EDiplomacy paying dividends
led Pretoria’s diplomatic efforts from the front.
As a matter of fact, the presence of the head of state in diplomatic initiatives display strong commitment, gravity, significance and urgency on their interests. Countries that enjoy successful multilateral and bilateral relationships invest their national resources to this cause.
South Africa may provide us with the best practice in diplomacy. PW Botha, sixth state president of South Africa (1984-89), went around informing the world that, African National Congress and the South African Communist party (SACP) were ideologically inclined to implement communism in South Africa. Such labelling had disastrous consequences on the international image of ANC, SACP and its quest to end apartheid in South Africa.
To counter Botha’s negative propaganda, in 1986, the African National Congress of South Africa incurred huge financial costs travelling the world clarifying their position.
Had the ANC not engaged in this tactical diplomatic efforts, they could have risked gaining support from the international community and jeopardised their interests.
Upon gaining independence, questions regards the direction new South Africa would take became an issue of international interest.
In response, the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (1994), had a very huge budget for the late President Nelson Mandela. Mandela had to travel the world assuring and giving affirmations with regards his foreign policy approach which was to be based on human rights and democracy as the guiding pillars. He emphasised on security of property and South African as a safe destination for investors. Mandela utilised the “Madiba” magic to create a positive image of South Africa which was dented by years of apartheid.
After Mandela, President Thabo Mbeki worked tirelessly to ensure South Africa was accepted as an equal in international politics. Mbeki engaged on an aggressive multilateral and bilateral diplomacy which saw South Africa gaining economic and political influence. South Africa’s was quick to a mediation role in the Africa. Pretoria also invested massively in peacekeeping operations in the DRC, Burundi and Dafur region. This level of involvement gave South Africa a prominent role as a peacemaker.
Barely 25 years ago, South African businesses had no significant presence in the continent as a result of apartheid sanctions.
To date, companies such MTN, ShopRite, Mr Price and Pep to mention just but a few, have gained significant inroads and market throughout the continent. This achievement was a result of consistent efforts and investments in diplomatic engagement.
South Africa rose to prominence, taking lead in South-South cooperation on behalf of Africa. Pretoria is involved in forums such as India-Africa Forum, G77 Plus, the New Asian-African Strategic Partnership (NAASP) and Forum for China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) in the pursuit of consolidating the African agenda, at the same time pursuing her national interests.
As a result of these efforts, in 2001, bilateral trade between South Africa and the United States grew to US$7,25 billion, with South Africa enjoying healthy trade surplus of US$1,6 billion (US Commerce Department 2001). Since 1994, annual development assistance to South Africa, which was standing around US$60 million before 1994, rose to more than US$650 million by 2001. Despite challenges, South Africa has managed to raise the standards and well-being of their population.
Zimbabwean can surely learn from their counterparts with regards to the value and importance of diplomatic engagements.
From the above, it is evident that a country gains strategic allies and friends through diplomatic engagement, and a true test of friendship is usually expressed in times of need and calamity. From a diplomatic perspective, the devastating Cyclone Idai gave a glimpse of the gains of our diplomatic efforts.
The swiftness at which African countries voluntarily came to our doorsteps must be applauded. The level of cooperation from Maputo in terms of providing access to their counterpart, identifying and repatriating the deceased, is a clear demonstration of the good diplomatic relations between the two countries. South African military personnel played a crucial role in providing their servicemen and equipment to assist in the rescue missions, President Magufuli and the people of Tanzania were quick to send humanitarian relief to the victims.
Barely a week after the Zimbabwean delegation paid a visit to their country, United Arab Emirates responded to calls for help.
The gesture of solidarity expressed by her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II from the United Kingdom monarchy is an indication of sympathy as well as ice-breaking relations between the two countries. China-Africa Aid also played their part with dexterity exhibiting friendship. The United Nations and its agents continue to work with Zimbabwe in this moment of grief. The above indicate positive relations built through recent diplomatic engagement and must not be overlooked.
As illustrated in the example of South Africa, the benefits out weights the cost.
Zimbabwe can equally work to achieve international recognition and gain strategic allies. This task is not an easy one given that the country suffered years of negative publicity, isolation and sanctions.
Above all, this objective requires financial resources and strong political will as demonstrated by the current leadership.
It is, therefore, this writer’s opinion that critics of President Mnangagwa’s diplomatic efforts have limited understanding of the concept and role of diplomacy. As such, may the grace of pardon for their lack thereof be granted.