Quiet diplomacy doesn’t necessarily mean silence is golden

SOUTH AFRICA has been getting a lot of advice in recent weeks from its neighbours on how best to conduct its relations with them. First up, predictably, was Zimbabwe, followed by an even more agitated Swaziland.

In the run-up to this week’s election in Zimbabwe, Lindiwe Zulu, President Jacob Zuma’s foreign adviser, ventured to express the opinion that our northern neighbour may not quite be ready to conduct a successful poll.

For giving voice to her doubts, she was immediately subjected to a vicious attack by no less than President Robert Mugabe. He brazenly insulted her as “a little street woman” and demanded that Zuma restrain her from making political comments on his country.

Instead of rushing to his adviser’s defence, Zuma distanced his government from her concerns. There were no yes-buts; just a stinging renunciation of Zulu’s comments. There is no place in diplomacy, it seems, for doubts, never mind honesty. A chuffed Mugabe gloated afterwards: “I am glad that it was corrected, and I am glad that she has learnt to zip her mouth.”

Perhaps emboldened by this episode, Swaziland government spokesman Percy Simelane this week launched a blistering attack on a parliamentary debate in South Africa on his country after Swazi media published details of the session that took place in May.

“Just because South Africa is better at soccer than Swaziland,” Simelane sniffed, “the neighbouring country cannot dictate how Swaziland should be governed. They are off the mark. What they said lacks truth.”

He emphatically denied that Swaziland banned political parties opposed to King Mswati’s rule. “They didn’t do their homework,” he shot back. “The Swazi constitution does not specifically ban political parties.” In other words, they just get caught in the general crossfire that stifles dissent.

In fact, Simelane was miffed that South African MPs dared to discuss Swaziland in the first place, whether or not they got their facts right: “South Africa’s parliament has no right to discuss Swaziland and… only South Africa’s president may have discussions with King Mswati.”

He added: “Any country that wants to advise Swaziland must follow UN rules.” Unhelpfully, he did not specific exactly to which rules he was referring.

That’s the thanks South Africa gets for shutting up and not making public pronouncements on political intolerance in Swaziland and Zimbabwe, despite repeated appeals over many years by their beleaguered citizens.

Sure, discretion and restraint are key tools of diplomacy. However, our two neighbours, and even many in our own government, seem to think quiet diplomacy means absolute silence at all times, even in the midst of the most serious political crisis.

That’s why we’re still waiting for a report by two South African judges on the constitutionality of Zimbabwe’s presidential election in 2002. Just last week, our presidency declared its intention to seek leave to appeal against a high court ruling that it be released in the public interest.

So don’t expect South Africa to issue any statements about the voters’ roll in this week’s poll with more than 200 000 people older than 103. At best, we’ll get a comment on the country’s sterling health service. It may be trickier to explain the 2million dead on the roll.

And yet, for some reason, our government continues to believe that silence is always golden.