Britain Can Help Zimbabwe
 |
| Prime Minister Gordon Brown |
“On December 24, 1914, British and German troops at the dreaded Western Front, near the Belgian hamlet of St. Yvon, climbed out of their trenches, crossed the no-man’s land and, shook hands, sang Christmas carols and shared cigarettes.”
“As their commanders watched, in disbelief, the soldiers played football, kicking around empty beef cans, and using their steel helmets as goal-posts! Like wild fire, the unauthorised truce quickly spread along the 500-mile frontline where more than a million soldiers on both sides had died a few hours, days and weeks earlier.” (The Diary of Capt. Robert Hamilton)
Fast-forward to Christmas season on December 10, 2008, in the British House of Commons, in London.
In his contribution to Foreign Affairs and Defence debate on the Queen’s speech, the Foreign Secretary and potential future Prime Minister, Mr David Miliband said: “There is unanimity across the House on the cause of Zimbabwe’s descent into ruin,” he started.
“I hope there can also be unanimity today in honest explanation to the British public of the following points: that there can be no solution in Zimbabwe without the engagement of neighbouring African countries; that we should remain committed to offering our support for a broad-based government reflecting the March election results.”
He was speaking as much to his colleagues in the House as to his sworn enemies in the African Union (AU). Why?
For a decade, Britain and its former African colonies have been locked in a diplomatic war of attrition, over Zimbabwe.
As Britain relentlessly led a sustained camping in the European Union, the G8 and the United Nations, calling for a regime change, the AU have consistently said no, never!
During the heated Commons debate, several MPs, led by the Labour MP for Vauxhall, Ms Kate Hohey, demanded, “Why do so many southern African leaders and the African Union ruling elite keep asking what the minimum is that they have to do to get UK aid flowing back into Zimbabwe?”
It is time for us to stop trying to be nice to those African countries that continue to recognise, talk to and support Mugabe. If they do not do what they should do, we must ensure that we punish them, too.”
However, Mr Miliband who knows something about collective punishment, thanks to his Jewish immigrant parents Ralph Miliband and Marion Kozak, replied: “In seeking to tackle the cause of the current death and destruction, we all have to weigh up whether or not we are ourselves willing to cause death and destruction to completely innocent people. That is something we have not been willing to do.”
With almost palpable humility, he apologetically said in conclusion, “I have tried the House’s patience for a long time and I have tried to be generous in answering questions, so I think I should finish my speech on this note then allow others to speak.” “The precedents in respect of military action [in Zimbabwe] are not auspicious, and I think that that discussion should be left for the moment.”
Given the irredeemable breakdown in the power-sharing talks, the horrendous suffering of innocent Zimbabweans, and reported planned invasion from Botswana and the assassination attempt on Air Chief Marshal Perence Shiri, why can’t the AU get out of its trenches and engage with the British in a Christmas goodwill compromise to avert the escalating tragedy in Zimbabwe?
Just as Mr Miliband has recognised that “there can be no solution in Zimbabwe without the engagement of neighbouring African countries”, the AU should also recognise that Zimbabwe will never receive the international support it desperately needs without British co-operation. Why?
Britain may be small, geographically, but it strides the world like a Collossus, politically, financially and militarily. It is an influential member of the Commonwealth, the European Union, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the UN Security Council, and a major shareholder in both the World Bank and IMF. The AU must recognise their historical disadvantage, and accept that Britain is a part of the solution to the Zimbabwe tragedy.
If Germany and Britain, which fought two world wars are now working together, promoting their common interests, why can’t the AU work with Britain to save Zimbabwe?
But why can’t the AU use this Christmas to unveil their alternative plan to rescue Zimbabwe, if they will not engage Britain?
How many more Zimbabweans must die before such a plan is revealed?