Zimbabwe denied entry into the country this weekend to a group of respected international figures, including former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, former United States President Jimmy Carter, and human rights advocate (and wife of Nelson Mandela) Graca Machel. Called “The Elders,” the group did meet with Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) leader Morgan Tsvangirai in Johannesburg, but the fact that Tsvangirai had to travel to meet the three prominent figures shows just how little power he has as the negotiations for power-sharing agreements have sputtered to a standstill. Annan, Carter, and Machel plan to continue to try to help Zimbabweans as much as is possible from outside of the country's borders.
From South Africa Jacob Zuma fears that Zimbabwe may collapse, though at this point one might need to know what definition of “collapse” we are using and whether Zimbabwe did not collapse long ago under the crushing weight of Robert Mugabe's control. Meanwhile The New York Times points an accusing finger at South Africa in a frankly anachronistic editorial. I have long argued that for all of the criticism aimed at South Africa with regard to Zimbabwe, some of it justified, it is unclear exactly what power South Africa has over Zimbabwe that could actually bring about change short of raising arms. The Times seems especially exercised over South African aid to Zimbabwe even as it rightly acknowledges Morgan Tsvangirai's rightful claims to the country's leadership and his right not to acquiesce to Mugabe's coercive negotiations. And yet Tsvangirai has been quite clear about his wariness of more sanctions against Zimbabwe even as he long ago anticipated The Times’ call for greater food and humanitarian aid.
Now probably is not the time for western sanctimony aimed somewhat blindly at South Africa about the crisis in Zimbabwe. Not when there is plenty of blame to go around not only in the west, but also where it really belongs, which is squarely on Robert Mugabe's shoulders.
