I am still trying to think and understand what South African President Jacob Zuma was doing in Libya last week.
Official reports say that he had gone to Libya for truce talks.
African presidents never pass up an opportunity to fly somewhere and humiliate Africans even though they know for sure that their trip is unnecessary.
Zuma flew into Tripoli presumably to broker a peace deal just hours after NATO said Gaddafi’s “reign of terror” was coming to an end and at a time when Gaddafi’s top military men were defecting and deserting him.
It boggles the mind how Zuma could possibly believe that he had clout to stop a war started by the Libyan people in an effort to emancipate themselves from a tyrant.
Besides, where has Zuma been all this time that he wants to broker a peace deal between warring parties as one of them, Gaddafi, is all but finished?
This was the second time Zuma had been to Libya since the uprising began but Gaddafi refuses to give up power, which rebel leaders insist is a condition for any truce.
But Zuma, in typical South African fashion, went there anyway to shortchange the oppressed people.?South Africans are the worst mediators I have ever come across.
It all started with the hapless Thabo Mbeki who showed his shortcomings as a mediator in Zimbabwe where he supported one group against the other.
Mbeki clearly supported dictator Mugabe in the mediation talks he was holding.
He left office without having achieved anything in his mediation efforts in Zimbabwe.
To this day, Zimbabwe is still paying for Mbeki’s diplomatic deficiency.
While he was struggling to solve the Zimbabwean crisis, Mbeki was flying to the Ivory Coast to mediate in another stand off there.
The African Union is a big joke itself for how they could appoint a failed mediator in Mbeki to do the same elsewhere remains a mystery but that is what they did.
And Mbeki did the same thing of taking sides in the Ivory Coast, siding with another dictator, Laurent Gbagbo, at the expense of other groups that were in conflict with their leader…just as he had done in supporting Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.
The Ivorians, of course, fired Mbeki, citing his partiality.
But the African Union was the biggest culprit.
When Zuma came on the scene, he gave the impression that he was going to be tough on Mugabe but all we see are strong statements that are not followed up, with Mugabe having grown stronger during Zuma’s presidency.
Like Mbeki, Zuma is a so-called SADC facilitator or mediator in Zimbabwe.
He has failed to make any difference and has behaved in a lackadaisical manner, showing no urgency in solving the Zimbabwean crisis, all to the advantage of Mugabe.
A few weeks ago, SADC scheduled a Summit in Windhoek, Namibia, where Zuma was supposed to brief the regional leaders about how much ground he had covered in solving the Zimbabweans crisis.
Zuma did not even have the summit on his calendar and did not even bother to attend the summit yet a week later he flew to Libya, maybe trying to impose himself as an African statesman, Africa’s problem solver.
Like Mbeki, Zuma has not solved a single problem in the SADC region.
Mswati is disgracing Africa right under Zuma’s nose and Zuma does not even appear to understand that Swaziland is in turmoil.
He has, so far, failed to direct the Zimbabwean crisis in a better direction yet the African Union again sends him to Libya and he agreed.
It’s called ego.
What made him think that those Libyan rank and file, who started this conflict to liberate themselves, would listen to him? And what business was it of his to try and retard a fight for freedom by people at the other end of the continent when at home he is surrounded by dictators he cannot dislodge?
What was he offering them?
What made him think that NATO would even care who Jacob Zuma is? And indeed, NATO did not stop its bombing raids even when Zuma was there.
He had gone there, not to assist the oppressed Libyan people who were fighting with their lives to gain freedom but to save the man who was oppressing them.
And we are much too mindful of what Zuma also almost did in the Ivory Coast before the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the UN just marched into the Ivory Coast to dislodge a mad man who was refusing to concede power after losing an election.
In the build-up to Zuma’s visit, his ruling African National Congress slammed NATO for bombing Libya.
“We also join the continent and all peace loving people of the world in condemning the continuing aerial bombardments of Libya by Western forces,” said the ANC in a statement.
South Africans!
Why does the ANC not join the continent and all peace loving people of the world on condemning the continuing murders and brutalizing of innocent civilians by Gadafi or by Mugabe?
I do not recall the ANC at any time censuring Mugabe, nor did I ever hear them condemning Gaddafi or any other abusive African leader but, true reactionaries such as they are, they always rush to support those who abuse people.
South African presidents and their ruling ANC party appear to be more concerned with solidarity with misbehaving African leaders than concerned about the welfare of the African people.
I do not see how Zuma could reconcile his unnecessary and retrogressive trip to Libya with the uplifting of people’s lives, especially as his trip came at a time that Turkey was hosting a meeting of around 100 tribal leaders who were calling upon the people of Sirte, Gaddafi’s hometown, “to join the revolution and to put a swift end to this tyranny”.
South Africa has always shown a bias in farvour of dictators vis-├á-vis’ the African people.
This must stop because very soon, the South Africans will find themselves in need of mediators just like the countries they are fouling up with their misguided diplomatic interventions.
South Africa should not retard the march of democracy on this continent.
