Times Of Swaziland: IS SD’S FOREIGN POLICY DRIVEN BY PERSONALITIES?

IS SD’S FOREIGN POLICY DRIVEN BY PERSONALITIES?
================================================================================
By Vusi Sibisi on 04/12/2017 06:59:00


THE swearing-in ceremony of new Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa last but
one Friday was seemingly a non-event for the Kingdom of eSwatini, given the
unexplained but surprising non-attendance of Prime Minister Sibusiso Barnabas
Dlamini, whose business unusual government has oddly been characterised by
incessant trips to far flung places of no particular significance and value to
this country.
To the less discerning the matter of foreign travels by public figures might
appear to be insignificant and any public scrutiny thereof intrusive, yet it
falls within the ambit of accountability and specifically the litmus test on the
judicious exercise of power and authority. And where public funds are involved
there ought not be a no go zone especially when it appears such foreign travels
are of no specific value in the area of the kingdom’s international relations,
but are serving narrow personal financial objectives.
Ordinarily, the PM’s absence from Zimbabwe’s historic change of guard, the
first since independence in 1980, should have been a welcome relief given
government’s perilous financial position but for the fact that money has never
been a consideration when such trips are sanctioned. As it were, this is one
case government would have tendered perfectly justifiable reasons for spending
taxpayers’ money since this country has more in common with Zimbabwe than it
does with far-flung countries like Iran.
Ah yes, the PM did attend the swearing-in of the president - am sure remembering
his name would initially require head scratching - of Iran, a distant country in
the Middle East with which we have very little in common. As for Zimbabwe, there
is something akin to an umbilical attachment between the two countries initially
owing to the fact that we are members of the Southern African Development
Community (SADC); with a lot of shared interests, as well as members of the
African Union (AU). Historically, we evolved from the same stock, so to speak,
which creates a strong bond of brotherhood between the two nations, hence
needless for government to explain the significance of attending historic
milestones occurring in Zimbabwe as it would if that country was Iran with which
we enjoy superficial and not natural relations.
As I see it, the matter of government’s posture on this subject matter is
beyond financial considerations but could well be a harbinger of impending
repositioning of the kingdom’s foreign policy apropos Zimbabwe and, as such,
of public importance to the nation. Government cannot and should not explain
this apparent omission with the lame excuse that Mnangagwa is interim President
until elections next year. That would be too flippant and disingenuous given the
historical significance of Mugabe’s ouster. It is, after all, common cause
that there were distinct similarities between this government and how former
President Robert Gabriel Mugabe governed Zimbabwe.
These included investing massively in the military to underwrite the political
hegemony, clamping down on and shutting all spaces for political discourse and
dissent, including freedom of expression, muzzling of the media,
institutionalising corruption as a way of life and abusing national resources
for the benefit of the political elites and the leeches orbiting the seat of
power.
It would not augur well for the kingdom to realign its foreign policy on account
of Mugabe’s ouster because that would indicate that our foreign policy is
influenced more by personalities than nations with which we intercourse.
Consequently such alignment of foreign policy would not be serving national but
individual imperatives.
As I see it, the ouster of Mugabe should be instructive to the leadership that
nothing lasts forever if and when change imposes itself, other than being
embraced and managed properly. Similar lessons should also have been learned
from the Arab Spring that triggered the fall of dictatorial regimes but, like
Mugabe, our government chose to look the other way. The fall of Mugabe should
also be instructive of the fragility of relations this country, rather the
leadership, enjoys with despotic regimes.
There definitely shall come a time of reckoning, especially if this government
allows ill-gotten wealth to be invested within the shores of the Kingdom of
eSwatini. Put differently, this country would be complicit to crimes committed
against the impoverished peoples of these countries whose despotic leaders are
guilty of looting their respective countries’ natural resources for personal
gain and stashing the ill-gotten loot within these shores.
Yes, one day this country may be called to account for this. There is always a
time for reckoning, particularly when one is on the wrong side of history since
nothing lasts forever, and Mugabe and other fallen despots from the Arab world
are contemporary testaments to that truism.
As I see it, government needs to urgently relook at instances where the
country’s foreign policy has been influenced by personalities, invariably
authoritarian by nature, because this scenario is not sustainable. Post-colonial
Africa has taught us that despots and dictators are transitory and not an end
and, similarly, if the kingdom’s diplomatic forays derives currency from these
kind of leaders then it is at a dead end.
Additionally, it would be interesting to look at the net effect of
government’s business unusual policy on the travel budget and especially
savings as well as cost benefit analysis given the prevailing cash-flow
challenges.