Just whose tune is Tsvangirai singing?

[XXPANTHAXX]

PERCEPTION is everything. We know that the devil is in the detail, but the issue is to really identify who exactly is holding the people of Zimbabwe to ransom, and at what cost?

Should we read too much into the latest developments that the inter-party talks have once again failed to produce a deal?

Despite assurances from South African President Thabo Mbeki, mediator in the talks, at the just-ended Sadc Summit that negotiations would proceed under the facilitation of the regional bloc’s Troika on Politics, Defence and Security, should we trust that a deal will eventually be sealed?

It was also heartening to hear President Mbeki saying that, "while negotiations are continuing, it may be necessary to convene parliament to give effect to the will of the people as expressed in the parliamentary elections held on the 29th of March 2008".

Angolan Foreign Minister Joao Miranda put his finger on the pulse when he made the following observation: "The gap between the parties is narrower. Points of disagreement are not so wide . . . The parties still are far from each other though on one point, and that is the executive powers that should go to the President and the Prime Minister. That is the stumbling block."

Thus the thrill of victory still seems elusive since it is dictated and manipulated by outsiders with set agendas, one of which is reversing the Land Reform Programme.

This writer was stunned when Tsvangirai’s spokesperson George Sibotshiwe said: "We’re finished."

This probably was the most devastating news for Zimbabweans, irrespective of political affiliation.

One wonders once again what has happened to the talks from the time when MDC-T leader walked out of the Harare meeting last Tuesday to the time he reaffirmed at the weekend that the talks were going "well" to Sunday when they said: "We are finished?"

A BBC reporter last week remarked: "Brave as he is, constancy is not one of Tsvangirai's virtues." Two days after the walkout from the meeting of all three principals, Tsvangirai was busy doing some damage control claiming that the talks would be successfully concluded, and that a deal was imminent.

In keeping with the spirit of "quiet diplomacy", President Mbeki said Tsvangirai left the talks last Tuesday in order to have time to "reflect and consult".

Some people joked and said was this reflecting on whether "to be or not to be".

However, what has puzzled this author is what happened to the MDC-T leader between the first marathon meeting which lasted until the wee hours of Monday morning and the second meeting when the meeting resumed after both President Mugabe and MDC leader Arthur Mutambara returned from the National Heroes’ Acre?

In fact, as the nation watched Mutambara at the National Heroes’ Day commemoration, there were high hopes that all three principals would be present.

Such a public show would have instilled confidence that the talks were indeed on track.

Still, the million-dollar question remains, what has Tsvangirai been reflecting on, and who was advising him since his principal negotiators had not left the conference room with him?

In retrospect, we ask whether the nation was witnessing a return of the pre-June 27 fiasco when he pulled out of the presidential run-off at the last minute?

Whose interests are being served when Tsvangirai makes it apparent that the interests of the people in this democratic process are inconsequential?

People have been patiently waiting for an outcome so that they can get on with their lives.

Since the harmonised elections and the presidential run-off, the Western media and their governments have used a caveat, which has been transformed into a regime change policy agenda.

One of them reads: "The opposition chief boycotted the June run-off election despite finishing ahead of Mugabe in the March first round of the vote, citing violence against his supporters that had killed dozens and injured thousands. Tsvangirai believes he has the right to the lion’s share of power based on his first-round total, while the ruling Zanu-PF party argues Mugabe must be recognised as President in any deal, as he won the June election."

For the West, this dialogue was never supposed to be since March 29 should have seen the MDC-T leader in power.

This therefore should be translated as the West’s agony of defeat.

Despite the snags it would be folly for Zimbabweans to lose hope. History has taught us that such hitches are a normal part of any negotiations.

As he left Harare for Luanda to brief Angolan President Jose Eduardo dos Santos last week, President Mbeki made some poignant remarks that indicated undue outside interference in Zimbabwe’s internal affairs.

He also pointed out that the Zimbabwean leadership had shown their commitment to resolve the current impasse and that Zimbabweans should be left alone to find solutions to the challenges they are facing.

It was in that spirit that the South African leader said if it meant him staying in Zimbabwe for six months, he would do so until a deal was reached.

Thus despite all the West’s machinations, a settlement will eventually be reached by all three parties.

Therefore, the West has to contemplate on the agony of their defeat since it is evident that the Sadc region and the people of Zimbabwe will not be forced into something they do not want.

By refusing to recognise June 27, the West has tried to create a crisis of legitimacy in Zimbabwe, which would see their continued meddling until their agendas are achieved.

On his way to the G8 summit last July, US President George W. Bush claimed he cared a lot about the people of Zimbabwe and hoped that there would be a settlement.

However, in the same breath, the Bush administration and the European Union have imposed more sanctions on Zimbabwe.

The American president needs to be reminded that if sanctions are his best expression of love for Zimbabwe then we can do without that love.

Zimbabwe has since 2002 criminalised sanctions imposed against it under the veil of semantic terms such as "targeted sanctions" or "travel bans".

Zimbabwe argues that the sanctions are criminal and illegal since the United Nations did not endorse them.

They are also criminal since they are being imposed by rich and white Western nations who feel that they have every right to interfere in and influence events and policies in Zimbabwe.

They also think that they have unlimited rights to Zimbabwe’s resources including land which they are desperate to reclaim.

There is no comparison to how much the West has hyped the inconclusive March 29 presidential election result which they claim should form the basis of a new government in Zimbabwe.

Their obsessive claims on this poll result reached fever pitch on the run-up to the June 27 presidential run-off poll.

Notwithstanding, the poll went ahead, and President Mugabe got an overwhelming mandate to lead Zimbabwe for the next five years.

Despite what Zimbabwe’s electoral law stipulates, they wilfully refuse to acknowledge, let alone respect the results from a credible due process.

They also maintain that the result should be discredited since the conditions for holding a free and fair election were hampered by anti-MDC violence.

The March 29 presidential poll result is also crucial to the West.

It was the cut-off date for their open meddling in Zimbabwe’s internal affairs since they believed that a Tsvangirai win would restore their original position of control.

What Zimbabwe’s laws say is a non-issue to them for they want Tsvangirai at the helm at whatever cost.

So why is March 29 so important to them, especially when their media came up with screaming headlines like "We have beaten Mugabe"?

As one colleague argued, if Tsvangirai won the first round, why then did he agree to participate in the run-off before pulling out or why is he not in power? Why are we going through this dialogue process?

A scenario was created whose sole purpose was not only to discredit the presidential result, but also to embarrass President Mugabe, and create an impression that his presidency illegitimate.

It was a scenario meant to force President Mugabe to the negotiating table in order to first and foremost ensure that Tsvangirai (read the West) would be accommodated in any government.

That the major architects (Tony Blair and Bush) of the regime change agenda should both leave office and leave President Mugabe still in office is also an untenable situation for them.

Since the Memorandum of Understanding was signed, Western pundits have argued that if deal goes through, and Zimbabwe has an all-inclusive government, it is one that they should have a say over, and one which would be acceptable to their norms and standards of free and fair elections.

The bottom line is that it should be a deal where executive powers are vested in Tsvangirai and nobody else.

Their main concern has also been when President Mugabe will step down and they also want to know how much power he is prepared to cede.

For them, the most they can give the Zimbabwean leader is the post of a titular president.

They would want to see Tsvangirai in charge of powerful ministries such as Defence and Security since they argue that these are the elements used by Zanu-PF to intimidate the opposition; Agriculture, in order to reverse the Land Reform Programme; and Finance for reasons to do with monetary control.

On August 10, one Western analyst also argued that these were make-or-break talks, and that "if everything is not agreed, then nothing is agreed".

Who was he speaking on behalf of?

There is a fixation on how much power President Mugabe should retain, and how soon he would leave office after the deal is done.

Therefore when Tsvangirai claims that he wants a position with "real" power, he is only mimicking what they have all along been saying.

There are also very strong sentiments that President Mugabe should be a ceremonial president and that he be recognised as founding father of the nation and that he would be granted amnesty from prosecution.

This again sounds very familiar since The Hague always features in arguments about Zimbabwe and human rights.

Some media reports claimed that the delay in coming up with a deal was because service chiefs were negotiating to see that they are accommodated in the amnesty that would only be granted to President Mugabe.

According to Columbus Mavunga of DW radio, MDC-T also wants a Cabinet line-up that reflects their March 29 "victory".

However, Mavunga remarked that it was a somewhat naive for MDC-T to expect President Mugabe to just surrender all power after winning the June 27 run-off poll.

Why is the West so subdued right now since they normally forcefully push their will on Zimbabwean issues?

Apart from their media, they have been conspicuous by their silence with the exception of a guarded statement at the weekend from British Foreign Secretary David Miliband.

Apparently, the last straw that has broken the camel’s back is the geo-strategic events that have engulfed them.

The Russia-Georgia conflict of the past fortnight has shown them that Russia is alive and strong, and there are fears of the re-emergence of the Cold War tensions.

On August 8, China, another emerging power to reckon with, opened itself to the world and is doing a fantastic job hosting the Beijing Olympics.

Then we have Pakistan, the United States’ major ally in the "war on terror", where there is a leadership crisis, after President Pervez Musharraf announced his resignation yesterday.

At the weekend, Poland went ahead in signing an agreement with the United States that should see the latter erecting a missile defence shield on Polish soil.

Ukraine is also edging closer to the West.

In the UK, Gordon Brown is in trouble. He is facing the mother of all leadership crises and it would take more than just a miracle to save him.

The West’s hands are thus tied and very full, and they would not care less if the people of Zimbabwe continue to live in misery.

One Harare man, who spoke on condition of anonymity, acknowledged that dialogue was the beginning of a long and credible process that gives hope.

However, it is high time that those who claim to be representatives of the people swallowed their pride, and work for the common good.

He also pointed that it is also time that the MDC-T leader realises that the people have suffered tremendously under the decade-long sanction regime he called for.

It is imperative for a leader who professes to have the people’s interests at heart to work for the good of the people.

We should remain hopeful though. And if Tsvangirai does not want to play ball then the nation should just leave him behind.