Is Rev Jackson losing wisdom, sophistication?

When the civil rights pioneer Reverend Jesse Jackson came to New York to have audience with President Mugabe on the sidelines of the 66th United Nations General Assembly, Zimbabweans and Africans were curious about both his timing and motivation.
While Rev Jackson’s presence on the world stage as a voice of peace and conscience can never be questioned or challenged, he should explain why he has failed to lend his voice or labour to the international efforts to lift US-EU sanctions on Zimbabwe.

Because Rev Jackson appeared unwilling to condemn the sanctions during his interview with the media immediately after his meeting with the President, the long term ramifications of that decision automatically left Zimbabweans and all of Africa feeling rather uneasy.
Rev Jackson’s foreign policy agenda during his legendary campaign efforts for the US presidency included calling for the formation of a Palestinian State, the abolition of apartheid in South Africa, and a nuclear freeze and disarmament with the Soviet Union.

It was a mistake not to use this platform to condemn and challenge President Reagan for undermining the Lancaster House negotiations between Zimbabwe, the US and Britain.
The other important question is how Rev Jackson and many in the 1960s generation of frontline fighters appear to continue to be divided and how Africans born in the US should view current developments on the African continent. If they look at Mother Africa through the eyes of the Democratic Party, their point of view will be more compatible with their white liberal counterparts throughout the West. This, in many cases, will put them on a collision course with the African nations that US imperialism is seeking to dominate and control. This implies that Rev Jackson will not be comfortable confronting US President Barack Obama concerning why he has used the executive order to extend US sanctions on Zimbabwe three years in a row. Neither would he confront many of his close friends in the Congressional Black Caucus who voted for the sanctions 10 years ago.

It cannot be denied that since his work with Dr King, Rev Jackson’s diplomatic portfolio is rather vast and unique. But choosing to meet with Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai at the same time President Mugabe and the Zimbabwean delegation were at the UN, did not demonstrate the wisdom and sophistication he has been known to possess and display on numerous occasions. If Rev Jackson knew that President Mugabe and Zanu-PF top level Cabinet members cannot travel 25 kilometres outside of Manhattan, his antennas should have instinctively been raised. His first question to the Prime Minister should have been what exactly he was doing in Chicago in the first place? While we don’t know how much of the Shona language Rev Jackson understands, the first words he should learn are “hove yabuda mumvura” (the fish has come out of the water).

That described in layman’s terms captures the essence of Prime Minister Tsvangirai’s expedition, moonlighting as a political renegade with no respect for his Government, country or people.
The other crucial point to raise is since Rev Jackson already knows that President Obama refers to Prime Minister Tsvangirai as his partner on the question of Zimbabwe, is Rev Jackson using Prime Minister Tsvangirai to get back in President Obama’s good graces after his comment about cutting off his testicles was captured on tape? Because Rev Jackson and many of his civil rights colleagues believe any publicity is good, the fact that his colleagues in PUSH have had very little correspondence with the Zimbabwe embassy in Washington, explains why he feels he needs to sit down with President Mugabe and Prime Minister

Tsvangirai when an inclusive Government already exists.
When the Pan Africanist and human rights giant W E B DuBois discussed receiving an invite from Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah to attend the All African People’s Conference, he described the joy he felt in recognising that it was deliberate not to call this gathering a 6th Pan African Congress. This symbolised that Africans at home were ready to assume leadership of the continent and for those in the diaspora to read the writing on the wall.

That applied to this situation because Rev Jackson’s current posture on the Zimbabwean question suggests he doesn’t acknowledge the diplomatic brilliance of Sadc collectively, and former South African President Thabo Mbeki, Tanzania’s President Kikwete and Malawi’s President Mutharika individually.
The other dynamic that needs to be carefully analysed is the level of comfort, a disciple of non-violence like Rev Jackson has when dealing with the issue of Zimbabwe. This explains why many in his generation embrace an analysis of Southern Africa that magnifies South Africa and treats Zimbabwe, Namibia, Mozambique and Angola as after-thoughts.

One feather that can be put in Prime Minister Tsvangirai’s cap is he has successfully convinced Africans living in the US that he is non-violent and from the inception of MDC and his days as secretary-general of ZCTU, his opposition to President Mugabe has been peaceful and innocent. This is why former US Secretary of State Madeline Albright and the National Democratic Institute jumped at the opportunity to present him with the W. Averell Herriman award last year.

What Prime Minister Tsvangirai failed to realise is that the US-EU alliance, want a return on all the diplomatic mileage they have granted his faction of MDC, and failure to deliver will result in them going shopping for a new face for their regime change agenda in Zimbabwe.

Because Rev Jackson and many of his Civil Rights counterparts, will be spending the next 13 months getting ready to aggressively campaign for President Obama’s re-election bid, it is very possible that they will not push for the lifting of sanctions on Zimbabwe because this will help the Republicans. It is this rationale and point of view that makes Dr King irresistible to Africans and poor people in every corner of the world. When

Dr King decided to condemn the Vietnam War, losing direct access to President Lyndon Johnson’s White House was the least important thing on his mind.
The most logical conclusion for Rev Jackson to arrive at would be that, for Africans in the US who are in favour of maintaining US-EU sanctions on Zimbabwe, this is the equivalent of supporting Unita in Angola and Renamo in Mozambique during the Cold War.

In the 31 years since Zimbabwe has been independent, Rev Jackson has travelled to Syria to negotiate the release of a US military officer, travelled to Cuba and Iraq on similar missions, and travelled to Venezuela to visit President Chavez after Rev Pat Robertson called for his assassination.

If Rev Jackson wants to play catch-up on developments in Zimbabwe, he could start by paying his friend Archbishop Desmond Tutu a visit and have him explain why he said a military invasion of Zimbabwe should not be ruled out. The most dangerous aspect of diplomatic missions of this sort is when one is genuinely misinformed and is not interested in seeking clarity, and therefore will either engage in reckless activity or make premature comments about a situation that they hardly understand.

When Rev Jackson said background is not as important as finding common ground, he must realise while his generation has that luxury because they lived the experience, he is historically obligated to push this generation to play a vital role in the effort to lift US-EU sanctions on Zimbabwe.

• Obi Egbuna is a Herald correspondent based in the US