SA envoy breaks mould on invasions
http://www.theindependent.co.zw/
Thursday, 27 October 2011 18:31
Vincent Kahiya
SOUTH African Ambassador to Zimbabwe Vusi Mavimbela (pictured) has sought to
break the mould by speaking out strongly against the treatment of his
country’s farmers by President Robert Mugabe’s government.Mavimbela’s candid
approach has, however, only helped to incense Mugabe’s government which
official sources said had resolved not to budge on the issue.
In fact Mugabe’s government is likely to react to this public rebuke by a
foreign diplomat in the usual brutal arrogance which has become its only
weapon in the face of international censure.In a meeting with Prime Minister
Morgan Tsvangirai a fortnight ago, Mavimbela registered his country’s
concern at the invasions which he said had the “possibility of violating the
(bilateral investment) agreement” between the two countries.
His approach on the subject –– a major departure from the stratagem of his
predecessor, Professor Mlungisi Makalima –– appears not to have gone down
well with Mugabe’s government which discourages any public censure on the
conduct of the land reform by diplomats. On Saturday the government of
Zimbabwe gave its most apparent reaction to Mavimbela, who on the face of
it, was just playing his diplomatic role to speak for his compatriots who
are victims of expropriation. “Some of the things seem to be happening not
only to the South African companies, but also to the farmers and this has
got a possibility of violating the agreement. We raised that concern,”
Mavimbela said of the meeting with the PM.
“Some of the clauses in that agreement say that even if farmers are evicted
they need to be compensated for improvements made on the farms,” he
added.Mugabe’s information handlers last weekend quickly jumped on the
diplomat to lay down the law. Through a columnist in the state-controlled
Herald newspaper, Nathaniel Manheru –– whose weekly disclosures usually
reflect the thinking of President Mugabe’s inner cabal, the paper launched a
bare-knuckled attack on Mavimbela. His crime was calling for the protection
of white farmers which the paper said had the “effect of compromising the
land question, itself a wartime goal of the liberation struggle”.
To Mugabe’s government, there is very little room for negotiation in this
area. Manheru reminded Mavimbela that the land issue was a major sticking
point in the bilateral investment promotion and protection agreement signed
by the two countries in 2009 and that the Zimbabwe government was not going
to relent on its hard line position. He described Mavimbela’s approach on
the land issue as revealing “awesome semantic redolence”.
He pressed on the attack: “It is very hard to imagine that the great envoy
seriously thinks we should stall or revise our land reforms solely for the
sake of a bunch of whites who are visiting his embassy for stipends. Or that
such a visit delegitimises our land reforms.”In other words, the ruling
establishment in Zimbabwe believes that Mavimbela is punching from the wrong
corner. He has no business rooting for a “bunch of whites”.
His government has to look at the issue of land reform through Zanu PF
lenses which only register two colours: black and white.Mugabe’s handlers
have always been ready to brand as “Uncle Toms” black leaders seeking to
protect white farmers from expropriation. This tried and tested strategy is
most likely to be employed on President Jacob Zuma’s government if it
continues to make public pronouncements in support of dispossessed white
farmers.
The attack on Mavimbela could be the beginning of the quest to tell him to
shut up. This is how Zanu PF has sought to bring closure to the issue; by
just not talking about it.Mugabe has been at pains to export his brand of
land reform to his regional colleague using the liberation struggle
camaraderie as the rallying point. While his project has received no takers,
Zanu PF stalwarts have been waiting impatiently for South Africa to go the
Zimbabwe route. Mugabe sees South Africa as an implementing partner in the
land project and Zuma’s government has therefore no business trying to amend
the plan.
Analysts in Harare have already started to talk of a major diplomatic row
between Harare and Pretoria, but the escalation of the conflict is most
likely going to depend on President Zuma’s willingness to press on with
demands for dispossessed farmers to get compensation. The two leaders have
been there before, but the engagements on the issue have not been
confrontational.Over 200 farmers from South Africa, who were forced to leave
Zimbabwe, have over the years battled to get their government to protect
their interests, but without success.
In late 2008, the Southern African Development Community (Sadc) Tribunal
ruled against Mugabe’s government, insisting unanimously that a group of 79
farmers had been denied access to justice in Zimbabwe and further ruling
that they had been discriminated against because they were white. President
Mugabe has thumbed his nose at the tribunal ruling, saying it had no
jurisdiction.
In April, South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that the government
was not liable in cases related to the unlawful land grab in Zimbabwe. It
ruled that the High Court decision ordering the government to compensate a
South African farmer for land invasions in Zimbabwe was wrong in law.The key
issue is, however, that no Sadc leader has been willing to confront
President Mugabe on the issue and Zuma has a tough task to make Mugabe
change course. Mavimbela’s comments have however given impetus to the issue,
perhaps a sign that Zuma wants to be treated with more respect.l
Vincent Kahiya is the Editor-In-Chief of Alpha Media Holdings, the
publishers of the Zimbabwe Independent, The Standard and NewsDay.