SADC Leaders . . . what leaders?

Which part of "Mugabe lost the elections" do these guys not get. I am hard-pressed not to refer to them as anything more disrespectful than "guys". Here are the gentlemen (I am not aware of any ladies among that lot) who go by the title "SADC leaders" or "cowards" according to another gentleman who would like to become a SADC leader - having a meeting apparently to resolve the problems of Zimbabwe, but unfortunately missing this rather fundamental point. Talk about the elephant in the room!

The MDC, having won the presidential and parliamentary elections is apparently expected by the leaders of our region to now share power with uncle Robert - he of murderous fame. It seems to be the new African way of governing - sharing power with the party that lost the elections but that can cause the death of many of the citizens. Kenya, Zimbabwe, who will be next I wonder. There is no point making peace with a war-monger, war is about the only thing Mugabe has to offer for his (sic) people. How does one even begin to engage Mugabe? I would have thought that the legislation was very clear on what should happen should the run-off elections not take place within the specified time limit. That of course is another story for another camp-fire.

There is no community, no development and definitely no leadership. A lot more can of course be said about the very people that the leadership of Zimbabwe ought to serve. It has been said that fundamentally, it is the people of Zimbabwe who can rid themselves of the tyranny of Mugabe. Notwithstanding the damage he has done to country and people, Mugabe still has the support and loyalty of the state functionaries. Well, this may well be evidence of what Mr Justice Malala flambouyantly refers to as "dipolotiki tsa mpa" (tough one to translate but it is something along the lines of selfish interests of the functionaries - looking after their often large tummies).

What is to be done when there is suffering at such a large scale. I have a friend who has just returned form Zimbabwe - "it is really sad to see old people dying of hunger", he said. Life does go on in Zimbabwe though and for some, lucratively so. There is always some interests served by large scale mayhem and suffering. This reminds me of the tall gentleman with the shining military boots waving a stick as he strolls through the blood-drenched jungles of the DRC. Those that having the best of this tragic situation do not care about the extend of the suffering their actions or inactions causes. Whatever happened to that great weapon of public international law - the doctrine of recognition. Is it that difficult for the SADC leaders to simply declare that they do not recognise the government of Mr Mugabe. Surely no-one would hold it against them. I would personally applaud anyone who refuses to recognise a government that kills people.

What is it that SADC spent the time discussing with Mugabe? What is his bargaining position? Does he threaten to go home and kill more Zimbabweans if he does not get his way. What about fresh SADC sponsored and monitored elections then? The money spent on meetings so far could have run an election! What are the constitutional, legal or other constraints that prevents these leaders to do the right thing? I am not advocating breach of sovereignity or other such like Bush diplomacy. I am not asking for invasion of Zimbabwe or the deposition of Mugabe (although the thought has crossed my mind).

I am asking for the leaders to live up to their title. I am asking for courage and integrity. I am asking for compassion for the suffering masses of Zimbabwe. Of course the British did a number on the people of Zimbabwe and were quite happy to ditch the country after paralysing it. Of course the land issue was never properly resolved. Of course white Zimbabweans continued to live as if nothing had changed. Come to think of it, kinda like the situation in South Africa - rugby like before, farms like before, control of the economy like before, white schools like before, white areas like before, etc. But I digress . . .

None of the evil perpetrated by the colonial powers is excusable, far from it. I would like to see dignity restored to the people of Zimbabwe, by the man they supported for over 2 decades. I would like to see his human side. This is the only basis one keeps the conversation going - on the basis that there is a human being on the other side, listening - engaging, empathising. I believe the time for the conversation has pretty much come to an end. Some would argue that if the dialogue stops people will die. I struggle with that too. The sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe, the food that is not getting to the people - all this, is killing the people of Zimbabwe and has no effect on Mugabe. I infact would argue that all this, is strengthening his hand. He remains the only source of food for those who support his murderous cause.

In Africa it seems whenever there is a choice between saving lives and power - power wins all the time. I am not sure what it is that makes us Africans so tolerant of tyranny and oppression, especially when perpetrated by our own on our own. Do not get me wrong, these are complex issues with even more complex vested interests. The tyrants and the war-mongers get food, amunition and all other creature-comforts - they sell their souls for it but they get them. I would love to know who is providing the arms to that Laurent fella (another one). Complex as these things may be, they cannot be too complex for SADC to say "let us go out there and save lives!"

Now, would the real SADC leaders please stand up . . .and please don't all rush at the same time.