Why “the blue eyed boy of Zimbabwe” Tsvangirai chose the Dutch embassy for refuge
Posted by African Press International on July 6, 2008
President Jammeh of The Gambia has given a new name to Tsvangirai. He calls him “the blue eyed boy.” He told journalist on arrival from AU summit that Africa should support Mugabe.(API)
Story by PETER MWAURA
On Monday, Zimbabwean opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai left the Dutch embassy after an eight-day sojourn. Announcing his departure, the Dutch government said he was always welcome back.
Mr Tsvangirai had sought protection at a diplomatic mission because, he said, he felt unsafe at the hands of President Robert Mugabe’s security forces.
But why the Dutch embassy? There are 28 foreign missions in Harare, 11 of them African. And under international law, any diplomatic mission is regarded as inviolate foreign territory. The host country has no legal reach to any of them.
However, Mr Tsvangirai knew that while all embassies are inviolate, some are more inviolate than others, depending on power relations.
The Dutch embassy was not the nearest mission from his house, and fear for his life was not the only consideration. He had no qualms about moving out of the embassy temporarily on the fourth day of his asylum to hold a press conference to appeal to African leaders to guide talks to end the Zimbabwe crisis.
Seeking refuge at the Dutch embassy was clever and calculated propaganda. His Movement for Democratic Change party first made a request for refuge.
It was only after Dutch foreign minister Maxime Verhagen said it was all right that he moved in.
Asked why he chose to hide in the Dutch embassy, Mr Tsvangirai told the Saturday Nation: “I would have gone to any other.” He was being economical with the truth.
He knew, in his heart of hearts, that he had to take refuge in the mission of a power willing and capable of making President Mugabe sing small. The Dutch mission was an excellent choice in the circumstances.
The Dutch embassy was representative of the European Community. As a mission, it was doubly inviolate; EU member states consider all acts perpetrated against one or more among them as committed against all.
Mr Tsvangirai also knew that his hideout had to be politically correct. Though all Western missions were capable of calling Mr Mugabe’s bluff, not all were politically correct. Britain, the United States and Australia, in particular, were not.
These are the Western powers that President Mugabe accuses of being Mr Tsvangirai’s “handlers” and “paymasters”.
These powers and their uncompromising dislike of President Mugabe and support for Mr Tsvangirai, are what President Mugabe uses to dazzle fellow African leaders and to fill his supporters with admiration for his political stand.
So Mr Tsvangirai chose to hide at the Dutch embassy as much for its protection as for its less damaging propaganda connotations.
He could not have chosen the British, the American or the Australian mission without vindicating Mr Mugabe’s claims. Winning minds and hearts, both at home and abroad, is part of Zimbabwe political game.
Mr Tsvangirai’s spokesperson, George Sibotshiwe, milked Mr Tsvangirai’s act of hiding in the Dutch embassy for all it was worth. Yes, he said, Mr Tsvangirai was fleeing from soldiers who wanted to kill him.
His boss, he said, had received a tip that soldiers were on the way to his home on the Sunday of June 22, after he had announced he was pulling out of the June 27 presidential run-off poll against President Mugabe.
“The moment you have soldiers coming your way, you just run for your life,” he said rather matter-of-factly. “The only way he can protect himself is to go to an embassy.”
But, propagandawise, that was not a clear win. Some of his supporters thought he was hiding when he should have been leading his troops.
On the other hand, the government-controlled Herald newspaper quoted the commissioner-general of police, Augustine Chihuri, as saying that Mr Tsvangirai’s appeal to the Dutch for protection was “a desperate attempt to besmirch” the election of June 27.
“We believe the latest development is an exhibitionist antic intended to provoke international anger and mustering of sympathy from his handlers,” he said.
“We therefore declare that Mr Morgan Tsvangirai is under no threat at all,” he added, urging him to “go home and enjoy his sleep and nothing will happen to him. Zimbabwe is a peaceful place”.
Earlier, ruling Zanu-PF party spokesman Nathan Shamuyarira denied the existence of any plan to kill Mr Tsvangirai, saying that the allegation had “no foundation whatsoever, except in his own dreams”.
The Tsvangirai disappearing trick, apart from disheartening some of his supporters, also laid bare media bias and manipulation.
On June 25, for example, the British newspaper, the Guardian, published a commentary by Mr Tsvangirai, which called for international troops to intervene.
But Mr Tsvangirai disowned it, saying that it did not reflect his opinions regarding solutions to the Zimbabwean crisis. The newspaper later removed the article from its online version. So who placed the article in the Guardian?
Perhaps only historians will be able to put the Zimbabwe crisis in its proper perspective.
————–
API/Nation.ke
