John Howard Interview: ‘Southern African countries let everybody down on Zimbabwe’
Posted by AlexT - 13/09/09 at 04:09 pm
An interview with former Australian Prime Minister, The Rt. Hon. John Howard, conducted by the Royal Commonwealth Society as part of the Commonwealth Conversation.
Do you have any thoughts on how the Commonwealth should be re-engaging with Zimbabwe?
I have a strong view about Zimbabwe: I think the Southern African countries let everybody down. They should have caught up with Mugabe years ago and, if they had done so, I think he would have gone a long time ago. But asking how we re-engage with Zimbabwe is truly the wrong question.
I think we have just ended up with the worst of all worlds in Zimbabwe. We have an apparent solution that is no solution at all. That’s probably not the view of the majority of countries now, but it’s my view. I was very directly involved in this and nothing has changed my opinion. I think the failure of the Southern African countries to stand up to him was very bad indeed.
There should have been greater strength shown by the Southern African countries and the fact that they didn’t is the major reason why we have this appalling outcome where Mugabe is still there and there’s the pretence of a power sharing arrangement. I don’t have a lot of faith in it and nor does the rest of the world. And unless the rest of the world has faith in it you?re going to have a great deal of difficulty.
Do you think something similar is going on with Fiji?
No, I think Fiji is a bit different. People are actually doing things with Fiji. Fiji is in no way near the condition Zimbabwe is and the rate of decline in living standards has not been as precipitous. It’s got worse but it?s not precipitous the way it has been in Zimbabwe.
You didn’t have Commonwealth observers reporting corrupt election practices [in Zimbabwe]. Both African and European Commonwealth groups are doing that in Fiji. I think the Commonwealth is doing what it can in Fiji and an active role for the Secretary General in that would be very good.
In a way, many people say that the Commonwealth’s handling of Zimbabwe really chipped away at its moral authority because here was an association that was supposed to be about democratic values ?
Yes, but at the end of the day nobody could do anything about it without the lead being taken by the Southern African countries, otherwise the colonial card would have been played. Australia and Canada and New Zealand and Great Britain could have a strong view, but it was very easy to say ‘well that’s the old white Commonwealth pushing us around’ and the responsibility really rested with the Southern African countries. I don’t think they came to the crease.
Category : Democracy & Good Governance
Tags: Australia, democracy, Fiji, Zimbabwe
Stay Updated : 
RSS 2.0 feed.
September 11th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
John Howard is correct in saying that the leaders of southern Africa have let Zimbabwe down. This can be seen in SADCs recent comments on Zimbabwe, and the asking for ’sanctions’ on Zimbabwe to be lifted. The AU has done little more in helping Zimbabwe.
But the reaction of Zimbabwe’s neighbours is hardly a surprise, they have been consistent in their support of Robert Mugabe for at least the past 10 years. The allegiances between these leaders is not going to be broken easily.
September 15th, 2009 at 7:41 am
What would the south African countries do? I do not believe that SADC has the mandate and authority to interfere with the politics of Zimbabwe. the world has given the state supremacy over the people’s freedoms. This whole idea of state sovereignty is only valid for countries with stable, reliable and dependable governments. Unfortunately it applies to every nation, its borders must be respected, even when the people are desperate for any form of help. Crossing into Zimbabwe would be seen as an act of war, even when one was delivering clean water during the cholera epidemic that killed thousands.
The South African countries can only be faulted for not opening their doors unconditionally to the people of Zimbabwe when they needed refuge.
September 15th, 2009 at 9:59 am
They can be faulted Murangira.
When Mugabe started tearing down peoples houses ? the rest of the world condemned him? and the Southern African countries were silent. Their silence was appeasement.
The principles of the Commonwealth should mean other member countries speak out when one loses her way. This does not mean a military intervention ? but political and diplomatic pressure.
Their was no united Commonwealth voice on this issue. Condemnation on one side and silence on the other. It was too easy for Mugabe to dismiss British and Australian criticisms as old imperialist intervention.
September 15th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Lex86, the assumption is that they did not agree with what he was doing and chose to keep quiet. That may not be true, they could have agreed with him.
Diplomatic and political pressure has not always worked, in and out of the commonwealth Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, Uganda, Sudan, Somalia…
We should find other options that go beyond borders. I have never understood why no country could use whatever card they had to get into Zimbabwe and just provide clean drinking water when hundreds were dying of cholera. What is more important state sovereignty or life?
If the commonwealth is doing the right thing then it should not be afraid to come off as imperialist in their interventions. That is probably something that will not go away soon and its for African countries and leaders to deal with.
September 15th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
“That may not be true, they could have agreed with him.”
Thats even worse!
Regards intervention: I have always been in favour of it on humanitarian grounds: Bosnia, Sierra Leone, Rwanda (where it could have helped).. These are all successes, albeit derided as ‘imperialist’ in certain quarters. But after the Iraq debarcle then I think this is off the table for some time.
Anyway – lets be serious. The Commonwealth will never have the balls to address an issue like this by crossing borders and intervening directly in another country. Its a talking shop and a friendly club. I cant see it achieving anything.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:20 am
i see a significant part of this problem is the drawing of battle lines between ‘western’ ‘imperalist’ countries (australia, usa, uk in this instance) and ‘everyone else.’ if a non-western leader had espoused the same views as john howard, it is my bet that they would carry very different stigma and significance.
as an australian, you find yourself tarred with the imperialist brush on any issue that does not concern a predominantly western country. this constant cry of ‘what the western countries want’ or intervention based on ‘western ideals’ is completely flawed in this instance, when the ‘western ideal’ is the upholding of human rights, the preservation of life and the provision of the basic needs of every human being.
what is frustrating is that whenever an australian, or a ‘westerner’ calls for these things to happen, it is immediately labelled a hark back to colonial times, and ‘recolonialisation,’ instead of a reasoned and logical course of action. it is outrageous that ‘non-western’ and ‘western’ countries still consider themselves in pursuit of different things on different and conflicting agendas, instead of working together to provide solutions to problems such as those in zimbabwe.
when countries and leaders and even people stop slinging the mud of ‘imperialism,’ and ‘colonialism,’ perhaps there will be acknowledgment that though something can be branded the ‘western ideal’ (such as clean drinking water, democracy and equality) it isn’t necessarily wrong or incompatible with a ‘non-western’ agenda.
end rant.
September 17th, 2009 at 9:03 am
the reason western intervention is associated with colonialism is because people question why they intervene, is it really that altruistic that it is on humanitarian ground? sierra leone had diamonds, zimbabwe has gold etc, perhaps the Southern African leaders believed that condemnation wasnt the right way to go about it, perhaps it was in their own interest to keep ties good with Mugabe, after all national interest comes first for most leaders, or perhaps SADC thought by sending in Mbeki to try and mediate etc they were doing it in the right way (evidently this wasnt the answer judging by how long it has taken and how many are suffering there) I am not saying they are right I am saying that they had their own reasons and as neighbours and a region it wld be their belief that they have every right to do so and wld of course look upon Howard as an outsider, it has become a trend to say that ‘western states’ dont know abt African problems so they shld keep out (im not saying these r my own thoughts) its tough to believe that states like the UK will intervene in other country conflicts if they have nothing to gain from it, perhaps these views are cynical.
As for the Commonwealth, I agree with all you have said OsR, they dont have the guts to do anything abt it (and perhaps we can let thta go due to the sovereignty aspect) aside from suspend them and lets face it being suspended from the commonwealth has never been the highest concern of any state be it pakistan, fiji or zim.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
I still think that if something is wrong then it is wrong and regardless of how the ‘west” comes off, they should not hesitate to intervene if they must.
What if it takes Africa leaders another 200 year change their view on the west, will people loose their innocent lives because Australia or Britain do not want to be called colonialists?
September 17th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
I have to disagree. I still believe in the concept of African solutions for African problems. I can’t help but feel that many, including the ‘West’ view Africa as incompetent. Please note that decolonization only occurred in our parents ( late 50s/ early 60s) lifetime and finding ones footing takes time (read Fanon). African leaders were left with state institutions they could not operate and were not taught how to operate; and only now, i believe, are these countries trying to forge a way for themselves- admittedly through trial and error. Murangira i agree with you on the sovereignty- it doesn’t only apply to ‘good’ countries, but (unfortunately) those responsible for gross human rights violations as well. I also agree with you on South africa opening its borders to Zimbabwean citizens, as Zimbabwe (and many other african countries) did for South africans during apartheid. I think Africa has the potential to become so much greater than people believe.
September 17th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
i see herein lying the problem for this demonised west. face condemnation if you enter (accusations of installing puppet leaders, extortion of natural resources etc) face condemnation if you don’t (the deaths, human rights violations and destruction of people and their societies). the point i make is somewhat parallel to this topic and not necessarily in direct response to it – that it is hard to divine a clear mandate for non-african (or non-southern african, even) countries to act upon. i suppose this comes full circle to the point howard (absolutely the most loved of all australian prime ministers…) makes; that without clear leadership on the issue, there is little or no action that can be taken by non southern african nations who (supposedly) have the interests of human rights at heart. he just did it in his usual way: a way only expressed for me by the french word ‘aga?ant’
September 17th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Let who down? Who was so interested in Zimbabwe that they felt let down. John Howard can not claim to love Zim more than the Zimbabweans. Let the Zimbabweans decide for themselves who leads and when they are let down they will vote otherwise.
September 18th, 2009 at 3:57 am
i understand your point ambar, this all comes down to sovereignty and allowing a country to decide who will run it is a fundamental part of that. but: in a country like zimbabwe, the problem with allowing ‘nature to take its course’ so to speak is that it has been seen time and time again that this has not happened. electoral fraud is the first tool in undermining the government’s claim to sovereignty. second and probably most importantly is the degradation of a country that has previously more than supported itself. thirdly, and perhaps the most evident, is the flow of zimbabweans out of zimbabwe. this is no longer about them being unhappy and having the option to vote otherwise when they are let down, this has become a situation where people are actually leaving because they fear for their lives, livelihood, and the future of their country.
September 18th, 2009 at 9:04 am
Rosie you give proper detail of the situation in Zimbabwe. If the world sees it the way you do, why not lend that saving hand to the people. Why wait for an alliance of friends to do something that they probably wont do?
Hops1, what is the African solution to this African problem? And is it really a problem?
September 18th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Howard comments as though Africa and the west are on equal footing in terms of political and economical development, whereas he surely knows better. Africa has never been given the chance to walk the path of self-determination without external interference, and a number of ‘democracies’ we see in Africa are a result of compromises of liberation struggle principles, western-imposed principles of democracy and donor nations with a carrot and stick. The Zim issue is really a post-colonial issue, coupled with two-faced leaders from the west AND Africa all voicing rhetoric that they know will appease electorate masses, rhetoric that is either pan-african, or that which promotes human rights (the trojan horse for neo-colonialism). either way, the masses at the bottom will suffer, and the rest up top continue to thrive. perceived enemies are not actually enemies behind the political curtains. after all the press conferences and newspaper bashing the very people who are supposedly imposing sanctions are looting that very country as we speak. its war for the masses, the outcome – disastrous. I don’t in any way uphold killings and loss of property all in the name of democracy, or a type of democracy that seeks to entrench pre-colonial and post-colonial subjugation of citizens, whether through former colonial leaders, or the new democratically elected leaders who have lost their bearings on the democratic map. Even for Africans we have a sense of justice, a sense of what good governance is without turning to constitutions and legislation.
September 19th, 2009 at 7:33 am
murangira, i really, sincerely hope that something gets done. unfortunately, many leaders and people seem satisfied that the minor compromise made in zim has resolved all its problems, but i fear that the next time something falls apart there, there will be serious ramifications not just for zim, but for its neighbours and the entire region. and that would be disastrous. i can only hope that this fear is acted on before anything can fall apart.
and bob’s my uncle: your quote, “rhetoric…which promotes human rights (the trojan horse for neo-colonialism)” completely verifies every fear i have of attitudes towards these kinds of situations! i refuse to concede at any point that human rights are a trojan horse for neo-colonialism. i find it very hard to believe that respecting the life, liberties and freedoms of people the world over is a form of neo-colonialism. and if it is, then the only thing people are being colonised by is the opportunity to live free of fear. i understand that perhaps you mean that human rights are used to justify interventions that may appear as colonialist, but, if that was not what was intended, i just cannot understand how human rights in and of themselves could ever be a form of neo-colonialism.
September 19th, 2009 at 10:01 am
Rosie, if you understand the story behind the Trojan War, you’ll understand what I meant by wat I said above. (Time for a history lesson): After a fruitless 10-year siege of Troy, the Greeks built a huge figure of a horse in which a select force of men hid. The Greeks pretended to sail away, and the Trojans pulled the Horse into their city as a victory trophy. That night the Greek force crept out of the Horse and opened the gates for the rest of the Greek army, which had sailed back under cover of night. The Greek army entered and destroyed the city, decisively ending the war. A “Trojan Horse” has come to mean any trick that causes a target to invite a foe into a securely protected bastion or place.
Therefore, while ushering in the concepts of human rights which are very much acceptable, at the same time these rights do not come alone….you get me now?
September 19th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
ps/ and for those not in the know by now, Zimbabwe is no longer a member of the Commonwealth.
What is the Commonwealth, one may ask? Who is the head of the Commonwealth? What do all these countries have in ‘common’? previously conquered, colonised and liberated British-territories.
September 19th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
bob’s my uncle I agree with pretty much everything you say, my question is always why ‘western’ countries intervene in foreign issues and I refuse to believe that it is to save the people or for altruistic purposes, this may be going off point but last night there was a special report on conflict in yemen and the refugee crisis there etc and the reporter very clearly stated ‘yemen is coming to the stage of becoing a failed state and cld become a safe haven for breeding al qaeeda fighters which wld mean that the UK and US wld need to get involved in a situation they have largely ignored’ and this is my point the reason many are against western interventions and see it as colonialism coming back is because they never intervene out of the goodness of their heart they wldnt intervene because the ppl of zimbabwe are suffering. I could go on and on sierra leone being another example (a commonwealth state) the murky dealings in which the british were involved in supplying arms which fuelled the war there.. yet in the end they intervened to stop it, and yes they helped but is the majority of the country now not in severe poverty and the resources from which they can make money e.g.- the majority of firms controlling the diamond mines are foreign. I may be going off the point here but I believe ppl object to western states intervening in african situations because of the reasons behind their actions namely self gain.
as for the commonwealth… mozambique was never a british colony and as rwanda look to join they werent either.. what binds the commonwealth together.. I say it with a lot of scepticism as I dont believe in the organisation anymore but its shared values good governance democracy etc etc and who is the secretary- general? well ask ppl on the street and i believe 99% wldnt know.
September 19th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
yes, Mozambique was never colonised by Britain, and in fact it is the only nation to join the Commonwealth that was never part of the British Empire. The only. When time permits I’ll research why this is so. But my point is made, and strong, out of 53 states it is not coincidental that 51 of them were under British rule at some point in history, no coincidence at all. (minus Mozambique, and UK of course).
there has been a debate over the past decade, and especially in light of Bob’s statements, that the Commonwealth needs to shed its skin of being a post-colonial club of the British Empire. Thus the acceptance of Rwanda , for whatever reason, is a step in this direction. Certainly Rwanda is in need of a lot of financial aid. But that’s where the circle begins, aid comes with conditions…those trojan horses again…
The Australians are British by descent, have a glance at their flag, you don’t see a kangaroo there, but the Union jack in the top left corner. So when you hear Howard speaking (back when he did), he is merely the megaphone.
September 19th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Well, I think John Howard still has a point. South African countries should have done more. If Africa does not want foreign intervention then they need to start handling their problems. If they do not, they should expect the ‘west’ to get involved. I do not think the world is going to sit back and watch people die.
September 19th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Murangira, the west sit back and watch ppl die in many countries.. And what do u think other African states shld have done?
September 21st, 2009 at 8:42 am
Point made, Sam3. what has Howard proposed for Iraq? A formerly peaceful country until the US decided to invade and remove a sitting president from power. Silence from Howard. the axis of good, they call themselves. US diplomats were influential in drawing up the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, yet the USA has not always put (some of their own) words into action. They often have not ratified various international human rights related treaties (and where it has, there have been many, many reservations).
In a wealthy and prosperous nation, aboriginal people live in third world conditions.
Australia has had a very racist past in which apartheid has been practiced and where indigenous Aboriginal people have lost almost all their land and suffered many prejudices. Aborigines are the poorest group in Australia and suffer from very much preventable diseases.
have a browse thru this website:
http://www.globalissues.org/article/148/australia-and-human-rights
September 21st, 2009 at 10:19 am
bob’s my uncle and Sam3. This is not about John Howard or Australia, this is about Zimbabwe and all the bad things that have happened in there.
John Howard says, They(South African countries) should have caught up with Mugabe years ago and because they did not we have ended up with the worst of all worlds.
I agree with him. Though i think that the south African countries do not have the ability to do so and may not even believe he was wrong. So what happens in such a case, do we let nature take its course in Zimbabwe? Should the west sit back and watch because south Africa and Africa on a whole is not going to do something about it?
September 21st, 2009 at 12:42 pm
John Howard talks about SADC countries letting every one down on Zimb
Double Standards and Mega Hipocracy !
Wasnt he the first to stand shoulder to shoulder
with the dark con of Bush and Balir ?
Didnt he behave contrary (as a leader of a commonwealth country ) to the principles of the UN and our Commonwealth Charter ?
September 22nd, 2009 at 9:50 am
murangira, we’re singing from the same hymn book. Howard cannot say what Southern Africa shud have done to Mugabe, for he is echoing what the West is saying, he himself being part of that clique. Southern Africa has chosen its own path to deal with the Zim situation (even if it means sticking their heads into the sand), they understand Africa better than the West and will simply allow matters to sort themselves out. Africa will react when there’s what they view as a crisis according to African standards. It’s far different standard from the West. Matter is, the West cannot keep quiet when they’re seeing their prized former political colonies but still their economic colonies holding back the goodies (land etc) from them.
September 23rd, 2009 at 10:16 am
Well, I do not see any African country getting involved. If they do as in the case of Somalia with AU forces from Uganda and Burundi, it just might be too late.
We have seen genocides and brutal wars, African countries will mind their own internal business and i do not know how that makes the world a better place.
September 24th, 2009 at 1:03 am
There is a very strage and utterly baseless idea in International politics at the moment that somehow ‘regions’ know what is good for one another. African Union, European Union, North Atlantic treaty organisation… none of it actually benefits those involved in anything but a superficial way. Britain and France are now dependant on German industry and subsidies from Brussels. Zimbabwe is a fractured mess because African countries are happy to close ranks on colonialism but are good for nothing when it comes to development.
But there is no need for a bleak view. While I think that the Commonwealth should never forget, reject, or demonise its Imperial past, I really do think it’s high time that Citizens and Governments in Member States grow up and move on from these old colonial bitternesses and recriminations on action and inaction. The African Union has messed up on Zimbabwe. But then so has everyone else, since the 19th Century. Rhodes messed up when he established his unegalitarian private country. The Lusaka Conference messed up when they gave power in Rhodesia to Zanu-PF Terrorists. Then the AU messed up by being stand-offish; Westernesse thought they would help to tidy up Mugabe’s tyranny when in fact some of the Neighbouring Governments (specifically South Africa) approved of his policy and were/are covertly imitating it.
At the end of the day, Zimbabwe is a humanitarian mess. I don’t care whose fault it is or who should have done what and when. The Commonwealth should do their best to send help there to rebuild the civil society. That means police that can be trusted, homes that can be lived in, and fields that can be farmed. I don’t care who does it, ‘Colonialist’ Westerners or ‘Apathetic’ Africans, and neither should the Commonwealth. Just get the job done. A country needs rebuilding, and damn the rest.
Let the RCS send me a spade and a plane ticket. I’d happily dig a well if they showed me where. I’m sure that’s true of a good few people in this Conversation.
September 24th, 2009 at 11:38 am
RFLowings, the RCS has no authority to send you to Zimbabwe. It is the Zimbabwean people to invite you. Before they do, do not assume they need your help.
murangira, if all countries decided to mind their own internal business, the world would be a better place.
September 24th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
I think he’s right in saying that the Southern African countries should take the lead in dealing with the Zimbabwe situation. Zim is right in the middle of the region and whatever happens there will affect the rest of the region and I think that is why they are dealing with the stituation rather carefully. It’s why they can’t deal with Zim the way they are with the new government in Madagascar. However, I think they should separate what’s good for Zimbabwe with what’s good for the nation and the people of Zimbabwe. African leaders have been dealing with most African crises in a way that kinda gives off the impression they’re protecting each other and that limits their ability to cause or influence positive change where things have gone wrong in Africa. Beyond everything else, Zimbabwe is for the people of Zimbabwe and not only for a select few well connected or governmnt-supportive people. The world can’t just sit back even as human rights abuses and the violent land evictions continue. Even those can be done in a more humane way. The world should continue influencing or at least attempting to influence positive change in Zimbabwe and that also includes Britain negotiating a way to be involved in the land redistribution despite the end of the initial ten year period. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform_in_Zimbabwe
September 24th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
In all honesty, the land evictions should stop right now, and that’s another treaty which should be drawn up. Land being taken away from its owners in Zimbabwe or South Africa, no matter their colour, is a fundamental violation of the UN Charter of Human Rights. People’s property is being confiscated, often violently, and being distributed to others. You don’t have to be an arch-capitalist to see that as an injustice.
Once again, if the Zimbabwean government refuses to accept aid which will help its citizens, again regardless of its origin, then the Zimbabwean government must be ignored. The people come first, Mugabe invalidated his claim to National Sovereignty when he started driving out his white citizens.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
There are few democratic governments in Africa and we have seen term limits removed in a number of countries. What is happening in Zimbabwe is bound to happen in many other countries, I hope that the commonwealth learns from Zim that suspensions do not help but hurt the people, and that African governments do not get involved in anything that does not primarily challenge their existence.
I wonder if it is too late for the “west” and commonwealth to influence the change that they want to see and how best can it be done so that Sam3’s fears are taken care of.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
RFLowings, I really respect your point of view. I think you reason your arguments really well
. After having no internet access for several days I come back to lively discussion!
Firstly, I must thank you, Bob, for your lesson on the Trojan horse, though it was entirely unnecessary, considering I understood exactly what you intended. What i think was misunderstood was my intention, that is, that human rights are never a trojan horse in and of themselves. the associated belief systems perhaps: but i flatly refuse to believe that granting people rights is a bad thing. on whether terrible things such as ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ have been quietly ushered in under the guise of human rights i made no comment – i simply stated, and will again, that human rights are and must be fundamental and universal, no matter which continent, country or community you live in. Allow me, then, to shed but a ray of light on the question of Mozambique, as it is my belief that Mozambique is so geographically placed as to benefit greatly from being a member of the commonwealth (its surrounding neighbours are all members).
there are two problems i find with what has been discussed above: firstly, it was floated that western countries should not intervene unless there was some imperative to do so. then it was countered that western countries only interject when there is something problematic for there interests involved. then the discussion moved that western countries should have no right to protect their interests abroad. these are all intensely contradictive statements, and herein lies the problem that cannot be solved by constantly stating and restating arguments for or against the west (as we have so divisively decided they should be called). countries dependent on western assistance cannot simply choose when this assistance is delivered, whether it is convenient to their national interests at the time or not, the same way that the west must not simply arbitrarily exert its influence when it pleases. there needs to be greater mandating of this reciprocal process through international bodies like the Cth and the UN. otherwise those dependent countries will continue to seethe, and the independents will always need to look over their shoulders.
i would also counter the allegation that iraq was a ‘peaceful’ nation (by which i understand to be both internally and externally peaceful, ie posing no threat) whose (impliedly) rightfully elected (sitting president i believe was the term) was unjustly and incorrectly removed from power. i’m sure that the thousands (perhaps millions?) of subjugated people living under such rule would not accept that version of events as true.
i also take great umbrage at the statement that australians are british by descent and i dare you to challenge me on that. australians are no more british than americans are spanish, english or irish, than english are french, than new zealand is english! that is a completely and utterly false statement that i find offensive to my assumed nationality.
and murangira, i agree that this is not a discussion about australia and its mistreatment of aboriginal people, but i will say this: just because successive australian governments have disrespected and denigrated aboriginal people, does not mean that there are not large parts of the community that assume no part of that responsibility, in the same way that not all americans have mistreated blacks or hispanics, not all spanish have mistreated basque and not all iraqis persecuted the kurds.
finally, i would ask ambar to clarify how you meant ‘if all countries decided to mind their own internal business, the world would be a better place’ to apply to the rwandan genocide of 1994, the armenian genocide of 1915 and the jewish genocide of 1939-1945? in such a globalised and (generally) culturally understanding world, the view that countries might somehow be better if we all closed our doors to others seems to me to be inconsistent with what is actually and currently good with the world.
September 30th, 2009 at 11:34 am
really interesting discussion on the relationships within the commonwealth
September 30th, 2009 at 11:34 am
and i would never thought comments by john howard would illicit such insightful debate!
September 30th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
@ ROSIE:
“i also take great umbrage at the statement that australians are british by descent and i dare you to challenge me on that.”
where do Australians, white Australians, originally come from? Was Australia not originally founded as a penal colony? Do you not celebrate the holiday known as Australia Day (or Anniversary Day/ Foundation Day, take your pick), on January 26, to commemorate the arrival of the First Fleet at Sydney Cove back in 1788? Is this not the day the British flag was first raised on Australian soil, on the eastern parts of the country, followed by the proclamation of British sovereignty over the eastern territory, New South Wales?
And if I may point out, and something Mugabe has repeatedly stated in his rhetoric, that the First Fleet ship was filled with British convicts and their descendants. Convicts who were barred from ever returning to Britain lest they face the hangman’s noose. The correctional facilities in Britain were overburdened and for than 80 years over 160000 convicts were shipped there before the gold rush began in the 1850’s. Note the irony: Australia started as a nation from British convicts.
And by the way, not every ‘Australian’ shares the joy of Australia Day, needless to say the indigenous people see it more as ‘Invasion Day’ rather than Australia Day. Where were their human rights then? It’s the same issues in Zimbabwe today. British looted and plundered, established their economic dominance but handed over political power, but dictate affairs through the megaphone of human rights while continuing to enjoy the resources of other states.
October 2nd, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Australia began as a British penal colony, it is true, but since then has developed more or less completely independently – such is the nature of geographical separation.
To condemn white Australians as British and ‘invaders’ is a simplistic and juvenile misrepresentation. They are their own culture, and while I like to think there is a kinship between the citizens of Commonwealth Realms they are most definitely races apart nowadays, much as the West Indian cultures in the Caribbean are utterly alien to the West Africans one short hop across the Atlantic Ocean.
While it is possible for a mean-spirited historian to cast the whites in Australia as ‘invaders’ this is impossible in Southern Africa. It must be noted that when the first Dutch Settlers arrived on the cape in the 15th Century, the first Bantu were simultaneously crossing the limpopo. In effect, the peoples that became African and Afrikaans were both invaders from the perspective of the then-dominant race of Hottentots, who had in turn driven the Bushmen almost to extinction a few centuries previous.
If we are to cast Africans as ‘one culture’ as opposed to the myriad of separate tribes and cultures which they actually consist of, then we must give the same treatment to all the Europeans. And if we do that, then the British have as much claim over sub-saharan Africa as do the Shona, or Xhosa, or Tswana.
The idiot’s game of denying citizens’ human rights in order to defy the hated colonial powers is precisely the cause of the chaos in Zimbabwe. Time to grow up and move on, I say.
October 3rd, 2009 at 10:56 am
all good things
October 3rd, 2009 at 5:43 pm
my apologies for my deviation from the topic at hand:
bob, i have very little to say to you except this: your views are entirely racist. any respect i held for your comments earlier are completely erased by your irrelevant and uneducated tirade about australian history. so you googled ‘australia day.’ well done. so you wikipedia’ed how australia began as a penal colony. i again applaud your efforts. but to tar all australians as british? your views are as outdated as the mugabe approach to governance. how about you try telling every australian not of british descent in any way, shape or form (for example, the 463,800 arrivals into australia not on a tourist visa in 2009) that they are plunderers, invaders and looters. do you similarly consider americans british? and new zealanders? no. because the reasoning doesn’t make sense. it is these kinds of attitudes that derail the fostering of understanding, goodwill and tolerance between alliances such as the commonwealth.
“And if I may point out, and something Mugabe has repeatedly stated in his rhetoric, that the First Fleet ship was filled with British convicts and their descendants.” – I’m glad to see you take your lessons from such a level voice on the matter.
take your racist attitudes elsewhere. i am not in the business of respecting people who rant and rave with outdated and, correctly, rflowings, juvenile rhetoric. especially when it is wholly irrelevant to the topic.
October 4th, 2009 at 1:21 am
This discussion betrays the very problem encountered in Southern Africa. The assumption that neighbouring countries ‘must’ have a responsibility to one another because ‘they’re the same society’, is a fallacy. Tribal divides are what holds back Southern African countries from cooperation – and why not? Different societies, long histories – it’s why the European Union is so impossible to coordinate.
If anything, the ignorance displayed by Bob’s My Uncle is indicative of the sort of thing the Commonwealth needs to get past. It’s no more South Africa’s or Zambia’s responsibility to ‘deal with’ Zimbabwe than it is the responsibility of Britain and Australia. Just because you’re the same colour doesn’t make you the same. In nationhood, blood means nothing; culture, everything.
October 4th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Rosie, Australians may not be British now, but are so only by descent. That’s my main point. I may have, for example American citizenship but can be considered Zimbabwean by descent. And I intentionally stressed the British link to support my argument that Howard at the time of his speech was simply a megaphone of that British.
RFLowings: I don’t dispute that Australia has somewhat become ‘relatively’ independent from Britain, but take a good long gaze at the current Australian national flag, and tell me what you see more prominently, according to your eyes, featuring on that flag. Here’s a hint: no crazy kangaroos hopping abt, no koalas sleeping in trees. Fix your eyes on the top left side of the flag, which is a significant part in terms of size, bearing in mind we’re now in 2009 and your comments on Australia’s independence…despite geographical separation.
As far as South Africa is concerned, yes I agree the Bantu peoples crossed somewhat at the same time as the Dutch arrived, but that’s not in dispute. That’s South Africa though. Not Zimbabwe.
“And if we do that, then the British have as much claim over sub-saharan Africa as do the Shona, or Xhosa, or Tswana.” – why shud the British have ANY claim to African territory?
October 5th, 2009 at 1:35 am
The British are no less ‘native’ to SouthERN Africa than the post-Bantu cultures, give or take a couple of centuries. The real natives are the Bushmen, and I don’t see them getting their rights or property back any time soon – and why should they? History is history, and trying to undo, apologise, or make up for it in any way is merely an exercise in self-delusion.
Australia maintains the Union Flag in the canton I hope due to the continued affinity felt by the Australian people for Britain.
Don’t make the mistake of assuming that because a society was formed from something which you personally find distasteful that they are thereby invalidated as a society. I hate to break it to you, but every human society is formed by conflict. Several Commonwealth member states have set a remarkable precedent of being multi-racial without coercion in recent years. Rather than criticising Australia for its unchangeable history (why should we try to change it anyway?), you should be making constructive suggestions for the benefit of Zimbabwe.
John Howard doesn’t say what Britain wants him to say. While I’m flattered you think my government still has the political clout to order our former colonies around, I’m afraid it’s totally unimaginable nowadays.
Australia has a perfect right to involve itself in Zimbabwean affairs if such involvement is to the benefit of the people, as does every other nation on the planet. Phantom conspiracies and pointless critiques of Colonialism are totally useless and a waste of everyone’s time.
October 6th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Please do join us on Friday the 9th of October at University of Zimbabwe, Great Hall. We will be having a commonwealth conversation from 4pm to 6pm.
rsvp british council cnr hse
October 7th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Unimaginable? I’m not asking you to use your imagination but rather your abilities to critically analyse. I’m not crediting your government with any political clout with regards to the Zim situation, your govt as I said is simply a mouthpiece, you must have caught onto that by now. I wrote that in black and white. No country has any ‘perfect’ right to involve itself in the internal affairs of another, there’s a big word called sovereignty, and surely the rest of Africa is not simply sitting by and watching, they’re being practical in their approach, despite the impression on your end of the world down under that nothing is happening. As we speak, in the absence of western assistance, Zimbabwe is slowing getting back onto its feet, the African approach is working for now. There are so many internal dynamics in the country you wouldn’t understand that have influenced the slow process of normalisation there, but we as Africans understand them better than yourselves out there who are heavily reliant on CNN, BBC and other kangaroo networks for your perspectives of events in Africa. Amanpour herself couldn’t come up with single relevant question for Mugabe when given the rare chance to do so a few weeks back.
October 7th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Hoho, I suppose it was only a matter of time before ZANU-PF apparatchiks arrived on this site.
Nice try, “bob’s your uncle”.
October 8th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Intelligence is everywhere, Invictus. No pun intended.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:45 am
“Kangaroo Networks” (?)
In fairness to BMU, time will tell. I have no doubt that now, after the mass slaughter of opposition by ZANU-PF greyshirts, the rest of Southern Africa may have been tempted to do something. If Zimbabwe is heading back toward stability, then fantastic! As above, the only important thing is that the ordinary people have a stable and habitable country. The means is irrelevant.
But BMU has distorted the argument a little. Howard’s comments apply to Zimbabwe prior to the collapse of the elections, when the whole disaster was brewing. Mugabe’s agricultural mismanagement was visible and easily preventable, but as many neighbouring leaders were backing his policy of ‘redistribution’, famine was inevitable.
I think the lesson Howard is trying to take from this whole sorry affair is that regional bodies like the AU are often unwilling or unable to deal with local problems, when they are those with the most influence. While it would be churlish to denounce South Africa, Zambia or Botswana for their inaction, it is worth encouraging India to act on Sri Lanka, or Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea etc. to intervene in Fiji.
And this issue of National Sovereignty… as stated before, Mugabe ceased to be sovereign when he, as Head of State, started robbing the agricultural sector of land and handing it over to his party faithful, who subsequently let it go to wrack and ruin. No leader who abuses his power thus can claim to be immune from outside interference.
Oh, I love the statement “internal dynamics you wouldn’t understand”. If you have a point to make, BMU, explain it in full, and if we don’t know the ‘facts’, then use the opportunity to get the word out. Don’t just hide behind witty wordplay.
October 9th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
RFL: Do not permit me to deny you the opportunity to do your own research on Zimbabwe, in fact if you followed events there simply using the daily on-line media available (not the usual cnn’s and bbc’s) you’d have a more general picture of what’s going on there, I just have the added advantage of communicating with Zimbabweans back home on a frequent basis.
National sovereignty is not only vested in the presidency or executive, it is very much vested in the people of Zimbabwe or whatever country one is from. Thus vested in us, it is also exercised by us, the people; despite your claim that Mugabe has abused power, that in no way indemnifies anybody transgressing the people’s sovereign will. As Zimbabweans we may have problems with our leaders, but we certainly will not give up our sovereignty in the name of so-called humanitarian intervention.
And in fairness, the opposition parties themselves also have their hands dirty in the ‘mass slaughter’ you refer to. But of course you ignore that coz that wud dilute your point, wouldn’t it?
October 9th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Well, as I say, time will tell. If Zimbabweans reckon they can make it themselves, then that’s fine. If it works. Frankly with ZANU-PF still in power I have my doubts, but we’ll have to wait and see. You may be right…
In future, though, Zimbabwe should serve as a lesson in non-intervention – Sri Lanka, for example. When push comes to shove, the safety of the people comes first, and you cannot deny that the well-being of the Zimbabwean people was jeopardised over the election period. I have never asserted that the MDC were blameless in the infighting, please do not project. The Tamil Tigers were terrorists, yet for their actions the Tamil population are made to suffer in Sri Lanka. Once again, injustice.
BMU, you seem to be under the misapprehension that Commonwealth (or even AU) sponsored aid would amount to a recolonisation. While I am aware this is a staple of ZANU-PF rhetoric, it is nonetheless a laughable notion and is leading away from the primary argument.
The question still stands: should the Commonwealth intervene when regional bodies fail? Had humanitarian intervention occurred earlier, hundreds could have been saved from cholera. The answer in that case would have to be yes.
October 9th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
SADC might failed the zim people for various reasons. Africans have had enough of being told by western countries their previous colonisers how to run their own internal affairs. the west seldom intervene in a country unless benfits of some sort, a trend that dates back early history of the human race. The west came to africa to plunder and loot whatever valuables they could find including humans who were considered a very valuable commodity if they can make it alive across the oceans. The middle generations of Africa might have suffered some historic amnesia or something worse but i don’t think the current breed of african leaders do. They would not condemn a country next door simply because the west say so no matter how bad the situation might be. The Africans would rather try and solve African problems the African way. You don’t put out fire with fire because that is madness. The West seems to do that most of the time e.g Iraq, Afghanistan, Middle East and so on.
October 11th, 2009 at 10:37 am
RFL, do not introduce side issues that serve to weaken your point. It does not require a country in economic and political crisis to have deaths from cholera. South Africa has LONG been suffering from cholera epidemics in many areas where service delivery is low, even way before cholera hit Zimbabwe and made headlines. And yet, as you imply, it is curable. Where was your Commonwealth and humanitarian intervention then? (http://www.hst.org.za/news/20010224)
And my main point has been made, weeks ago: with aid (acceptable) comes conditions (unacceptable) which in the long run makes the entire package unacceptable. Non-conditional intervention is what I’d accept. Do you agree?
October 11th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Absolutely. Why we keep chasing this pointless argument around is beyond me when aid is the only important thing here.
Where has the Commonwealth been during the Malaria, Cholera, HIV/AIDS spread across sub-Saharan Africa? Not doing their job, evidently.
However, it’s the people of Zimbabwe’s call as to who they elect. Should the violent, tyrannical ex-terrorist Mugabe continue to prove an adequate leader then, provided he has a democratic mandate, the Commonwealth should live with it.
I’m deadly serious about the intervention issue. That is what Howard’s comments illustrate. What’s your view, BMU? Should far-away foreign countries intervene when a government in Africa, Asia, Europe or America has devolved into tyranny and chaos? Or is that the job of regional bodies and neighbours? Or, does the principle of National Sovereignty come above all these things? I’m not sold either way. Certainly, if a country elects a tribal/racial/cultural leader with a history of violence to the position on Head of State, they should not expect to get utopia. Are the people of Zimbabwe culpable, therefore, for the troubles, given that Mugabe was the great anti-colonial poster boy thirty years ago?
October 11th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
well i’m not sure how you define a terrorist, but I’m yet to see NATO or its allies bombing Zimbabwe for acts of terrorism, let alone the issuing of an international ICC warrant for Mugabe’s arrest…
As I said, humanitarian aid is most welcome, but it shud not be accompanied, hand in glove, with political conditions. Other than that, one shud bugger off.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
murangira the SADC counttries are not South African countries, rather countries of Southern Africa. South Africa is one of them.
And for the west getting involved in African affairs is no solution at all. The west might be good at preaching human rights over their ever biased media houses and cable news networks, but in practice their record says otherwise. I look at it in this way: They will do anything in their power using everything at their disposal to safe one Westerner’s life regardless of nationality at the expense of any other world races or nationalities.
So Zims dying at the hands of fellow countrymen is no concern of the west, but it provides for good posturing and help boasts their almost non-existent human rights protection records.
African problems require African solutions with ‘ubuntu’ at the heart of it all, not Western solutions engineered in aircon offices in their megacities.
Westerners do not give a damn about the death of Africans, Asians, Indians, Chinese, Iraqis, Afghanis, Palestinians…and History is there to proof it.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
…so if Westernesse intervenes physically, they’re Imperialists, if they intervene verbally, they’re Hypocrites, and if they don’t do anything, they’re heartless and self-centred.
If that were true, India would have dissolved into civil war in 1947, South Africa and Zimbabwe would still be in the midst of Apartheid, and there would be no more Palestinians alive on Earth. From indicators in Southern Africa, the ‘African Solution’ seems to be either denial of problems, blaming the ‘West’, or dispossession to outright mass-murder of opposing tribes, be they white or black.
If there’s anything the Commonwealth needs to face up to, it’s that decolonisation in Africa didn’t solve anything; ignorance, bigotry and racial conflict have shifted their position to the new ruling classes, that’s all.
What we need is more tolerance and understanding, NDUNGE_Tz, not more generalisations and pop-history. If you really believe what you’ve written above, and you’re incapable of distinguishing between a Briton, a Canadian, and an American, you’re as ignorant and racist as those you claim to decry.
Africa is a continent: not a country, and not a culture.
And BMU: If every Terrorist and War Criminal were brought before the Hague, Mr. Mugabe would be sharing a cell with the Israeli, Georgian, and American governments. He hasn’t lost a war yet: that’s the only qualification you need.
November 17th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
I agree with John Howard, but I think that the commonwealth as a whole failed to deal with Zimbabwe, not just southern African members. Austrailia, Canada and Great Britain as well as India, should have backed up, and if necessary, defended, South Africa and not been worried about being branded Imperialists. Imperialist is a word, and when there are human lives at stake, the west should act regardless of petty insults by liberal journalists.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:46 am
“If there’s anything the Commonwealth needs to face up to, it’s that decolonisation in Africa didn’t solve anything;”
So, RFL, shall we assume colonisation shud have remained? or rather, colonisation shud not have happened to begin with?
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:37 am
In general Britons, Americans, Canadians and Westerners might be different but they seem to think alike in most cases under the so-called Western ideologies. So do Africans in some limited issues but important ones.
And referring to Palestine and India, one would like to ask you this question: Who created those problems in the first place in both countries?
SA & Zim might still be in apartheid to date and whose making would that have been? To be honest I don’t agree with you on that score.
As for you, RFLowings, implying that I’m a racist, maybe I’m or maybe I’m not. It does not really matter, because the issue I raised have nothing to do with me being a racist or otherwise. The fact remains: Western solutions are not always the best solutions for African problems or world problems for that matter. African solutions being what you mentioned above according to your shody observations is a shame on you, and a disrespect for Africans capabilities to solve African problems successfully.
As for generalizations and pop-history as you refer to it. I have observed one thing about history: It seems to repeat itself no matter how much change have taken place over time and don’t see this issue to be handled in a radically different manner from the previous ones.
And all the issues I mentioned did take place.
The Slave Trade, The Invasion of Iraq (reason: Weapon of Mass Destruction, WMD)and Afghanistan (reason: Haven for Terrorists) by the Bush Administrtion with the support of Britain, Canada, Germany and other Western nations without UN Security Council backing. The number of civilians killed in these two invasions far exceeds those killed in Zim. And have any one condemned Bush to go to the Hague for that act of mass murder?
As for westerners being indistinguishable from one another as nations is fact but might be different as individuals. Southern Africans share roots with the rest of Africans and the same can be said about Westerners in terms of ancestry and being cousins of some sort. Therefore, it is inevitable that they will tend have some prejudices and biases that are common to all of the them.
Sure, Africa is a continent geographically-speaking but that does not mean it cannot conceived in the form of a single country with various states who have their own unique system of governments that forms the AU.
I will still state my point as I said before, I think African problems are best solved in an African context with ‘ubuntu’ at the heart of it and with Africans at the forefront.
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:12 pm
the evolution of the nations of Africa is different from the evolution of the various other states and nations.
It is also true that Mugabe has behaved in this rather irational way due to his experience with the British.
The duty of all Africans is to learn on how to participate in humanitarian assistance and reconstruction programmes.
Mugabe is tired and is now responding to his western counterparts irationally like a wounded tiger. we know his past but we shall not defend him for this. We need systems that can mitigate the Zimbabwe question without maintaining him in power.
The Zimbabwe opposition is useless and powerless. It does not address the real problems of zimbabwe. the opposition is glued on a single purpose of apeasing the west while Mugabe attacks.