Kae Matundu-Tjiparuro
You may think this is shooting the messenger. Yes, why not shoot the messenger if he/she is not playing by the rulebook.
Our messenger in this case seemed little disposed to all of the aforementioned thus inviting some calculated missiles. I am referring to the recent theatrical display by the Zimbabwe ambassador.
In her defence of her motherland, she gave a new meaning to diplomatic acumen by attempting to discolour the picture emerging from her country. Discolour is being mild and in keeping in mould with the diplomatic and dignified status of diplomacy, although the ambassador seemed to care little with this code.
Somehow, she seemed out of tune with the reality or should one say the hard facts of the situation on the ground in Zimbabwe. She tried to make us believe that the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC)’s leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, as bruised and battered as he appeared in pictures emerging from the country, was not beaten. There could not have been any question that he was beaten. The only question was by whom? Yet the ambassador wanted us to believe otherwise. I know it’s her duty to defend her country through thick and thin but when such defence borders on hoodwinking, she is doing the country she is loyal to and serving dutifully more harm than good. One would have thought spin-doctoring is part of the diplomatic sophistry.
Either she did not have full information as to what may have happened or was happening at the time or in the event she could have done her job properly if she had dared to wait on more information. No comment, especially when someone does not have enough information to authoritatively clarify a situation is a perfect excuse in public relations, and I don’t see why it should be an exception in diplomatic circles.
Meanwhile, I could not understand the hasty expectation on the Namibian Government to join wildcat public condemnations of Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is a friendly and sisterly/brotherly nation to Namibia. Namibia thus has to its disposal the necessary diplomatic channels through which it can friendlily advise Zimbabwe rather than shouting condemnations.
And I am sure at every available occasion Namibia must have communicated to her sister-country its concern about the prevalent situation. Allow me to quote from the Founding President a few weeks after he had assumed office: “In the field of foreign policy, Government will plan a constructive role in order to reduce tension in the world’s hot spots and to promote international cooperation and dialogue …My Government, through its membership of the UN, the Non-Aligned Movement, OAU and the Commonwealth will contribute its quota, however insignificant to the promotion of world peace and security.”
I am sure this remains the cornerstone of Namibia’s engagement on the international level. May I add to this the Southern African Development Community (SADC). Our President is currently in Tanzania among others to attend to the simmering situation in Zimbabwe. The rest I must say is axiomatic.
One thing must however be clear, and I am sure the Government is aware of that. What is happening in Zimbabwe definitely cannot be in the interest of Zimbabwe, let alone Namibia and the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC), or the continent at large. Zimbabwe’s friends have a duty not only to impress this upon their friend but to constructively help the Zimbabwean people to extricate themselves from the retrogressive situation prevailing in the country.
With hindsight, one may have an understanding for the restlessness and uneasiness among domestic stakeholders with the perceived Government’s silence on the matter. They may not have been informed of what the Government’s thinking is about the Zimbabwean situation. For that one can only blame the Government and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “In a democracy, citizens have a right to be informed of issues that affect the nation, in domestic and international affairs. In particular, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs must both inform and educate public opinion about developments abroad affecting the country,” reads a paragraph from a rough draft Namibian Foreign Policy. I don’t know to what extent this paragraph has been incorporated into our current Foreign Policy?