becoming a global major mining power…’ deserves to be condemned in all possible terms , for, how can the impoverished diamond rich Southern African state still thrive on economic aid from outsiders if she is all that rich?
Who benefits from these vast mineral resources beside Mugabe, his cronies and multinational corporations who happen to be Chatham House’s main donors? In 2013, Tendai Biti, the then Finance Minister criticised the mining sector for not remitting funds to Treasury. He lamented that there was no money remitted from the diamond fields of Chiadzwa in Marange in January and February of the year.
The former minister disclosed that only US$5 million was remitted in March 2013 despite profits of overUS$100 million. The former minister sensationally disclosed that the Zimbabwe government collected a meagre US$40 million from the mining sector out of the US$300 million estimated by Treasury in the same year with the rest unaccounted for.
Biti lamented at the time, ‘If Treasury was receiving cash from the sale of diamonds, we should not be begging for cash from donors since we own about 50 per cent shares in diamond mines.’ Whose narrative is being peddled by Chatham House through Chitiyo and Kibble in their report that observes that, ‘the mining sector has been booming.
According to one account in 2012, it surpassed the 15.2% growth target on the back of a continuous rise in production and earnings?’ Where does the mining revenue go as millions of Zimbabweans have been reduced to paupers?
The stance by the EU to re-engage Mugabe, a move that coincides with the publication of the Chatham House report is consistent with the West’s foreign policy in the developing world and Africa in particular. In the 60s Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire was the darling of the West at the expense of the impoverished Zaireans and immediately after that Mugabe was being knighted in London at a time he butchered the Ndebele in Matabeleland during Gukurahundi.
Today, Paul Kagame of Rwanda who has hired Tony Blair as his personal advisor is revered by many in the West as one of the most visionary leaders in the world and yet he is among the worst monsters across the continent. Naively , the West erroneously view Rwanda as the ‘emerging Singapore of Africa’ , while concealing the open secret that like most other celebrated Africa rising narratives , her survival is premised on foreign aid.
Isn’t the West silent on Field Marshall Abdel Fatah El- Sisi’s reign of terror in Egypt since he advances their strategic interests in the Middle East? Zimbabweans are their own liberators and no amount of propaganda by Chatham House should dampen their quest for freedom and victory is certain however long it might take.
William Muchayi is a pro-democracy and political analyst who has written for several publications. He can be contacted on [email protected]
