Obasanjo
openly snubbing African solidarity
By William G. Nhara
The decision by the President of Nigeria,
Olusegun Obasanjo, not to invite Zimbabwe to next weekâs Commonwealth Heads of
Government Meeting is regrettable.
That decision puts to question
Nigeriaâs foreign policy, as having the defence of African interests, as one of
its main pillars.
In January 1960, Nigerian Prime Minister, Tafawa
Balewa, affirmed that, "Nigeria will have a wonderful opportunity to speak for
the continent of Africa". Numerous pronouncements of Nigerian leaders over the
decades appear to point to Nigeriaâs consistent articulation of the interests
and aspirations of the weak nations; national self-determination,
non-intervention, collective security, the peaceful settlement of disputes, the
juridical sovereign equality of all nations and racial equality are salient
principles and issue areas in which Nigeria has demonstrated intense persistent
interest and concern.
Given Nigeriaâs history, how are we to judge
President Obasanjo. Is Obasanjo to go into Nigeriaâs annuls as a president who
played to the whims of the West. Obasanjoâs decision on Zimbabwe and his
voltaire face on his prisoner Charles Taylor comes at a time when Nigeria is
seeking World Bank and IMF support for its national development and what better
bargaining tool than to deliver the scalps of the two. One is left to wonder
whether Obasanjo is a double dealer in typical West African style or an
imperialist tool at the hands of the West.
In as much as Nigeria will be
prepared to go to war over its oil, one would have thought that Nigeria would
have understood that the issue at hand in the white Commonwealthâs fight against
Zimbabwe is nothing more than Zimbabweâs assertion over its land. When is one
greater than two and when is a majority less than a minority? The answer to
these questions is when the one and minority is white and when white interests
are at stake. The issues over rule of law, democracy and good governance are
nothing but a smokescreen of the real issues.
How does Howard "the
Coward" explain his treatment of Aborigines in Australia and the gross violation
of human rights in New Zealand where the Maoris are not allowed to walk the
streets after midnight. How does one explain the fact that President Obasanjo is
presiding over the same Commonwealth that recently pronounced Nigeriaâs
elections to have failed to meet that bodyâs "standards"? Obasanjo lashed out at
the West for failing to understand the notions of democracy, saying "Nigeria is
Nigeria and standards differ".
After Obasanjoâs bark even President Bush
kept quite. Speaking of unflinching African solidarity, one is brought to
remember that in October 1995, Nigerian military ruler, General Abacha, had
intended to put Obasanjo to the gallows. It took the stature of President Mugabe
as head of an OAU troika, to convince Abacha to spare Obasanjo â for me that is
African solidarity.
I find it baffling that the Commonwealth is failing
to give Zimbabwe room and an opportunity to present its case. It is very clear
that the Commonwealth observer group to Zimbabweâs elections had an over
representation of observers from Australia, Canada and New Zealand. These
countries had already declared, in advance, the elections as not being "free and
fair" and were already campaigning for Zimbabweâs suspension from the
Commonwealth.
The decision to exclude Zimbabwe from Abuja sets a very
dangerous precedent, which must be opposed in the interests of integrity and
internal cohesion of the Commonwealth. It has become acceptable that the British
Government has brought Zimbabwe to its current predicament by reneging on its
historical colonial obligations. Zimbabweâs land reform programme is now history
and the country should be allowed to forge with its developmental efforts.
Zimbabwe should be allowed to chart is destiny. Zimbabwe should be allowed to be
Zimbabwe again.
What is clear from the current goings on is the fact
that the Commonwealth does not stand for the interests of justice and equity.
It does not stand for development and empowerment of the majority. It is
a paternalistic organisation of the British and its cousins. One would tend to
agree with the general public feeling that the Commonwealth is no longer very
relevant in todayâs diplomacy for Zimbabwe, the future of Zimbabweâs engagement
in the organisation is relatively easy to ascertain.
For those member
countries that are not inhabited by people of British descent, the Commonwealth
is no more than an imperial junkyard bordered by strong, almost invisible,
silken threads from which it will take more than the normal political courage
and will power left in the breasts of the mentally emasculated and suitably
educationally conditioned mind of the ex-colonial man to escape.
It is
only by deliberately deciding to leave the Commonwealth can we begin to recreate
the political clan with which to move forward under our own steam. One tends to
believe that the significance of history, language and colonial sentiments are
greatly exaggerated and no longer relevant to development problems. Perhaps it
is time Zimbabwe says good bye to the Commonwealth.
There are others who
are of the feeling that an active prominent participation in the Commonwealth
does not and will not constitute a liability to Zimbabwe.
They argue
that Zimbabwe stands to benefit economically and especially through technical
assistance through the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation. They argue
further that participation in such organisations can provide an invaluable forum
for the examination of common interests and goals and provide collective
solutions to problems.
In the absence of direct and substantial
interests, it seems probable that Zimbabwe will seek a policy of association
rather than isolation, if only to augment its influence in the international
arena.
In the absence of an invitation to Abuja, Zimbabwe should use the
civic and academic society to help sell the Zimbabwean story outside the halls
of the Councils of the Commonwealth.
Nigeria, when it was in the same
predicament as Zimbabwe, employed aggressive rebuffs to the Commonwealth and
agents of the West. I believe that sanity will prevail as Zimbabwe prepares for
the 2005 General Elections. I believe that there is life after Abuja.
l
The author is the executive director of the Southern African Institute for
Democracy and Good Governance.
The Mulindwas Communication Group
"With Yoweri Museveni, Uganda is in
anarchy"
Groupe de communication Mulindwas
"avec Yoweri Museveni, l'Ouganda est dans
l'anarchie"
