For the past decade, Mr. R.G. Mugabe acted with impunity, and the whole world watched, in horror, the unparalleled destruction of Zimbabwe’s substance and sustenance. For the past decade, SADC purported to be “doing something” about Zimbabwe while inhibiting their religious fear of Mugabe. And for the past decade, African leaders diminished into mere mice when confronted with a duty to help the people of Zimbabwe from one of their own, Mugabe, who loomed like a giant cat with an insatiable appetite for power. Unfortunately, the ghostly shadow of Mugabe’s tendencies seem to have been embraced by South Africa, who are yet to show any attempt to condemn Mugabe’s wayward tendencies. In dealing with Zimbabwe, the SA government is not without its tactics though.

On Friday, the 27^th of November 2009, a bilateral investment protection agreement was signed between South Africa and Zimbabwe, of course amid an infectious excitement experienced when these two countries enter into their usual collusions. Apparently, we were made to believe that both sovereign republics were being sincere in their engagements and Zimbabwe’s worth Minister of Economic Planning and Investment Promotion had the following to say about the so-called BIPPA:

“We want this BIPPA between our two countries to work. BIPPA is a document signalling to the world that Zimbabwe is ready for investments.” Did he say ‘signalling to the world’?

So South Africa intends to show the whole world that Zimbabwe is a safe investment hub – but after one has acquired an actual guarantee in writing that Zanu will not expropriate their property and wares arbitrarily. SA is therefore showing the way of doing business with Mugabe whose government has shown such a blatant disregard for property rights in its short history for a long while. Is this the new model of doing business with Mugabe’s regime – one has to enter into a treaty? I guess SA will be the source of all future drafts for such treaties.

Consider this BIPPA issue while informed by the following background: South Africa is the only country that looks enthusiastic about Zimbabwe; SA has been in the forefront of shielding Zanu from any condemnation or questioning; SA is home to the largest load of Zimbabwe’s disenfranchised lot; SA was instrumental in the GNU negotiations; SA has given Zimbabwe a lifeline in many areas. One would expect an embattled regime like the one in Zimbabwe to treat SA with respect, perhaps as an appreciation for all their embarrassing efforts in defending Zanu regardless of its dastardly acts against the people of Zimbabwe, and also for turning a blind eye on all such human rights violations. But the neighbours up north appear to be hard-hearted ingrates, don’t they?

I can imagine how the SA authors of the BIPPA were pre-occupied with how there were no guarantees when dealing with Zimbabwe. And they had to skirt around some issues lest they face a total rejection from an errant political administration they sought to help. Therefore the BIPPA is not only an investment protection treaty, it is awfully sensitive in its conditions as SA has vowed never to remotely offend Zanu. Here is the big question: who is setting the conditions in the BIPPA really?

I just do not know when South Africa will stop pretending not to know what the problems in Zimbabwe are. The earlier they stop looking past the glaring discrepancies the better. SA is not only putting itself on the spotlight with the so-called investment protection treaty they signed with Zimbabwe; their response will be telling upon the expiry of the 30 days given to Mugabe by SADC to implement the provisions of GNU he was flaunting with reckless abandonment. The expectation is that Mugabe will deliberately fail to comply with the SADC ultimatum and nothing is going to happen to him.

The business community will be watching SA’s reaction to such a dishonesty commitment by Mugabe and stand guided and forewarned. Eventually, the treaty will remain hollow and an illicit political affair between Mugabe’s regime and the SA government. Fortunately, very few with be surprised with such a stillbirth of half-backed interventions.  And there will be no reprieve for the suffering masses of Zimbabwe, and neither will the prospects be any brighter for the country.

Still on the protection of investments issue; if SA insists that the solution to Zimbabwe problems are resident with the Zimbabwe people, why not commence with a look at how the indigenous businessmen have been displaced and reduced to fugitives? When will the SA government seek to build the confidence of the people of Zimbabwe towards their government by challenging the Mugabe regime to act humanly towards its people? When will we see a written commitment to run free and fare elections, or uphold human rights, or abide by the rule of law, or fight corruption and promote good governance, for instance?

Maybe the economic planning minister should consider leading a cause that continues ‘signalling to the world’ the country’s unwavering commitment to trade protocols, conventional declarations, negotiated positions, human freedoms and rights, property rights and democratic orientations. The minister is not so simple-minded to fail to understand that all signals reach the world, and some of the signals have been so graphic, horrific and nightmarish that some world people are still battling to come to terms with the state of affairs in Zimbabwe.

Before I rest my case, why is Zimbabwe only keen on engaging South Africa? And why is South Africa the only seemingly enthusiastic country when it comes to Zimbabwe? Is it a ‘for better or worse’ situation? I wonder!

I can sense a guilty conscience on the part of SA government being expressed by the more humane Zuma administration. There is a belated realization that things should not have been allowed to degenerate thus far in Zimbabwe, and if there is going to be any redemption for the people of Zimbabwe, there is need to give Zimbabwe practical help – an intervention that hopefully will arrest both the man-made decadence and its authors. Faced with an obdurate leader who has lost all trace of personality, SA’s sneaky manoeuvres are a poor excuse for cordiality and sense of responsibility.

It’s a pity the feigned buoyancy by the SA government still smacks of an innate hesitation to engage with Mugabe’s regime. There is a sense of resignation informed by Mugabe’s disrespect and resistance to anything for the good of the people of Zimbabwe. This must be a painful process for the SA government who are at pains to show whoever cares that they are at least doing something on Zimbabwe. What a shame.