THE TWISTER
BY BRIAN LIGOMEKA
The Twister is bamboozled with some reprehensible decisions of the current administration, which at times are nothing but a stark reminder of the dark and dented days of autocracy.
The latest repugnant decision borders on the attempt to deport a British envoy. Government’s endeavour to banish the British diplomat Fergus Cochrane Dyet following a leaked diplomatic telegram is one of the most outlandish decisions, I have heard this year.
I am surprised because all along I presumed that the local secret intelligence service bosses have already informed President Bingu wa Mutharika that people in many circles are branding him as a dictator. I expect politicians to lie to Mutharika, but members of the local secret service should be telling him the painful truth.
It is an open secret that the opposition, the media, the human rights activists, religious leaders, villagers in during radio phone in programmes are complaining of Mutharika’s dictatorial tendencies. The title of Mthesa Njala (food security champion) is fading and being replaced with that of “mtsogoleri wa nkhaza” which means a cruel leader or a dictator.
The question which Bingu and his politburo should answer is: Why is he being called a dictator when in the past, he was Mose wa Lero? What has gone wrong? Why is every section of society except for a few of his minions and surrogates up in arms against him?
The media, the academia, the religious leaders, the civil society, the opposition and the donors are all critical of his decisions, pronouncements and actions yet few years ago, these groups were singing praises for his achievements. What is the source of this sudden change of heart?
Something is terribly wrong on the political arena and this is why every friend has now turned into a fierce critic and every decision being made is being mocked at.
On the latest goof of expelling the British diplomat, the masses are saying: Whoever lied to Bingu to expel the diploma does not wish Malawi well. Just jump into any minibus, the discussions are about this goof. Mutharika should make use of the secret service to listen to the voice of reason to avert a diplomatic row with London by considering the serious ramifications and repercussions of such retrogressive decision.
For starters, Britain is a country which pumps to Malawi about K24 billion annually. The huge chunk comes in form of balance of payments, infrastructure development, humanitarian and institutional capacity-building assistance.
I recall early this year, during the Wikileaks debate, I did a piece on the role of diplomats. I pointed out that most leaked cables dwelt much on the way American diplomats described their hosts or other leaders in their supposed secret communication.
Uncle Bob, the Zimbabwean leader Robert Mugabe was demeaned in one of the cables. The content of the message was that “Robert Mugabe is a ‘crazy old man’ who cannot be dealt with through ‘quiet diplomacy’, as advocated by Thabo Mbeki. In one leaked memo, Mbeki was described as ‘thin-skinned’, ‘prickly’ and ‘hypersensitive’ president.
It is not only African leaders who were labelled negatively by the US officials in their secret messages. One leaked document stated that former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown had an “abysmal track record” and lurched “from one political disaster to another disaster.”
While initially it was feared that Wikileaks would create diplomatic controversy between the US and other governments, that was not the case. The reason is simple. The messages of American diplomats were within the parameters of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which defines the boundaries for diplomatic relations.
The parameters include representing the sending State in the receiving State; protecting in the receiving State the interests of the sending State and of its nationals, within the limits permitted by international law; negotiating with the government of the receiving State; ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and developments in the receiving State, and reporting thereon to the government of the sending State; and promoting friendly relations between the sending State and the receiving State, and developing their economic, cultural and scientific
In my view, despite the use of their sleazy language in their messages, the Americans were exercising the States’ role of monitoring and reporting on each other, so that was done within the armpits of the international law on diplomacy. Just as our diplomats represent the interests of our government, American diplomats also represent the interests of their government and their citizenry in the capital cities where they operate from.
Even in the current scenario where Mutharika has been branded as a dictator in a leaked telegram, government officials should remember that most, if not all, countries monitor and report on each other on issues which they have some interests.
We have security attaches and secret agents at our embassies in capitals of other countries whose mission is to do that. Have we perhaps already forgotten that during our recent diplomatic mix-up with Mozambique over issues of Nsanje Port, our military attaché, Colonel James Kalipinde, was arrested while travelling in the waters of Mozambique in a boat? What is the job description of a military attaché and other security agents we deploy to our embassies if it is not being part of the team that ‘monitors and reports’ on issues in their area of specialisation?
We have severed our ties with Libya because our diplomatic representatives have monitored and reported to Lilongwe the human rights abuses of Gaddafi regime.
Just as the Americans were just so unfortunate that their secret documents leaked to the public, courtesy of Wikileaks, the British envoy has also been unfortunate because of this leaked diplomatic cable. But whatever the case, monitoring and reporting to their capitals about events that concern their interests is part of the work of diplomats.
Mutharika should not get angry for being called a dictator by the opposition, the media, the civil society, the religious leaders, the academia and the donors, when he himself has at his rallies called his critics drunks, lunatics, tiankhwezule ting’oni ting’ono, the unemployable and many other derogatory names. The question, which he and his strategists should answer is: Why are the people who were clapping hands for his achievements three years ago, calling him a dictator today? What has gone wrong?
This article appeared in Malawi’s Daily Times of April 21, 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment