| ID | 101588 |
| Title Proper | Lessons from African diplomatic initiatives in the democratic republic of Congo, Sudan and Zimbabwe |
| Language | ENG |
| Author | Mufamadi, Sydney |
| Publication | 2010. |
| Summary / Abstract (Note) | Be robust, be tough on self-serving tyrants whose hands are dripping with the blood of their own people.' This has been the mantra chanted with quasi-religious conviction, directed at leaders of South Africa, the Southern African Community and the African Union. Proponents of this doctrine of coercive diplomacy are moved by a spirit that connects humanitarian intervention to regime change and the rights of democratic states to replace illiberal tyrants in the name of both the victims and the wider call of security for the ethically superior liberal parts of the world. This article examines the comparative utility of the approach outlined above vis-agrave-vis an approach that privileges suasion and engagement over confrontation. Serving as a representative case study for this comparison are three African countries, which have been mired in conflicts that led to untold human suffering: the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan and Zimbabwe. The article argues that not only do proponents of coercive diplomacy fundamentally misconceive the political dynamics of the countries, region and continent in which they are seeking to intervene, but also that rather than providing an answer to the problem at hand, their tough posture is at best ineffective and at worst counter-productive. Indeed, experience in these countries, and in others such as Angola, Namibia, Mozambique and South Africa before them, challenges the universality of diplomatic approaches and assumptions that deify coercive diplomacy as a means of solving conflicts. The article concludes by elaborating on the nuances of the competing diplomatic approaches. These nuances, as well as the evidence culled from the three experiences, buttress the author's view that the people and governments of Africa share with the rest of the world a desire for a conflict-free continent and a peaceful world. As they increase their agency for bringing this result about, they require and deserve to be supported by the rest of the world. |
| `In' analytical Note | Round Table Vol. 99, No. 411; Dec 2010: p621-630 |
| Journal Source | Round Table Vol. 99, No. 411; Dec 2010: p621-630 |
| Key Words | Zimbabwe ; Sudan ; Democratic Republic of Congo ; Coercive Diplomacy ; Suasion ; Engagement ; Global Political Agreement ; Congo |