admin
Nick Mangwana View From the Diaspora
When Zimbabwe adopted the “Look East” Policy in 2003, it was not by choice.
This had been forced on the Government by the unilateralistic approach to international relations that had been adopted by our then Western partners.
It was based on pragmatism and a realisation that the East did not bring conditions to a relationship whose outcome is mutual benefit.
China has always been a good friend of Zimbabwe, pre and post-independence. By the advent of the Look East Policy, trade between Zimbabwe and China had been on the increase, jumping from US$17 million in 1998 to US$103 million in 1999.
By 2003, this had increased to US$310 million a year and by 2012 it had topped US$1,1 billion.
These figures indicate success in trade.
Zimbabwe should continue to treasure her tried and tested friends, China and Russia.
These are all-weather friends who in July 2008, used the veto at the UN Security Council to avert the legalisation of sanctions against Zimbabwe.
The Russian economy is at present limping under the debilitating burden of sanctions.
Like Zimbabwe, they have turned to the Chinese.
But besides that they have also avoided indelicate diplomatic language (itself an oxymoron) against the West.
Last Christmas, President Putin sent a Christmas card and a New Year message to his nemesis President Barack Obama. The mere sending of a Christmas card is not a gesture to be under-played.
It’s the ultimate symbolism of friendship.
Those you would rather have nothing to do with are never on your Christmas card list. What is also absent from his language is venomous belligerence.
Despite the damage caused to Russian economy by the illegal sanctions against Russia, President Putin continues to use language like, “our Western partners”, even when he refers to a crisis he avoids inflammatory language by saying, “our disagreements with our partners”.
The fact that there are still diplomatic relations between quarrelling countries is a sure sign that relationships can be rebuilt.
The new British envoy to Zimbabwe Ms Catriona Laing, for example, praised President Mugabe as an icon of epic proportions.
Zimbabwe may take a cue and build a foreign policy that serves our national interests on it. The whole world is gravitating towards soft power as opposed to hard edged-power.
These are the 21st methods of diplomacy that we have to employ.
When former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Chris Mutsvangwa, came to Chatham House on September 16, 2014 he showed he was a consummate diplomat.
He marketed the country. He reached out. He wanted to engage.
He was even asked deliberately provocative questions but he easily rose above the provocation and took the high moral ground.
This territory he occupied on that day is possibly the territory that will serve our national interests more as opposed to a combative one.
Positives outcomes might not be expected immediately because so much water has gone under the bridge.
What is needed is to continue building bridges and demolish the walls that divide us. The country does not need to forget past wrongs and treachery, but in the best interests of our people we can engage in smarter diplomacy.
The European Union has played its part in eulogising Zim-Asset. This has to be interpreted in the format of them reaching out.
We need to accept that hand that they are extending and also speak of them in diplomatic parlance. This can be considered to be creative risk taking, which is always better than wasteful, paralysing caution.
Creative risk taking can even be treated as bravery and heroism when the outcomes go your way.
President Mugabe deplored the folly of Muammar Gadaffi in using a short spoon when he dined with Tony Blair and George Bush which came back to bite him in the fundament. We learn from that by changing the size of our spoon but still we have to come to the dinner table.
It is expected of us to rail against the West. No surprises there. That’s been our narrative for a long time.
But it would be more audacious for us to be more suave and persuasive.
Zimbabwe needs more friends.
For anyone to have more friends, they need to be one themselves. Sometimes we just need to be perceived as friendly. In diplomacy and economics perception is everything. All about a brand is perception.
We are aware that we are perceived negatively by a lot of people because of those that embarked on structured deception, but of course we are perceived more positively by fellow Africans. We can make this a universal creed.
As a progressive party we have to change our own anecdotes and creatively modify our narrative and trajectory. As Zimbabweans we love the phrase, “paradigm shift” yes that one — a new way of thinking. Our problem is not in our logic. Our problem is in how we are perceived.
It is a perception over substance problem.
When our vision is stripped of its gloss because someone is throwing mud at it we are left with very little. Righteous indignation is all good only when the outcomes are good. There is a lot of engagement work happening behind the scenes.
Granted, former president Thabo Mbeki said that diplomacy by its nature is quiet. But diplomacy is also the best friend of statecraft.
But our message should be a clear consistent: “We will engage but please do not set any conditions for us. We want to be treated as equals”.
This is a policy that would allow us to correct the inequalities that came from our history but still chart a course for our future which our children can reflect on without grimacing.
Our foreign policy should be cognisant of our pecuniary national interests wherever we have thousands of our citizens.
Every one of national polices should be underpinned by the realisation that every Zimbabwean matters or nobody matters at all.
When we are engaging in diplomatic overtures like the hours spent by Minister Mutsvangwa with the EU contingent at Chatham House, then we should also engage in less bellicosity.
At the heart of every foreign policy should the safeguarding of our national interests. At the heart of those national interests should be the welfare of the citizenry no matter where they are. In so doing we should play to our strengths.
In broad terms our foreign policy should encourage trade and economic activity with any country that adds value to what we have. Isn’t that the primary reason why we have all these embassies? It should bring technological advancement to Zimbabwe and more importantly security to the citizenry. This includes security of the person to social security for individuals and communities.
Divorced from those objectives our detractors would argue that our policies are unpinned on vanity.
Our President has always taken moral high grounds on international affairs.
This is a principle we shouldn’t compromise on.
This piece contends that we need an eclectic position between our moral and commercial interests.
It’s not advocating for the selling of our inheritance for a plate of pottage.
No, that will be betrayal of the value system that defines us as a people.
Zimbabwe has had a good relationship with the Conservative Governments historically. Isn’t time to aggressively build on that to come up with a mutually beneficial position?
We already have a lot of cultural links that is why we have a lot of our own citizens residing in some of these countries. That can be a platform not only to build Zimbabwe but Zimbabwe’s image as well.
The writer is Zanu-PF UK chairman.
Online Reporter