Zimpapers Logo

reads in part: “The presidency has noted with concern, recent unfortunate statements made on the political situation in Zimbabwe, which have been attributed to a member of the technical team supporting the facilitator, President Jacob Zuma . . . A number of statements have been made during the facilitation process which have been unauthorised and which are regrettable and unfortunate. Some of the utterances have also been inaccurate . . . ”

My first reaction to the seven-paragraph statement was: “Too little, too late. The damage has already been done, because the English saying, ‘a stitch in time saves nine’, has been ignored.”

If President Mugabe had not appealed to President Zuma at a campaign rally to stop his international relations advisor Lindiwe Zulu from making pronouncements on Zimbabwe, would we have had this reaction?

The statement also says, “The technical team supports the facilitator and cannot impose its views on Zimbabwe nor make public pronouncements. Only President Zuma has the mandate to speak on Zimbabwe on behalf of Sadc on facilitation issues”.

So why did Lindiwe Zulu take it upon herself to make representations on behalf of President Zuma, and why Zulu alone, when it is a three-person facilitation team?
As I weighed every word in that statement and its short and long-term implications I also asked a question that has not been adequately dealt with: how much has the regime change agenda in Zimbabwe cost financially, materially and in terms of relationships, be it at individual, bilateral and/or multilateral levels? Only time will tell.

With a week to go before Zimbabweans go for harmonised elections, the full import of this statement will be seen. What goes on behind the scenes is also important in putting the statement into perspective.

I for one will not pretend that President Zuma was not aware of Zulu’s utterances, for they are too numerous and they have also been regurgitated in the media, giving a false and damaging picture of Zimbabwe, while at the same time hurting the facilitator’s role.

If her utterances had threatened South Africa’s interests, she would never have made those reckless and partisan statements. She would have been reined in long back.
Thus, President Zuma cannot suddenly disown her just because President Mugabe has called on him to silence her.

When Zanu-PF launched its manifesto, President Mugabe made a scathing attack on Lindiwe Zulu. Wasn’t that time for the South African presidency to review Zulu’s role in the technical facilitation team?

But to show that Zulu was a loose cannon let on Zanu-PF, MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai gave the cat away at their party’s manifesto launch when he thanked the regional bloc Sadc and in particular “that girl Lindiwe Zulu”.

Thus the nature of the facilitation since President Zuma succeeded former President Thabo Mbeki is contained in this July 21 statement.
Since Lindiwe Zulu is President Zuma’s international relations advisor, people had every right to believe that she was speaking with President Zuma’s blessings.

Otherwise, how could she speak so authoritatively and in such a partisan manner, in the process causing confusion, acrimony and polarisation? There are too many unanswered questions, which can be extracted from the presidency’s July 21 statement.

To see that Zulu was not acting independently, we go back to some of the Sadc summits that dealt with the Zimbabwe situation: the Luanda and Maputo summits in particular. These summits made us question whether the facilitation was helping and/or creating more problems in Zimbabwe.

It was at the Angola summit that Sadc charged the facilitator, President Zuma, to be the point man in Zimbabwe, but it did not happen that way.
The fiasco at the Maputo summit, where our justice system was brought into disrepute, a move celebrated by the MDC formations, also raised eyebrows. Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa in an interview with New African magazine shows why the MDC formations had every reason to celebrate.

New African sought clarification on President Zuma’s direct engagement with the Zimbabwe’s GPA principals as former President Mbeki used to do. Cde Chinamasa answered, “ . . . The facilitation has failed. We would have wanted President Zuma to be more engaged in our dialogue, as was the case with Mbeki, so that he could engage at the same level with President Mugabe. You don’t expect low-level officials to come and talk to our President. It’s not right, and protocol does not allow it. So that has been a problem, which it is too late to cure anyway.

“But also we have noted of late that the low-level South African officials who form part of the facilitation team are now fighting in the corner of the MDCs. That has been a real cause for concern to us, but we decided that we would not make public statements that would rock the boat . . . And one other worrying thing about the Sadc summit in Maputo: this was an idea, which was taken up in Addis Ababa, on the sidelines of the celebration of the OAU’s golden jubilee by the African Union. Sadc leaders met on the sidelines of the celebrations in Addis Ababa, and President Mugabe was asked if everything was going well in Zimbabwe. He said: ‘Yes, everything is going well, but we have some funding challenges.’ So the Sadc leaders said ‘in that case we must meet and see where we can help’.

“So when Sadc called for the extraordinary summit in Maputo, we went there unprepared for any legal arguments. Our understanding was that the summit was to fundraise for Zimbabwe’s elections. But guess what happened? We get to the summit and fundraising is not even on the agenda. Not at all! Instead we find that it has been reduced to a courtroom – a court of appeal for Zimbabwe. And the facilitator’s report had been distributed in advance to everybody, except Zanu-PF”.

Thus Lindiwe Zulu was a problem in the making but which fits so well in the regime change agenda. Her allegations that preparations for the July 31 poll “were not looking good” and that South Africa was “concerned because things on the ground are not looking good” was also meant to build momentum for the two meetings held in South Africa last week: the South Africa-EU 2013 summit and the meeting by Sadc’s Organ on Politics, Defence and Security Co-operation. The EU has already prejudged the election process based on Zulu’s remarks.

Was it also a coincidence that the Sadc communiqué echoed Zulu’s Thursday remarks? Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete said, “We would have wished that our advice would have been heeded” since it is “very stressful” to organise an election in one month, “it is quite a mammoth task . . . So it’s going to be a tough election to organise”.
What is worrisome is how Sadc, the guarantor of the Global Political Agreement, seems to be choosing what to support, when and how. The life-span of the GPA was 18 months, after which elections would have been held.

Both Sadc and the African Union have teams on the ground in Zimbabwe. On countless occasions they have heard MDC-T leader Mr Morgan Tsvangirai making allegations of rigging. Do we also have to wait until after July 31 to hear what the regional bodies are doing to address this very serious claim?

As if Lindiwe Zulu has not inflicted enough damage, in comes 1st TV, a pirate television station beaming from South Africa. 1st TV is reported to have started broadcasting a day after Zulu made her utterances. Pirate radio stations were an issue that was supposed to be addressed during the life-span of the GPA. Instead, we are getting more, and our neighbours are accommodating them.

The Herald established that 1st TV, like other regime change outfits, is funded by British and American governments. The British embassy in Zimbabwe said they work with “various civil society organisations to help create a vibrant space for Zimbabweans to participate, freely debate, discuss and share information”.
Enemies of peace and proponents of destabilisaton will be happy to see this region in chaos. They have waited far too long to derail Zimbabwe’s land reform and indigenisation programmes since they see it happening in countries like South Africa.

What Lindiwe Zulu put in the public arena is now cannon fodder. The Internet’s interactive facilities show how some people have taken the Zimbabwe situation too far. There is a mistaken notion among some South African citizens that Zimbabweans resident in South Africa only went there in the last decade. It is as if the developed world economy enjoyed by a small section of the South African community was not built on the sweat and blood of immigrants from neighbouring countries, Zimbabwe included.

We cannot sacrifice the many historical, cultural, economic and religious aspects that tie us together on the altar of political expediency.
I have also witnessed on two occasions spirited efforts by whites who live in South Africa as they try to draw China into the Zimbabwe situation.

In July 2012, a white South African journalist, whom I cannot name for professional reasons, but who was part of a delegation of the African Media Workshop, asked a senior member of the Communist Party of China why China, despite its non-interference policy, continued to do business with President Mugabe and Zanu-PF, alleging human rights abuses in the 2008 poll.

Similar sentiments were raised by two white South Africans at a conference on China-Africa co-operation through non-governmental organisations. They also called on China to revisit its policy of non-interference with respect to Zimbabwe.

So, when all is said and done, Lindiwe Zulu is not a happenstance.