Kurt Bassuener September 21st, 2008
South African President Thabo Mbeki, who was elected in 1999 to succeed Nelson Mandela and was re-elected in 2004, resigned this evening after a long and bitter battle with African National Congress President Jacob Zuma that ended in the ANC asking him to step down. Mbeki denied accusations that he or his government interfered in the judicial process against Mr. Zuma, whose corruption charges were dismissed last week. His successor until next year’s elections will have to be selected by the parliament - and Jacob Zuma cannot immediately succeed as he is not an MP. The populist Mr. Zuma will almost certainly run as the ANC candidate in the upcoming presidential election. What his ascendancy means for South Africa’s domestic and international policies is an open question. Mbeki’s fall has been described by some African commentators as “regicide,” and certainly falls outside the African norm.
In his resignation speech, he cited progress in economic development, including toward the Millenium Development Goals, as achievements he was proud of.
Mbeki was the SADC mediator for the Zimbabwe political crisis, and was widely criticized, including by the authors of this blog, for not being nearly as proactive and supportive of democratic and civic forces in Zimbabwe as he could have been. But despite his shortcomings, the relative weight of South Africa in regional and continental affairs cannot be denied, and his personal role in brokering the Mugabe - Tsvangirai power-sharing deal, which appears stalled, was critical. It is not readily apparent who, if anyone, can fill the void. One of SADC’s most vocal critics of Mugabe, at least from the electoral crisis on, was the late Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa, who died a month ago. Botswana, including Foreign Minister Pando Skelemani and parliamentarian Duke Lefkoho, has been notably vocal for some time within SADC on Zimbabwe. But in terms of leveraging pressure, the role of South Africa is essential. The timing of South Africa’s internal turmoil could hardly be less opportune for ensuring that Mugabe stick to the deal and hand over sufficient powers to Prime Minister-designate Tsvangirai. It is hard to see the AU or SADC as a collective filling this void.
Kurt Bassuener September 21st, 2008
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin today met with French Prime Minister Francois Fillon, and was adamant that only the “states” of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, together with Russia, would determine Russian force levels in the two breakaway regions of Georgia.
“As you know, we recognised South Ossetia’s and Abkhazia’s independence in the same way as many European countries recognized Kosovo’s independence,” he told Russian TV.
“The question of our armed forces’ presence on these territories will be agreed on bilateral basis, in line with international law and on the basis of agreements between Russia and the states in question.”
This was another humiliation for France, as it directly contravened a six-point ceasefire deal hammered out by President Sarkozy between Georgia and Russia.
As part of the deal Russia agreed that its troops should return to pre-conflict positions.
Moscow has already announced plans to keep about 8,000 troops in the regions - far more than were there previously.
Today South Ossetian forces paraded in captured Georgian military equipment, including US-manufactured Humvees, in commemoration of its independence day.
Aside from Russia, only Nicaragua recognizes South Ossetian or Abkhazian independence. An effort last month by President Medvedev to get the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which includes Russia, China, and Central Asian states to endorse Russia’s action did not achieve the desired result for Russia. Even Belarus, which was chastised by Russian diplomats for being insufficiently supportive of Moscow’s invasion, has yet to recognize the two regions as independent, though it claims it intends to do so. One wonders where Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who just hosted a pair of Russian Tupolev “Blackjack” bombers, and Cuban leader Raul Castro are on this…
Eric Witte September 21st, 2008
Douglas Muir makes a good point regarding the war in Georgia over at A Fistful of Euros:
What’s interesting - and sort of depressing - is that the war seems to have damaged the prospects for liberal democracy for all four parties. Not that those prospects were bright in Russia or South Ossetia anyhow, but still: all the participants are seeing a tightening of press controls, a strengthening of the nationalist line, and a general boost to the authoritarian pretensions of the current ruling class. And this is likely to get worse before it gets better… if it ever does get better.
Indeed, the prospects for democracy in Russia, South Ossestia and Abkhazia have long looked bleak. And Muir is right that Georgia has undergone democratic setbacks as well, dating to before the Russian invasion.
With the West hoping to stave-off Russian control of Georgia, President Mikheil Saakashvili is probably much less likely to come under western pressure with regard to his own democratic shortcomings. That seems to be a natural reaction to increased polarization and tension between the West and Russia. But does it make sense? With Saakashvili’s dependence on the EU and US greater than ever, Washington, Brussels, and European capitals have greater theoretical leverage to insist that he consistently adhere to democratic ideals. In the end, ensuring that the moral divide between Tbilisi and Moscow is not muddied by Saakashvili’s authoritarian streak would help Georgia to sustain greater sympathy in the West.
