POLITICS JULY 2, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Who’s interested in Zimbabwe, and why? How should Westerners understand the situation there? And could this all be Jimmy Carter’s fault? T.A. Frank and James Kirchick discussed the situation over IM.
Why Zimbabwe?
T.A. Frank: As people like to point out, there are a lot of rotten countries out there. So why this rotten country? Let’s talk about why you and I happen to care about Zimbabwe.
James Kirchick: Well, personally, I've been there. I've met with democracy activists, and I've met with exiled Zimbabweans in South Africa.
Frank: What took you there?
Kirchick: I was in South Africa on a journalism grant, and figured, why not? I only went for a few days-- it's not the safest place to be an unaccredited journalist -- but it's certainly shaped my views on U.S. policy towards the region.
Frank: And you avoided being arrested for "committing journalism," I assume.
Kirchick: Thankfully, yes.
Frank: For me, what's grimly riveting about Zimbabwe--as opposed to other nations under tyrannical rule--is that it's had such a fast and senseless decline. Sure, it's probably worse to be in North Korea, but yesterday in Pyongyang was the same as today. Zimbabwe, by contrast, was a highly developed, prosperous country until even a decade ago. Mugabe took the “jewel of Africa” and obliterated it.
Kirchick: And the situation in Zimbabwe should be much easier to fix than North Korea. For one, it isn't a military threat to anyone, except to its own people. Plus, Zimbabweans are the best educated people in Africa. (It's the one good thing Mugabe did.) It’s also surrounded by reasonably democratic states. All of this makes the situation even more of a tragedy: It could be fixed if there was the will.
Is it just white Zimbabweans that Westerners care about?
Frank: There are those who insist that the only reason so many of us in the West are obsessed with Zimbabwe is that white farmers have been kicked off their land. What do have to say for yourself, Kirchick? Are you secretly just hoping to reunite white tobacco farmers with their crops?
Kirchick: Historically, I think there’s some merit to that argument. Early on, the one thing that distinguished Zimbabwe from the rest of Africa's horrors was that white people were involved. But that can no longer be the case. There are hardly any whites left in the country now, and those that remain are relatively well off.
Frank: Right, most whites had already been kicked off their farms years ago.
Kirchick: Poor blacks have faced the brunt of Mugabe's brutality. They have been the ones kicked out of their homes by the hundreds of thousands. They're the ones being murdered today by Mugabe supporters.
Frank: In that sense, whites still enjoy a sort of perverse privilege. Few have been subjected to the sort of torture the black Zimbabweans in rural areas have.
Kirchick: Right. So today, that argument, despite what New York City councilman Charles Barron says, holds no water.
Frank: I also think even the original uptick of interest in Zimbabwe that we saw in 2000, while awakened by white farmers, was not solely based on them. After all, what distinguishes Zimbabwe from the rest of the continent is that it was a pretty decent country. Even 20 years ago the cops didn't take bribes, the judiciary functioned more or less like it should, and freedom of the press was basically upheld. Mugabe did horrible things almost right from the start, sure, but it takes time to subvert a rooted system like that. And seeing any country decline that way is especially chilling and tragic.
What’s wrong with Zimbabwe’s neighbors?
Frank: So Mugabe “won” the runoff this Friday, unchallenged (his opponent, Morgan Tsvangirai, had withdrawn), and then headed off for an African Union (AU) summit in Sharm el-Sheikh. Looks like he had a perfectly pleasant time, actually.
Kirchick: Except for that tough interview with a British journalist. But on the whole, a pretty despicable performance from the AU.
Frank: Perhaps, given the less-than-noble history of the organization (or its related organizations), this has to be considered progress of a sort. At least some African leaders are speaking up now.
Kirchick: That's true, and the United States should do what it can to incentivize African leaders to criticize Mugabe. I see no reason why certain foreign aid programs should not be contingent upon taking a firmer line against him
Frank: It's all about South Africa, though, isn't it? That's Mugabe's lifeline. The rest is ornamental.
Kirchick: Mostly, yes. South Africa could pretty much end this tomorrow by threatening to cut off electricity and oil supplies, as apartheid-era Prime Minister B.J. Vorster did to Rhodesia's white-minority leader Ian Smith in 1976. (It says something about Thabo Mbeki when you're comparing him unfavorably to Vorster.)
Frank: But it's not like it was Vorster's bright idea to cut off Smith.
Kirchick: No, Henry Kissinger essentially threatened him. But these days the U.S. is very gun-shy about criticizing--let alone threatening--South Africa
Is this all Jimmy Carter’s fault?
Kirchick: You know, this may strike some people as out there, but, more black Africans have died as a result of the outright brutality of Robert Mugabe than under Ian Smith.
Frank: Well, in terms of deaths alone, OK, I'll join you in your calculus on Ian Smith versus Mugabe.
Kirchick: None of this is to argue, of course, that white rule was preferable--it was abhorrent. But it's worth noting that the world took such a heavy interest in whiteauthoritarian rule while simultaneously ignoring black totalitarian rule. This all goes back to Jeane Kirkpatrick's 1979 Commentary essay, “Dictatorships and Double Standards,” which delineates the fundamental differences between the way “right-wing” authoritarian regimes and “left-wing” totalitarian ones behave and is very apt regarding Africa.
Frank: Yeah, I might be a liberal, but I agree on this point. It is a great essay that’s often been misunderstood. (I wish the neocons of today would read it.) The case of Zimbabwe, which at the time was called Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, is something she cites in passing as an example of Carter’s misguided foreign policy. And it was indeed a doozy. What most people forget is that Mugabe did not technically replace white-minority rule when he came to power in 1980. He replaced what had been a black-majority rule government headed by a black bishop named Abel Muzorewa. Now, there were many flaws with this government--it entrenched whites in certain positions of power and guaranteed whites 28 out of 100 seats, even though whites were only about four percent of the population--but it still represented a major step forward. It meant, for one thing, that white minority rule was no more. I’d also argue that the flaws of the new arrangement, while considerable, were nevertheless fixable. Instead of working with Muzorewa, though, Carter refused to meet him when he visited the U.S. to ask for sanctions to be lifted (despite over 70 U.S. senators likewise urging him to lift them). It was the moment that Carter effectively took the side of Mugabe’s Marxist guerillas, even as they were still conducting terrorist attacks on black and white civilians.
Kirchick: It's actually a quintessential moment of the Carter legacy, and should be understood as such, though it's mostly forgotten now. Granted, what happened there was mostly the fault of the British, as so many things are, but the Carter record on Zimbabwe was as bad, if not as portentous, as its legacy on Iran.
Frank: Yes, but the perversity of our Zimbabwe policy wasn’t that we were taking Mugabe's side against Ian Smith. It’s that we were also taking Mugabe's side against black Zimbabwean moderates who saw what Mugabe was saying about one-party Marxist rule and rightly feared his ascension to power.
Kirchick: That’s right. But certainly, at the end of the day, no one was morally pure. Even Bishop Muzorewa, whom I've argued ought to have been recognized as the duly elected prime minister, had his thugs and may have been secretly funded by the South Africans. Still, why should that be a stain on him while the Chinese funding of Mugabe was seen as just the necessity of being a guerilla warrior? You may have seen last week that Andrew Young is still apologizing for Mugabe.
Frank: I did see that shockingly unambiguous defense of Mugabe, even after all of this. Given that sort of mindset, it's really stunning that this was the man who was a key influence on Carter's Africa policy. But perhaps we’ve Carter-bashed enough, at least for the next ten minutes. Readers hoping for more might want to check The Spine.
Where’s the left on Zimbabwe?
Kirchick: It’s interesting how the media is covering this issue. It seems as though The Wall Street Journal has had at least two editorials or op-eds a week on Zimbabwe since late March, as has the New York Sun. Same goes for many conservative blogs and publications, but you don't see the same sort of editorializing about Zimbabwe on the left. I've seen one article in The Nation and scattered blog posts in The American Prospect. And when they do write about it, as in that Nation piece, you often hear advocacy for some sort of appeasement of Mugabe. Sorry if my use of that word offends people, but that's what it is. The left isn't interested in Zimbabwe because America can't be blamed.
Frank: Well, I'd agree that anything that involves "unity government" talk is appeasement. My sense, though, is that it's mostly coming from African leaders rather than leftist opinion writers. And at a governmental level, Europe and the United States have been unusually united about this. Even France is calling it all a "farce."
Kirchick: Yes, unity government isn’t possible in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe needs de-Baathification.
Frank: I'd settle for de-Mugabefication.
Kirchick: Right, but the party is the problem. It's more than just Mugabe.
How about Obama and McCain?
Frank: So, to shift over to presidential politics, whom would you trust more to deal with Zimbabwe--McCain or Obama?
Kirchick: That's a good question. I wonder why McCain hasn't asked if Obama would meet with Mugabe.
Frank: Ouch. Still, I sense Obama cares a bit more about this issue than McCain does. He even wrote about it in his essay on patriotism for Time.
Kirchick: Sure, I'm sure he does, but I'm also inclined to believe that Obama is more likely to depend upon the likes of regional groups like the AU and the Southern African Development Community.
Frank: Yes, I think he would. But what else are you going to rely on? You go to war with the AU and SADC you have.
Kirchick: Sure. Ultimately, I don't think there would be a huge difference in policy towards Zimbabwe, which is to say that America has never really had a serious policy in dealing with the
Frank: Yeah, I guess that’s true. It's been considered geopolitically irrelevant for years. But I also sense that Obama, simply by virtue of being half-Kenyan, gains a lot of credibility in the region.
Kirchick: I sense with a lot of Obama supporters that they don't grasp the huge space between their expectations and the reality of politics. And you already see that in Obama's sudden shift to the center on so many issues.
T.A. Frank: Yeah, well, Obama will probably disappoint us on many things. But, personally, I’d still take being disappointed by Obama over being pleasantly surprised by McCain.
T.A. Frank is an editor at the Washington Monthly and an Irvine Fellow at the New America Foundation. James Kirchick is an assistant editor of The New Republic.
By T.A. Frank and James Kirchick
11 comments
Jamie, I assume you meant that The Nation piece was advocating a form of appeasement by saying that Mugabe had to be allowed to steal the election to avoid civil war. Last time, you argued that Obama engaging in diplomacy with Iran would be appeasement, which is a misuse of the word. That's why people were offended.
- Mizzou
July 3, 2008 at 2:22am
Aside from JK, a silly little "journalist" that spent a few days in southern Africa - and now considers himself on expert on resolving the problems of countrys and peoples 10,000 miles away - where is the cry from the Right for action in Zimbabwe? The Sudan for the matter? It doesn't exist and never has. Give me a goddamn break. A third of this exchange was devouted to a predictable flogging of Jimmy Carter and Andrew Young. Like his mentor, JP never passes up a chance to attack the usual suspects. The fact that TNR keeps this kid on to effectvely serve the same role as Martin Peretz, who has mercifully been relegated to The Spine, shows just how bad this magazine has fallen. Time to clean house, editors.
- Pat Hendrix
July 3, 2008 at 7:22am
Great article. It would have been even better as a video blog. Just saying...
- eaglecapri
July 3, 2008 at 9:18am
So wait...Carter was always a moron? Just kidding, just kidding - I knew that already.
- selish70
July 3, 2008 at 9:25am
By the way, my relatives there predicted this outcome basically the second Mugabe took power. They were thinking more along the lines of 10 years or so, but still: incredible foresight, no?
- selish70
July 3, 2008 at 12:27pm
Oh my! This interview really underscores the adage that a little bit of knowledge (or a few days in southern Africa) can be be dangerous. One of my first major projects out of college was working on a documentary on the then 4 year old state of Zimbabwe. I really can't believe that these two babblers think that Carter is to blame for Mugabe. If they are going to blame anyone, then they should blame the Zimbabwean people who rejected Bishop Muzorewa and the "Zimbabwe-Rhodesia" state as illegitimate. The horrible, revolting conduct of Mugabe and his cronies, especially over the last ten years, doesn't lessen the importance of the historical Zimbabwean struggle for independence in the last century or the citizens' renewed quest for a democratic nation in this century. If folks want a more balanced and ACCURATE assesment, then they should turn to Neely Tucker's recent article in the Washington Post, based on a few years, not a few days, of reporting from Zimbabwe.
- BEmama
July 3, 2008 at 12:40pm
what Pat Hendrix said. This was a terrible article, I learned absolutely nothing worthwhile, just one guy who spent a few days there now is some kind of expert and moral crusader, but he never actually says what should be done there. As to myself, I see nothing wrong about dropping a missile a day on his various palaces, even give Mugabe warning that we will do it, let him live out his days in some bunker somewhere terrified to show his face. But Kirchick would sooner that not happen so he could continue to sneer at others inaction. That is Kirchick, all snark, not action.
- blackton
July 3, 2008 at 5:44pm
Excellent article, especially discussion on the need for de-Baathification re ZANU-PF. Of course one critical aspect is the position of South Africa and Thabo Mbeki. But why is no-one talking about the Mbeki-Zuma rivalry in all this? Jacob Zuma, similar to Tsvangirai, has a trade union background and SA trade unions have worked to deny Mugabe support (see the recent incident at the ports with the Chinese ship). Mbeki is running scared of Zuma.
- dohmatt
July 3, 2008 at 9:15pm
Look, Jamie, I thought this was generally fine, but you've tried this line before that it is the right that is more engaged on Zimbabwe than the left. This assertion is simply absurd and flies in the face of all reality of what academics (generally not a right-wing lot) and journalists are saying, not only in the US but especially in southern Africa. The idea that the right deserves credit for being the lone voice on any African-related issue is simply laughable and shows just how thin your knowledge base of the subject is. I realize that for a hammer every problem is a nail, but believe it or not, not every world problem is an excuse for you to grind your axes. Derek Catsam
- Derek Catsam
July 4, 2008 at 5:20am
A good article. I love Africa and have been travelling there since 1985. I truly believe that the African continent is finished. As Zimbabwe continues to collapse, more and more refugees from that country are pouring into Botswana, South Africa and Zambia. The recent "xenophobic" (what a nice word for black-on-black violence) in South Africa against "foreigners" (not "fellow Africans?") only reveals the new depths of depravity that tribalism has reached. We are not talking about African solidarity between "brothers and sisters" here, but pure savagery where Africans are killing other Africans simply becuase they come from north of the Limpopo River. Then again, Mugabe massacred 30,000 people in Matabeleland 1982 & 1983 because they had the audacity to vote for Joshua Nkjomo rather than "Comrade" Mugabe. We can debate the sins of colonialism until the cows come home, but no-one, not even the most rabid white self-hating liberal can deny that Zimbabwe and South Africa are both in big trouble under majority rule. The former Rhodesia, a nation which took a mere 80 years to develop fully, was a fabulous country with a First World economy, a dollar worth more than two US greenbacks, and was able to grow enough food to feed itself and export to its neighbours. Everyone had a job, there was food on the table, and the health care and education systems were the envy of Africa. Blacks lived to an average age of 57 years in 1978. In 2008 it is 37. It took a Marxist terrorist called Robert Mugabe, a mere bastard puppet of the North Koreans and the Lybians, just 25 years to destroy everything, drive a third of his country into exile, and force white farmers, the most productive people in the country, to flee under the threat of death. Interestingly, many of those farmers are now transforming the economies of Zambia, Nigeria, and Mozambique at the invitation of those governments. Yet the deranged Mugabe continues to chase colonial ghosts, blaming "Europeans" for his country's woes. Few realize that most of Zimbabwe's former white farmers -83% of them to be precise - actually purchased their farms from Mugabe. Most of these so-called "colonials" were born there, with some able to trace their roots back to the pioneers of 1890. They are white Africans. Europe is a foreign land to them. They ARE home, even if Mugabe has declared white Zimbabeans to be "enemies of the state." As Zimbabwe crumbles into dust, South Africa, the so-called rainbow nation is now the third most violent nation on earth behind Iraq and Colombia. The ANC, another unashamebly Marxist oriented "liberation" government has completely lost control of the nation's horrific crime rate. Rape, murder and violent crime of all kinds is now seven times higher than in the USA. BEE (black economic empowerment) guarantees that lesser qualified blacks are hired over better qualified whites. South Africa's white population now find themselves unable to qualify for a state pension, even though they pay the highest taxes. Rolling blackouts are so serious that thousands of businesses are going bust, and the country's vital mining industry is running at a mere 40% of capacity. Unemployment now stands at 60%. White farmers in South Africa are faced with a serious dilemma if they continue to stay on their farms, where 1,700 of them have been murdered since 1997 by roving black bands. Their only other alternative is to sell up to the ANC government at rock bottom prices and watch the land go fallow. The head of the South African Police Service, Freddie Selebi, who was also head of Interpol, has been arrested and charged with corruption, including dealings with organized crime. He is notorious for once calling a female (white) police sergeant a "F***ing chimpanzee" when she failed to recognize him. Imagine a white police chief getting away with this behaviour against a black officer anywhere in the ever so politically correct West! President-in -waiting, Jacob Zuma, is himself awaiting trial on corruption charges, and admitted to having sex with an HIV woman he wasn't married to. And this is the best kind of leadership that South Africa has to offer? Unfortunately, it is the ONLY kind of leadership that the ruling ANC and their partners in the South African Communist Party and the ultra-socialist trade unions will allow. Hellen Zille, the smart, capable and eloquent leader of the Democratic Party, who has spearheaded the charge against the corrupt leadership of the ANC, stands little chance of becoming state president, even if she won the national elections. Why? because she is white, smart, honest and hardworking. Like Mugabe's so-called "war veterans" and the green Bombers (ZANU-PF Youth League), the ANC Youth League and the trade unions would never allow it. If anything good is to come about in South Africa, it has to do with soccer. FIFA, the body that controls and organizes the World Cup MUST withdraw the 2010 nomination from South Africa. Unless hundreds of tourists end up, raped, murdered, shot, stabbed, robbed and terrorized in the ever increasing black outs that affect Johannesburg, now the world's most violent city. Qualifed people from all backgrounds are fleeing South Africa and heading for Europe, Canada, the USA, Australia, New Zealand and the UK. Southern Africa is a sinking ship. Once the "powerhouse" economy of this deteriorating country is gone, all of Africa will be finished as AIDS, tribal warfare, out-of-control crime and corruption at all levels will hasten the death of the only continent in the world going backwards. I constantly shake my head at the white liberals who danced in the streets of Salisbury (Harare) and Pretoria, punching their fists in the air and shouting "Uhuru!" (freedom) alongside the Marxist terrorists - a bunch of mass murdering nobodies who persuaded the West to support their noble cause of self-rule. Now the West is seeing an unprecedented number of Africans fleeing their continent to Europe, the USA and Canada in search of a better life. The countries where their "oppressors" came from. Imagine.
- William J. Gibbons
July 5, 2008 at 11:46pm
Right wingers care about Zimbabwe cause it's another form of injustice in this world - we don't like it when tinpot despots steal elections and kill people never mind if they're black, white, or brown. It's stupid lefties that make these distinctions and constantly color their views along racial lines. Bush has done more on Sudan (not enough) than any other leader. He's tossed out the taliban who were killing women and children in the soccer stadiums. He's removed Hussein, another scumbag. Thanks to lefty screaming, there's very little he can do about the Sudan or Zimbabwe. Just to show you that he cares, his AIDS initiative has greatly helped African countries (BLACKS) to fight the disease. Lefties think they're all saintly when they talk about saving people from their ivory tower. Right wingers actually do it. How much did America contribute to the tsunami cause? And the midwestern flood last month that was a non-story. That was just as bad as Katrina. Only you'd never hear about it from the liberal media because FEMA was actually a success there. But that's probably cause white people live in the Midwest, right?
- JWL2672
July 7, 2008 at 5:25pm