Registered user login:

Why Mbeki is the true heir to Thatcher

Rageh Omaar

Published 26 March 2007

Margaret Thatcher opposed sanctions in South Africa now Thabo Mbeki is doing the same for today's tyranny in Zimbabwe

In the late 1980s, as the international campaign for sanctions against South Africa was gaining ground, Peter Hain and Robert Mugabe found themselves on the same side of the barricades. Politically and morally, they were as one on seeking to bring down the apartheid state in South Africa.

These were the years of the "township wars", where, almost every night, television news images of the police shooting and beating ANC protesters were seen around the world. It was Margaret Thatcher who made the most consistent case against the imposition of sanctions. She argued that the ANC was a terrorist organisation and that sanctions would mainly end up hurting black South Africans and South Africa's neighbouring frontline states.

It seems almost impossible to believe it now, but one of the most dignified voices providing the counter-argument was Mugabe's. He offered ANC exiles not only a place of refuge, but also military and political aid. He said Zimbabweans and other black Africans would be prepared to eat just one meal of maize porridge a day if that helped liberate South Africans from tyranny.

Twenty years on, South Africa is free and prosperous, Peter Hain is a member of the British cabinet, and Zimbabwe is a desperate and brutal tyranny. As a Foreign Office minister, Hain led Britain's ill-advised attempts to bring pressure to bear on Mugabe's government at the height of the seizure of white-owned land in 2001-2002, only for new Labour to give up and leave the fight against Mugabe to others. This was a sensible decision. Others, notably the African Union and South Africa, the continent's superpower, had much greater leverage.

Mugabe's introduction of the race card was cynical, but effective. White farmers had certainly had it too good and they owned a disproportionate share of land. But this wasn't why they were singled out for attack. The reason was that many white farmers supported the new opposition Movement for Democratic Change led by Morgan Tsvangirai. Destroying the farmers was intended not only to destroy a source of support and funding for the MDC; it would teach a lesson to any other group thinking of opposing the ruling Zanu-PF party. The strategy was clever because it suggested that the British, American and European condemnation of Zimbabwe was intrinsically white and neocolonial. The insinuation that "they're only making a fuss because whites are involved" was corrosive. Yet it was also not without foundation if you looked at other crises on the continent.

Its effect on South Africa was the most shocking and debilitating. No other figure in the world wields as much influence over the Mugabe reg ime as President Thabo Mbeki. Loans for fuel, electricity and food, and the ability to hurt the private business interests of leading Zanu-PF officials, are just some of the trump cards Mbeki holds. Yet the ever increasing horrors facing ordinary Zimbabweans, and the now blatant violence shown by Mugabe's government, are still not enough to prompt Mbeki into action.

The real reason, which again stems from Mugabe's political acumen, is that land is even more of an explosive issue in South Africa, where more white farmers have been killed over the past four years than in Zimbabwe. It is one of the most viscerally potent legacies of the apartheid era, when thousands of black families were thrown off their land. The ANC leadership has changed in the years since it came to power. It is no longer based in the townships or the provincial cities. As ministers, ambassadors and captains of industry, the people at the heart of the ANC leadership inhabit a more privileged place. This is partly why they are so sensitive to Mugabe's demagogic rages about pushing the whites off the land by force, and kicking foreign (meaning white) meddlers out of the country.

None of this should prevent Mbeki from taking action. Zimbabwe is an open wound for Africa. The rates of HIV infection are one of the highest in the world. The country is now perilously short of food. The effects of malnutrition on hundreds of thousands of already sick people can be seen in the mortuaries in rural parts of the country. But, of course, we don't seen this because there are no television cameras.

There is also a growing sense of shame and embarrassment at the creation of another buffoon-like caricature of an African dictator, a successor to Idi Amin. That, in itself, is terrible for African diplomacy and pride. Zimbabwe is a disgraceful stain on President Mbeki and the South African government. Who would have thought they would now find themselves parroting the kind of excuses which Thatcher made about South Africa 20 years ago: that to impose sanctions would hurt only black Africans.

Many Zimbabweans ate one meal a day to help end oppression in South Africa. It seems that there are those in South Africa's government who aren't interested in reciprocating.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • NowPublic
  • Reddit

5 comments from readers

Chris1983
23 March 2007 at 10:43

Dear Rageh,

Nice article, but you - like almost all other commentators on Zimbabwe - miss the real tragedy of Zimbabwe's decline over the last decade: there is little anybody, save for Zimbabweans themselves, can, or could have done to prevent it.

You present Mbeki with a stark choice, either take action or watch the country rot. Mbeki has chosen the latter, but only because the former could well have been worse for the country. There is no alternative government in Zimbabwe. The MDC is a protest movement, not a government in waiting. Plus, up until now, Mugabe derived significant support from rural blacks who outnumber the (rightly) disgruntled urban cadres of the MDC. If Mbeki had tried to accelerate regime change by "turning out the lights" not only would he have strengthened the hand of Mugabe and his loyalists in the army but the country could have, quite possibly, collapsed into a state of low-intensity civil war with far worse consequences regionally than is the case even at the moment. No-one but South Africa would be left with the clean-up job, with hundreds of thousands more refugees pouring across the Limpopo. No; Mbeki has had to take the long-term view: wait until internal pressure produces the desired change and then South Africa will step in to stabilize the both new regime and the country at large. The real tragedy is that ordinary Zimbabweans have had to wait this long – and perhaps longer – before change takes place.

CT

Leslie Bona
24 March 2007 at 09:32

Rageh Omaar wrote about "Mugabe's demagogic rages about pushing the whites off the land by force." Can Rageh ask how the whites got the land in the first instance? I dare not list the ways and methods used to grab the land from our forefathers. Africans were hanged, beaten, exiled, bannished, humiliated and deprived pointlessly for their land. Mr Omaar check your history before you write for your European masters.

Leslie Bona

kazimtaylor
25 March 2007 at 00:18

Dear Rageh,

Are you sure you are an African? Perhaps just a black man, giving the way you sound in your critical approach of Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwe's problem is not Mugabe today - and neither Mummy Thatcher yesterday. Tony Blair and his government are partly to blame.

Unlike those so-called pan-Africans such your people who run the African Muslim website www.esinislam.com, you know how to decorate the White man's contepts. O yes, Mugabe is no 'good men's friend nowadays. Not even a friend of Mbeki who has offended your schools of taughts including the BBC and Newstatesman by not joining Britain's wagon of moder slavery and ego of imperialism.

As an African Christian and London based journalist - though anti Islamist however non Crusader - I hardly believe African Muslims like cleric Sheikh Abu-Abdullah Adelabu are still able to nurture balanced insights and understing effects of colonization on people like the zimbabweans, for instance.

Your comparison of Thatcher with Mbeki make you sound like you are worried you still have to pay tax to the British authority from your al Jazeera labour.

Frankly speaking, Mugabe is good for the British olicies which seek to make its presence felt in a new Chino-Africa. tony blair - Sorry, I'd stopped written capital T capital B since the introduction of making poverty a history - has remained more silent thant he usually known with when it comes Zimb.

Let call a space a space. Britain is to blame for the problems in the formal British colony. Nevertheless Mugabe has proved to be a very good scape goat in his ability to play on sensitivities of his fellow continent pan-Africans. Slavery. Slavery. Slavery. Not Education. Education. Education.

Daniel Taylor Kilburn London

SamiOwusu
26 March 2007 at 01:30

Dear Regah,

Don't mind Mt. Taylor - don't even try to focus on those people who killed Damilola Talor in order to make a cheap score of points. It's equally pointless to read from a commentator like Mr. Taylor who simply show empty glory for being anti-imperialist.

I am a regular visitor to the African Muslim Website www.esinislam.com mentioned by Mr. Taylor in his biased comments about your article of Mugabe's Tyranny.

Knowing Sheikh Abu-Abdullah Adelabu personally in our days together at Oxford, the West African Academic is far from being affected by history of colonization. Far from that, just like yourself among our proudest products of Africa in the United Kingdom, Sheikh Adelabu stands for the good of dialogue and freedom for and within the Africans.

As an African myself, I haven't seen anything pro-West or anti-Africanist in your article. By the way, Mugabe is not - and he has never been pan-African. However, I would concede Mugabe is pan-African if Mr. Taylor can convince me Nelson Mandela - and not Mbeki - is not pan-African.

I think exactly what you think! That Mr. Mandela and Mr. Mugabe have something in common. Loving Muammar Ghaddafi, may be.

Stop being confussed! Mr. Mbeki - just like Mandela in the case of Ghaddafi - is wrong to rub tyrant's neck for the sake of Africanism.

In short, Africa has montanous problems. May the only problem - and of course all problems - the continent has be the Africans themselves.

I recently posted an article to appear on www.esinislam.com. I would not have done so if they were the way Mr. Taylor discribed the African Muslim portal in your brolliant yet again article exposing Why Mbeki is the true heir to Thatcher

Rageh, you are the best. Keep it up. I love reading from you so much. By the way, what have you got for bicentennal remebrance of slavery abolition in Africa? Keep me posted, Rageh.

Sami Owusu

samiowusu@yahoo.com

hannelorethierry
17 May 2007 at 00:31

LESLIE BONA WHERE DID YOU GETY YOUR EDUCATION?SURELY NOT JUMPING AROUND A CAMP FIRE NAKED AND WITHOUT ANY FUTURE.

SURE MANY WERE KILLED BUT DO NOT FORGET THE ZULU WARS AND THE BOER WAR.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Read More

Vote!

Is this the worst economic situation for 60 years?