The ground breaking 1968 article 'The Tragedy of the Commons' by Gareth Hardin exposes some of the long held myths about the dilemmas I faced as a young herdsman of Mawire village in Buhera. Drawing on candid in-depth experience as a six year old boy with such an enormous responsibility, this example reveals some remarkable new insight as the rapid geopolitical turmoil resonates across the world today.
Hardin cites a parable about a common pasture on which many herdsmen graze their cows. Each herdsman knows that the limited common is open to all and therefore freely brings new cows as he acquires them. Over the years this rational, prudent practice destroys the common. As he points out, 'freedom in a common brings ruin to all'. Therein lies the dilemma.
Reflecting on the story, my memory jogs back to my late grandfather Johane Mawire recounting to me how he and his three brothers, Philemon, Joseph and Oswald, had inherited the village from our Great Grandmother VaMadyedzo's father, Sekuru Zvaipa. We admired the fine looking hills of Marenga and the Makumbe Mission. Behind us sat the dazzling horizon of the Dorowa Mines where my late father Ngonidzaishe worked. That is where the sun set and it was the only measure of time we had when we would communally shephard our livestock in the green pastures along Mwerihari River with my brotherly neighbour Taona Kundishora, nephew Fortune Mawire and many others who are no longer with us today. Not at any point did I take notice of any obvious pursuit of strategic behaviour or self-interest amongst the many households, but today I am willing to suspend my view.
The dilemma set up by Hardin's story is strikingly relevant not only as he initially modeled it on environmental problems but its significance in particular to our own politics in Africa as governments, political movements, tribes and individuals seek to take control of their respective commons. In a globalised world we have to understand the role of self interest among other motivations, as Adam Smith's Invisible Hand accentuates in The Wealth of Nations (1776). Are we putting blind faith in the Western World given our past experience? Could we be losing our comradeship and 'trust in thy neighbour'? Are we truly selfish creatures infested with division, hate and violent motives as some evolutionary scientists proclaim?
Intolerant.
As part of Africa and The Middle East's popular uprising against dictators, it is just over two months today since the Libyan people refused to voluntarily relinquish their rights over their country to Muammar Gaddafi, who from 1969 had exercised illegitimate coercion to brutally manage their collective interests. He unhesitatingly chose to remain in power, convincing only himself that the uprising is the work of imperialists and Al-Qaeda attempting to hold Libya hostage. Gaddafi is known to have used his bloody money and oil to influence opinion and support terrorists like the IRA, the despotic Mugabe and Liberia's Charles Taylor, and is responsible for many other troubles across the world. Against all sense and reason his regime has vowed to fight until the 'last bullet'. That means indiscriminately slaughtering innocent civilians. For what? Mr Gaddafi knows it is not fair to his people and he knows it's not fair to himself. He has to make a choice.
Danger.
During the infancy of this unrest, Libya's Bengazi based Transitional National Council was keen to gain recognition and exposure to major Western democracies. Initially recognised by France as a legitimate representative of the Libyan people, Europe, the USA and The Arab League have also embraced them. Whether this was a gift to the Muslim Brotherhood it remains to be seen. Today NATO is voraciously hovering over the Libyan air space, thanks to the UN resolution in 1973 authorising only to protect civilians, the mandate which Britain and France are willing to go beyond and bring Gaddafi's head. Does this entail Libyans sacrificing their sovereignty? Does this make the mission 'illegal'? Maybe I am content tha ttheir intervention is just and necessary.
The rebels have no control over NATO operations and there is no clear distinction between a civilian and a 'rebel'. That presented a dilemma to both parties when NATO air strikes killed the rebels. Rear Admiral Harding refused to make an apology. Not even after William Hague said that it doesn't cost anything to apologise. Does that entail getting more than bargained for? Probably that's the price for protection!
Still on that point, Hague is right. And so is David Cameron when he admits that the United Kingdom is responsible for many of the world's historic problems during his recent visit to Pakistan. There should be no reason why he fails to feel guilty about Kashmir, the 1952 crackdown by Britain in Kenya of the Mau Mau rebels and the ruthless massacre of many Zimbabweans in Chimoio and Nyadzonyia camps in the late 1970's. The Prime Minister is right too to acknowledge that the British are being called to account because their colonial fathers occupied these countries and brutally carried out these human rights abuses they speak so highly against today. All that is need for Cameron is to say sorry.
Inconsistency.
We know that had it not been for the love of money and not humanity the No-Win-No-Fee lawyers would not have brought the frail 82-year old Wambugu WaNyingi and his three fellow Kenyan torture victims to London seeking justice. We know who would stand to benefit from the Libyan oil and its reconstruction deals by supporting the rebels. Just as Blair's regime embrace Gaddafi and joyfully supplied him with the ammunition he is using to kill is people today, America is giving strong support to a dictator in Equatorial Guinea, while France wine and dines with autocrat Amar Bongo. Inconsistency? Yes. Regrets? I am sure someone is having a few...
The speed of events provided a tough test for the Africa Union. Unlike NATO and its allies Africa knows that the people involved are 'ours'. With shared values and ideology, AU has to stand up and be counted. Gaddafi considers the AU his brainchild after failing to manipulate the Arab World. He was its president in 2009 despite his awful record; he chaired the Human Rights Commission at the UN in 2003. How then could the AU be an honest mediator in Libya? If the peace deals that Jacob Zuma presented, alongside Equatorial Guinea dictator Teodoro Obiang, were good for Gaddafi, I am not surprised that the rebels rejected it. Remember Jacob Zuma, South Africa's controversial president, is the same man who thinks that a shower after unprotected sex with an HIV infected woman will prevent him from catching the virus.
This inability of AU to deploy a combined peace keeping mission to Libya is proving to be fatal. The union seems to have great tension within its ranks and such instability hardly gives them mandate to represent Africa, let alone force through peace deals. The sad thing is that many of Africa' ailing dictators such as Zenavi, Museveni, Mugabe and Wade etc are still present and piling pressure on ineffective Zuma to support Gaddafi's cause with this suspiciously low-level appeal because of financial interest tied to the Tripoli administration. What is even more worrying is that all parties continue to keep each other at arms length and undermining each others efforts. Such is the tragedy of conflicting interests.
Ludicrous.
Earlier it was reported that both the British and Gaddafi were secretly hiring mercenaries to step up their efforts. In my mind there is no reason why this couldn't actually be a possibility. If the bombshell that Robert Mugabe's notorious Fifth Brigade veterans are already operating in Libya is true it will be a repeat of 1997 when he, without consultation, sent the army to fight for Kabila in DRC. If the arrangement is to offer Gaddafi a brief haven in this desert storm, it looks fanciful. Not only because this practice makes the already fragile crisis so huge that seeing beyond it is hard. It gravely endangers the chances of a sustainable peace and cooperation in Africa and the entire world.
So with this self-inflicted foreign policy failure the people who are concerned with the end of conflict like Zuma and AU 'road map' or the removal of Gaddafi like Cameron and Sarkozy, they are not under any illusion that getting rid of Gaddafi and ending the conflict would produce a perfectly just order in Libya. It would be interesting to see if they mind about those young children and women we see dying every day. If they are going to conquer the peril of their selfish desires then NATO, the Arab LEague, AU and the Libyans should pause and say 'this can't go on'. In the interest of peace, what does it cost to resolve differences through good faith negotiations?
I am beginning to worry that for me, and many Africans alike, what we are seeing in Libya is rather not the way to achieve long term peace settlement. Are we being charmed by what these glittery and beautiful Western democracies offer us? Yet, losing our sovereignty seems to be the ultimate price we are willing to pay.
No comments:
Post a Comment