ZIMBABWE’S SELECTIVE INTERVENTION: A TALE OF POLITICAL AMNESIA AND MISGUIDED PRIORITIES
In the intricate geopolitical landscape of Southern Africa, the actions of Zimbabwe’s ruling party, Zanu PF, provide a compelling study of selective intervention driven by self-enrichment over regional stability. Contrasting its previous military involvement in the Congo with its current stance on Mozambique, Zanu PF’s motives are laid bare, revealing a pattern of behavior that prioritizes plunder over peace.
Zanu PF’s history of deploying troops to the Congo under the guise of stabilizing the region was underpinned by the ulterior motive of accessing the country’s rich diamond and mineral reserves. This move was characteristic of Zanu PF’s modus operandi, which fundamentally revolves around primitive accumulation and the insatiable appetite for self-enrichment. However, the situation in Mozambique presents a starkly different scenario. Despite facing a humanitarian crisis that threatens regional stability, including Zimbabwe’s national security, Zanu PF has shown a remarkable lack of political will to intervene militarily. This reluctance stems not from a newfound respect for international norms or a sudden incapacity for military engagement but from a simple cost-benefit analysis: Mozambique offers no lucrative incentives for plunder.
The premise that Zanu PF is under pressure to deploy troops in Mozambique, as it hastily did in Congo, is a misconception grounded in a misunderstanding of the party’s priorities. Far from being compelled by regional stability or humanitarian concerns, Zanu PF’s interventions are calculated moves aimed at self-preservation and enrichment. The notion that Zanu PF seeks to bolster a functional economy or support a politically aware middle class is fundamentally flawed. The party thrives in an environment where economic dysfunctionality facilitates its control over resources and the electorate, using aid as a tool for vote-buying and political manipulation.
The intervention in Mozambique, or the lack thereof, highlights Zanu PF’s selective amnesia. The party justifies its inaction by claiming a preference for a collective approach under the Southern African Development Community (SADC), despite having previously acted unilaterally in Congo. This stance is a facade, masking the true reason for its reluctance: Mozambique’s crisis offers no direct financial gain to Zanu PF’s elite.
Moreover, Zanu PF’s claim to be waiting for SADC’s collective action is contradicted by its history of unilateral interventions when it suited its interests. The selective memory of Zanu PF conveniently forgets its past aggressions and the principles it now claims to uphold. The reality is that Zanu PF is not motivated by a commitment to regional stability or international norms but by the potential for economic plunder.
The economic challenges facing Zimbabwe, exacerbated by Zanu PF’s mismanagement, further constrain the party’s ability to project military power. With an economy in tatters, plagued by inflation, corruption, and budget deficits, any military intervention in Mozambique would likely be the final straw, potentially destabilizing Zimbabwe further and threatening the party’s grip on power.
Zanu PF’s past intervention in Mozambique, driven by the need to protect the Beira corridor, was a strategic move to safeguard Zimbabwe’s economic interests. However, the current crisis in Mozambique, marked by terrorism and a threat to regional security, does not elicit the same response from Zanu PF. The party’s lack of action is a testament to its narrow focus on self-enrichment and political survival, disregarding the broader implications of Mozambique’s instability on regional peace and security.
In conclusion, Zanu PF’s stance on Mozambique is a clear indication of its priorities. The party’s reluctance to intervene militarily is not a reflection of a principled stance on sovereignty or regional cooperation but a calculated decision driven by the absence of direct economic benefits. Zanu PF’s actions, or lack thereof, in Mozambique expose a pattern of selective intervention that places political and economic self-interest above the well-being of the region. This approach not only undermines efforts to address the crisis in Mozambique but also highlights the challenges of achieving genuine solidarity and stability in Southern Africa.
