Bearing witness = doing nothing

In his speech in Oslo accepting the nobel prize, President Obama yet again used a curious phrase, bear witness, when talking about US policy towards repressive regimes:

We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran.

What does bearing witness mean?  The speech makes it sound noble.  I disagree.  Bearing witness means witnessing.  More prosaically, it means doing nothing.  Consider how the phrase would sound in other contexts.  I bore witness to a man getting mugged today.  This means I saw a guy get mugged and did nothing to help him.  I bore witness to a child trapped in a house on fire.  This means I saw a kid trapped in a house on fire and did nothing to help, not even call 911.  I am sure that Obama’s speechwriters are quite pleased that they have made doing nothing sound noble.  It’s not.

Boycotting a Useless Government

Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai announced Friday that he and the MDC would be boycotting the unity government, meaning they will not attend Cabinet meetings, council of Ministers meetings, and the weekly meetings among the parties to the unity government. This does not represent an official pullout, however; the MDC is retaining its positions. The party is protesting continued ill treatment by Mugabe’s dominant ZANU-PF, culminating in the re-arrest (and subsequent release on bail) of the MDC nominated deputy minister for agriculture, Roy Bennett, who faces charges of terrorism, insurgency, sabotage and banditry. These accusations are generally understood to be fabrications.

This boycott is unlikely to have much effect on how things are run in Zimbabwe. ZANU-PF officials have failed to consult with their MDC counterparts in most serious decisions, and the prime minister has been ineffective in most of his duties (beyond attracting a small amount of new international aid and interest). He has not made any headway on getting the military out of the diamond mines, and despite repeated pleas he has not been able to stop farm invasions. ZANU-PF has been undermining MDC authority whenever it can, particularly through its mouthpiece the state Herald. A recent teachers’ strike against the policies of the MDC-controlled Ministry of Education was violently enforced by ZANU-PF militia, who beat teachers who tried to return to work. The MDC has certainly not been a real partner in the government.

Tsvangirai hopes that this boycott will lead to fruitful negotiations over several outstanding issues, including Mugabe’s refusal to appoint several MDC governors. This is not overly likely to work. ZANU-PF seems undisturbed by the pullout, saying “If MDC wants to disengage … we don’t have a problem with that… We were having problems with MDC, working together.” There are strong elements in ZANU-PF that want to end the unity government, and this may be the opportunity they have been looking for. The party can simply refuse to negotiate terms with the MDC.

By pulling out, Tsvangirai has at least proven to his doubters that he has not been bought by ZANU-PF and that he is willing to put action behind his pronouncements that the government is not working. Unfortunately, circumstances in Zimbabwe are not conducive to MDC’s gaining real state power in the near future. Just about any compromise that brings the MDC back into this government is going to be unacceptable or unimplemented.

This is not to say that they should not return. The slight improvement in economy and stability that has come from being less of an international pariah has certainly been worthwhile. But we should not kid ourselves that Zimbabwe is anywhere near the verge of political change; no elite pact is going to lead to democracy in this case.

Al Jazeera

Increasingly, I am turning to Al Jazeera as my primary TV news source when traveling abroad.  While the quality of the news is similar to the BBC (I gave up on CNN as 90% fluff long ago), Al Jazeera is much more engaging, in my opinion.  In addition, I am deeply impressed with its global reach.  It is far more than a regional network.  For example, I am currently watching an in-depth discussion about Zimbabwe.  The last time I was away (a few weeks ago), I saw a documentary on Hugo Chavez’s crackdown on the media in Venezuela.

Update:

Al Jazeera just ran a story on Hugo Chavez’s trip to Russia that I referenced in a recent post.  During the trip, Chavez secured a $2.2 billion line of credit for weapons purchases.  According to Al Jazeera, Venezuela needs the weapons because Chavez fears the US is going to invade it to seize its oil.

Zimbabwe’s Sham Government

On Friday and Saturday, the European Union held its first talks with the Zimbabwean government in seven years. The EU delegation’s reaction was cautiously optimistic over the future prospects of the power sharing agreement (the GPA, or Global Political Agreement), euphemistically describing the deadlock over the GPA as “They do not have the same reading of the same document. They have a different reading on how this should be done and at what speed.” While the delegation was quick to say that because of significant humanitarian problems, no sanctions will be lifted just yet, their willingness to reengage with the government was enough to give hope to President Robert Mugabe.

Zimbabwe has been making international headlines recently not for harassing opposition leaders and stealing elections, but for its attempts to reengage with the international community and solicit funds. Headlines on major papers are debating the questions of whether to lift sanctions and provide aid (with moderate amounts of aid and loans from the US, UK, EU, China, Germany, and now the IMF). While most countries’ responses are negative on sanctions and tepid on aid, few papers these days are carrying the specific and ongoing reasons why we should not be helping out the regional basket case. This absence of bad news from the headlines (beyond the cholera epidemic a few months ago) might lead one to believe that the situation in Zimbabwe has improved, which is not the case.

The “different reading” of the GPA is that the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) saw it as a way to form a unity government and transform the country democratically, while ZANU-PF saw it as a way to get the international community off its back; it seems unlikely the party ever really intended to cede any meaningful powers.

While economic conditions have certainly improved, the state of democracy in Zimbabwe has not advanced much further than where it was when ZANU-PF and the MDC agreed upon the GPA a little over a year ago. Mugabe and his party ZANU-PF have subverted the agreement and the “partnership” at every turn. Beyond the most egregious act, the “accidental” killing of MDC leader Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai’s wife in a car crash that easily could have killed the PM himself,  ZANU-PF agents continue to kill, abuse, harass, arrest, abduct, and detain MDC supporters. Mugabe and his party undermine the power and legitimacy of the MDC whenever possible, through propaganda (recent examples in the state paper here and here), unilaterally reassigning ministerial duties counter to the GPA, failing to consult the MDC on important decisions, refusing to swear in key MDC appointees, and delaying work on a new constitution.

For whatever reason, whether it is inability or unwillingness, Morgan Tsvangirai has failed to push the MDC successfully into a meaningful partnership with the government to achieve democratic reform. The economic improvements are certainly welcome, but it would have been difficult for the situation to decline further than last year’s worthless currency and lack of goods. Lasting improvements and attracting international investment are unlikely in the current uncertain political climate.

The EU delegation’s talk of “progress” is misplaced, unless one can count as progress making fewer international headlines for blatant attacks on the opposition. Mugabe has certainly made some progress in his approach to public relations – instead of saying the opposition will come to power over his dead body, he now claims to have given it substantial power without really having done so and while more quietly subverting it. The international community, particularly the Southern African Development Community (SADC, a regional organization that has repeatedly failed to denounce Mugabe), should be much more critical of the sham government in Zimbabwe.