Time for the African Union to take the lead in Libya

Now that NATO's mess-up is self evident in Libya it is time for the African Union to step in and clean up. Libya has been transformed from being a major African player to a total wreck in the space of six short months, thanks to an overzealous and ultimately ungrateful Sarkozy (how can he turn on someone who gave him campaign funds).

It is up to the African Union to organise troops from say Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria and Morrocco to go and shore up the the NTC in Libya, the same way the AU has stabilised Somalia. The only way the NTC can bring the mushrooming militias in Libya under controls is have a large amount of carrots as well as a big stick.

Militias should be disarmed through a well financed voluntary civil reintegration program. Those who surrender their guns should be given money and training for skills useful to society. At the same time the NTC needs to start seriously building up a military shored by fellow African troops like what is happening in Somalia.

Given the NATO and Western media encouraged perception that black Africans were Gadhafi's chief backers, it would not be advisable to send troops from countries like South Africa, Zimbabwe, Uganda or Nigeria. Therefore the AU would have no choice but to rely on countries like Egypt which are also battling with their own internal problems.

Already it looks like the NATO exacerbated crisis in Libya is going to spread to other countries in the region with Mali already divided and in deep civil conflict inflamed by the easy availability of weapons from Gadhafi's armouries. If a negotiated transition had been allowed in Libya, those arms would have remained in secure hands and none of them would have found their way into the hands of rebel groups in the region.

Due to what is at best NATO naivete, at worst a callous attack on African stability, the reality is that the AU is now left to deal with the fallout of bad decisions by others - NATO. The AU have their own faults, but you do not pour hot oil a man because he is diseased. NATO poured hot oil on Africa in destabilising Libya one of the chief backers of the African Union. Now it looks like the hot oil has splashed onto Libya's neighbours with Mali being the first to show evidence of serious burns.

If the African Union does not act now to try and contain the situation, the Arab Spring could soon be followed by a Sahel Winter. It is no use looking to Europe for a solution. Europe is only good a creating Africa's problems not solving them. They created African poverty through colonialism not it seems they are bent on creating African instability.

The military should be treated as a single unit

In my last blog post, I concluded with the remark "Without willingness on the part of Zanu-PF members especially those in the military, there is very little chance that a stable and peaceful transition will be possible"

A fellow Zimbabwe responded to that particular comment about the military as follows.

James Chikonamombe - One point on the military though: this is not a monolithic military, but rather, a deeply divided military split into antagonistic factions. I'm reliably informed that on the one hand, you have certain members of the top military brass who actually consider themselves to be Presidential material, and yet, on the other hand, certain members of the same military top brass are vehemently against these same military "manouvres". 

It those divisions within the military which make it most dangerous. Take a look at the Arab spring. Where the military has remained united such as in Egypt and Tunisia the country has remained stable. Where the military got divided and suffered 'defections', such as Libya and Syria, the countries are faced with serious instability.

What we know in Zimbabwe is that large sections of the military are definitely pro-Zanu-PF, with many of them being described as hardliners. While there has been a constant stream of rumours about this or that general being sympathetic to the MDC, or being 'moderate' there is no real evidence of who will throw in their lot against Zanu-PF once the chips are down.

In any case, the pro-Zanu-PF faction is likely to have the greater numbers and is likely to dominate any proceedings barring outside intervention. Even if outsiders intervene, do not forget that most of the pro-Zanu-PF are hardened guerilla war veterans. Zimbabwean terrain is also more suited for guerilla warfare than say the Libyan desert and it will take years to subdue them, if it is at all possible. They can easily be to Zimbabwe what the Taliban has been to Afghanistan.

As far as I am concerned a bean count of which soldiers are pro-Zanu-PF and which are anti-Zanu-PF is practically useless, or even which soldiers belong to which faction of Zanu-PF is practically useless. The more important think is to prevent them getting at each other's throats. In fact I consider the intra-faction fault-lines within Zanu-PF to be far much more dangerous to Zimbabwe's stability.

Once the Zanu-PF intra-faction fight starts even the MDC will be a little more than a toddler watching its parents fighting - utterly helpless to stop the fight but very much liable to be caught in the crossfire.

James Chikonamombe - Zimbabwe's military, like militaries elsewhere, is a virtual "state within a state". But, we should not put too much stock in the active serving officers; the ones we read about in the papers every day. Conversely, there are retired officers who carry much clout, and it is these officers that the opposition should be embracing. If any democratic change has to take place, then Zanu's "old guard" should be embraced by the opposition. They are actually very progressive, and keen to see Zimbabwe move forward -- believe it or not! -- and should be part and parcel of any post-ZPF scenario.

The retired officers are only important in as much as they can act as intermediaries with the serving officers. It is the serving officers in charge of brigades and platoons who give orders directly to the rank and file of the soldiers who matter most. It is fallacy to think that the retired officers command so much respect that they will be able to immediately take over command of platoons.

Even to imagine that they will have stronger bonds with politicians than they have with the men they once commanded and then handed the baton to, is also fallacy. Yes they may make noises sympathetic to certain politicians every now and then, but when the chips are down it may well be a different story. The man who says, 'Mudhara I covered you during that fire-fight at that mountain' will certainly be more likely to sway the retired generals in his favour. I am not saying it is a given, I am just considering the balance of probabilities.

In short any strategy by the opposition that is centred around corralling a few generals from the rest of the herd, is at best unpredictable in outcome. What is almost certain is that it could lead to dangerous instability. It would be better for them to try and not make a distinction between the generals and just treat the military as a unit. Even the individual soldiers are as important as the generals and their contribution and sacrifice for the country should never ever be trash-talked.

I know that the generals themselves have not been particularly tight-lipped and have said things that are meant to rile to the opposition. What is required is for the opposition to show maturity and avoid tit-for-tat verbal exchanges that will further pollute the atmosphere.

The most important thing is not to divide the military. They should be treated as a unit, not as a patchwork of hardliners and moderates. The best chance of keeping the country stable lies in keeping the military united.

Off lines in the sand - political confrontation in Zimbabwe

Back in the days when fun was fun, donkeys still had horns, rivers were still flowing uphill, the hammer had not yet struck the ground, and I was a cow herdboy in the dusty plains of Manyene, we had a way of starting fights between two people.

We would seek a sandy patch and make four mounts about the size of breasts. We would take two antagonists and to each point out two mounds, "These are your mother's breasts. If anybody kicks them you must fight back."

In Shona culture and, I believe in most other African cultures, insulting one's mother is considered particularly objectionable. You can hurl all kinds of epithets against the individual and be met with unflinching stoicism but the moment you mention their mother all hell would break loose.

In order to show that they were not a coward somebody had to kick the mother's breasts of the rival. If your mother's breasts were kicked, you had to fight for your honour.

That was kid's play, activities meant to pass time while watching scrawny cattle swishing tails and virtually licking the soil in attempts to find bits of grass in the barren overcrowded 'native reserves'. Many bloody noses, swollen eyes and grudges for maybe days would result, but it was all soon forgotten as other rivals emerged and waned with time.

When we used to play our game, we had little but stubborn guys would kick the mother's breasts of older and bigger guys, or who always fought loosing battles when their 'mother's breasts' were kicked by older guys.

In those heady days when I was herding cows, the fights over 'mother's breasts' were instigated by those of us who enjoyed the spectacle of others pointlessly hammering each other. Some of us would run long distances to go fetch sand if there was no sand at the particular spot we wanted the fight to take place. We would gladly take off our shirts and use them as improvised sacks to ferry the sand for the 'breasts'.

In Zimbabwean politics, it seems we are headed for a round of games in the sand. Recently Eddie Cross told us that the MDC have drawn a line in the sand, (Why didn't he make them mounds in the sand and call them breasts. Sounds more interesting). Apparently they are daring Zanu-PF to kick the MDC's 'mother's breasts'. They are promising to visit untold woe on Zanu-PF if it doesn't respect their 'mother's breasts' or line in the sand.

The stage is being set for a no surrender contest. The language of confrontation is already being spun. In the days of my herding cows, there were always little guys who would kick the 'mother's breasts' of much bigger guys in the hope that a elder brother or cousin would join the fight on their side.

The MDC are in the position of these little guys. They are choosing confrontational language when they know very well that there is nothing they can do if Zanu-PF decides to call their bluff, except hope that outsiders will intervene on their behalf.

In the current arrangement, Zanu-PF have the capacity to do whatever they like. They are keeping the MDC as their sheepskin - the covering that gives them legitimacy. There is little chance of the MDC drawing any line in the sand that Zanu-PF are not capable of obliterating in a flash.

Therefore I do not think for the MDC to be making ultimatums is the appropriate strategy for them. They need to be seriously thinking about how to achieve a willing giver willing taker transition in Zimbabwe. Without willingness on the part of Zanu-PF members especially those in the military, there is very little chance that a stable and peaceful transition will be possible.

There MDC's attempts to force a humiliating capitulation out of Zanu-PF haven't worked in the past and are unlikely to work in the near future. Claims by Eddie Cross that the MDC have 'drawn a line in the sand' and will 'dictate the outcome' while not totally luaghable amount to a little more than bravado.

Any strategy which is hinged around the MDC facing down Zanu-PF is unlikely to yield the results that the MDC wants.

Jupiter Punungwe
proud of my Strong Rural Background (I was born, bred and will die a farmer)

A New Constitution Does Not Mean Much in Zimbabwe

Recently there has been a lot of controversy, even drawing in our neighbour South Africa, over whether elections should be held before or after a new constitution is in place.

The constitution is not the key problem. The key problem is changing the political mentality of entitlement. As long as the politicians feel that they are entitled to luxury at the taxpayer's expense we are always going to have problems.

You can take any wonderful recipe, as long as you prepare it with rotten ingridients it won't taste nice. No matter what constitution you have, as long as your politicians are corrupt and dishonest, the country will suffer and decline. At the moment, the entire Zimbabwean political fabric is rotten.

Specimens of honest, diligent and truthful politicians on the Zimbabwean landscape have virtually suffered the same fate as the quagga. Extinct. Zimbabwe could take the Bible and use it as a constitution word for word but with the amount of dishonesty we have, there would still be massive problems.

The current saga with the Constituency Development Funds is a reminder of just how deep our problems are. Several politicians were caught investing in their businesses with money meant for development. Others simply blew it without explanation.

The newspapers are full of stories MPs who are on the run, but not a single one about those who used the money properly. This does not bode well for the rest. We do not know whether they have been investigated and cleared or they are still to be investigated.

So far I have had assurance from only one MP, Eddie Cross that they have been investigated and cleared.

I am also worried that if the process threatens to become too politically costly to the major parties, it will be quietly smothered. While Zanu-PF and the MDC fight each other tooth and nail on most fronts, the tendency has been to quietly cooperate where 'eating' for both is involved.

So far no real big names have been fingered on either side of the political divide. I would be surprised if all the ministers are clean.

That Zimbabwe has some of the best educated politicians in the world does not seem to help. How many governments can boast several professors in cabinet? However, a degree does not amount to common sense. Common sense does not amount to education. In life you need both. It seems most of our politicians have the one or the other but never both. Quite a substantial number have neither common sense nor education.

A new constitution will not instill honesty, education or common sense in our politicians. A vulture with a beak muzzle is still a vulture. At some point it will find a way to get rid of the beak muzzle and start tearing at the flesh again. Dishonest politicians with a good constitution are still dishonest politicians. They will be busy looking for the loopholes to exploit before the ink dries.

Most of those clamouring for a new constitution are themselves not being honest. They merely want to use it as another tool in their arsenal for removing Robert Mugabe. This motive has nothing to do with the long term fortunes of ordinary Zimbabweans, but everything to do with the short term objective of removing Mugabe as a stumbling block to neo-colonialist agendas.

Mugabe's continued tenure is in itself also a problem. It encourages personality culture, is a stumbling block to renewal of ideas, and ensures the recycling of the same political deadwood we have had for three decades.

Mugabe's extended tenure is the foundation upon which the culture of crony protection is built - a foundation which the MDC seems intent to reinforce rather than demolish. Both sides of Zimbabwe's political divide want a new constitution only in as much as it serves their narrow agendas.

The MDC and their backers want to use it as a tool prise the levers of power from Mugabe's hands. Zanu-PF want it in order to dampen or eliminate the criticism that they would face if they manage to stay in power (by whatever means necessary). None of the sides seems prepared to accept a loss.

It is therefore very unlikely that a new constitution will change much in Zimbabwe. I am certain that it won't remove the political fighting that has been the root cause of Zimbabwe's woes. I am therefore certain that to ordinary Zimbabweans, a new constitution won't mean much. They will still be the grass beneath the feet of two political elephants.

Response to Sunday Times article

Recently a certain Dr Greg Mills came back from Zimbabwe with an effervescent prognosis of a $100-billion dollar economy that one of the parties is promising to bring to Zimbabwe. From the tone of his article Dr Mills has to be one of the most gullible people to have ever walked the face of this earth.

This Wednesday a friend of mine, a white Portuguese living in Zimbabwe, slept over at my house on a business trip to Johannesburg.

In our discussions he gave Zimbabwe's economy no chance of fully recovering. According to him the leadership culture is simply not right across the board. According to him the companies left are basically retail operations which buy some stock and if they make any profit 'they spend it on flashy cars and girlfriends.' The politicians are all also trying to use public office to get enough money to buy flashy cars and have multiple girlfriends.

I couldn't agree with him more. Look at the girlfriend stories that have been pursuing Morgan Tsvangirai.

I notice that Dr Mills doesn't even mention corruption as a problem. He seems to more interested in shoring up support for the MDC by mentioning impressive pie-in-the-sky economic figures that the MDC 'hope' to achieve. The mechanics of exactly how these figures will be achieved are not a concern of his. You cannot move a mountain unless you know to dig it up, and Mr Mills is simply telling us 'we will move the mountain to over there.' How?

The facts of what is happening here and now, that the MDC has become part of the corruption problem, are ignored. Mind you corruption is not just about the money being diverted to the wrong pockets. The reason why people seek clandestine means to divert the money is that they will be lacking the right skills and ability to correctly perform the task required.

In the end what happens is that the correct skills are not used for the task meaning that it is doomed to fail even before it starts. When the failure does happen, no correct diagnosis and remedial action will be taken because of the cover up and crony protection that accompanies corruption. There is no way that a corrupt entity is going to achieve impressive economic figures. Zanu-PF taught us that. The MDC already have their toes is Zanu-PF's sandals in terms of corruption. What is left is for them to grab the jackboots.

I do not know whether Dr Mills thinks we Zimbabweans are kids who can be mollified by promises of sweets (Nyarara mwanangu. Baba vachauya nemasweets. Be quiet my child, Dad is going to bring sweets). His mentions of a $100-billion economy amounts to just that. An empty promise, that any sensible person will not make unless they are targeting very gullible people, or people they believe to be very gullible like a toddler.

While he correctly identifies patronage is being one of the problems of Zanu-PF, he doesn't mention that the MDC already suffers from the same cancer with Morgan Tsvangirai accused of having a very large 'kitchen cabinet' by his MDC colleagues. These are people who have no official role in the MDC or in government but claim or seem to derive authority from their mere personal association with the prime minister.

Some are eventually slotted into officials roles, not out of any kind of legitimate requirement, but as a way of ensuring that they benefit from their association with higher ups. These are not the symptoms of a party that has the capability to lead a billion dollar economic recovery. These are the symptoms that we saw and ignored in Zanu-PF to our great peril. Dr Mills is essentially telling us to ignore them in the MDC now.

I hope that we do not all share his gullibility.