Moss and the day after Bob

Todd Moss, the former United States State Department official who told the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on African Affairs that Washington could not continue to be a passive bystander on Zimbabwe, has always advocated some form of military intervention in Zimbabwe.

In his 2005 paper entitled: The Day After Comrade Bob: Applying Post-Conflict Recovery Lessons to Zimbabwe- Moss and co-author Stewart Patrick said if security sector reform failed the international community, probably led by South Africa, should make contingency plans for temporary military intervention to ensure physical safety and public order if necessary.

But he seems to have lost faith in South Africa now.

“If we hope to help shape events in that part of the world, we cannot continue to be passive bystanders. Neither can a superpower that believes in democracy wash its hands of a country just because the options are all challenging. Instead we should actively engage with our allies, with Zimbabwe’s neighbours, and, when appropriate, with Zimbabwe’s political and civic leaders,” Moss told the subcommittee last week.

“Zimbabwe does not want to remain a pariah state, a fact that we should leverage. This means working in a nuanced and resourceful manner to find opportunities to increase political and economic freedom for Zimbabweans by working with others that share our goals and, when necessary, deploying the full capabilities of the US Government, including and beyond the State Department.”

He added: “One important caveat to emphasise is that we should not expect South Africa, the regional power, to be much help. Despite its own proud history of fighting oppression, the government of South Africa has, for a variety of reasons, shown little willingness to support democratic forces in Zimbabwe and has instead too often been willing to look the other way when horrific abuses have taken place under its nose. After repeated attempts by American officials to try to sway South Africa, it should be clear that this is a losing strategy.”

Ironically security sector reform has been one of the key reforms the Movement for Democratic Change is pressing for, perhaps with good reason, but it is almost like asking the country to wipe off its history.

Some of the solutions that Moss and Patrick advocated in 2005 were that the international community must immediately step in to smooth the political transition once Mugabe is gone.

“After Mugabe departs the scene, the leading international donors might need to create a “Contact Group,” as was successfully employed in Bosnia, or a regional framework similar to the “6 plus 2” formula for Afghanistan, to help nurture the internal political process and focus international attention,” they recommended.

The international community should also help to reform the security sector because politicisation and corruption of the police, military, intelligence services, and judiciary had undermined what were once professional and highly regarded institutions.

“International donors must be prepared to move quickly to persuade and assist the successor government in moving from a culture of violence and impunity to one of the rule of law. They should support a thorough reform of the security sector, including restructuring the “power” institutions (especially the ZNA, CIO, and ZRP), vetting officials for past abuses, training officials in civilian policing and criminal justice, mainstreaming human rights, and disbanding paramilitaries.

“In the immediate term, the abrupt demise of the Mugabe regime could paradoxically increase human insecurity by removing an unpalatable but effective system of repression. This possibility means that the international community, probably led by South Africa, should make contingency plans for temporary military intervention to ensure physical safety and public order if necessary.”

Moss and Patrick also advocated setting up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission or a Tribunal to look into the Gukurahundi killings.

“A critical dimension in recovering from crisis is coming to terms with the past and seeking accountability for past crimes and abuses. Presumably, any such effort would not only cover recent violence, but also the Gukurahundi killings of some 20,000 people in Matabeleland in the early 1980s and perhaps atrocities committed by both sides during the liberation war.

“The people of Zimbabwe will need to decide for themselves between pursuing a truth and reconciliation commission, as has been adopted in countries from El Salvador to South Africa, or a more punitive approach like a war crimes tribunal. Whichever option they choose, the donor community should provide legal and technical assistance.” 

(14 VIEWS)