Several interesting issues came out of the president of one faction of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change Morgan Tsvangirai in his article that he wrote for The Washington Post this past week.

The idea of giving Tsvangirai that space seems to be a move to reinvent the man who seems to be meeting self created obstacles at every corner. He initially boycotted the 2005 elections and then at the last minute decided to participate and when beaten after inadequate preparations, blamed everyone else except himself. He put the senatorial elections to a vote among his party executive committee members and then refused to recognise the result after he lost. The committee voted against Tsvangirai and decided to participate in the senatorial elections. This action by Tsvangirai provided the impetus for the MDC to break into two seemingly irreconcilable groups. Then there was the failed 2003 “final push” and last year’s winter of discontent.

The interesting thing about Tsvangirai’s Washington Post article is that he is coming out publicly to embrace and legitimise the negotiation route as the only way to solve our problems. Not only is Tsvangirai engaging Zanu PF, but also President Robert Mugabe himself. In the past it was taboo to even attempt to think that Zanu PF or President Mugabe were supposed to be part of the solution to Zimbabwe’s challenges. It had been envisaged that MDC was going to decisively solve the Zimbabwean situation through confrontational tactics such as stay aways and economic sanctions.

At that time, people like us were targeted for criticism for suggesting that the only way to solve the Zimbabwe situation was for all stakeholders to sit down and talk. We were viewed as crazy and irrelevant in the discussion about the possible solutions to the Zimbabwe situation because we resisted political correctness, preferring pragmatism. What meaningful ideas were armchair analysts “in the comforts of Western countries” ever going to contribute?”, many in the opposition would ask. Now seven years later the same opposition party begins to realise that there is no way of solving our differences except by bringing together all stakeholders.

Similarly, the same opposition is denying the existence of economic sanctions on Zimbabwe and they deny the relationship of the current sanctions and the economic meltdown. Whichever way one wants to frame the “targeted sanctions” issue, by definition, they are still economic sanctions.

Two definitions of economic sanctions need to be outlined. Writing in the American Journal of Political Science, Yale University assistant professor Nikolay Marinov’s essay titled Do Economic Sanctions Destabilize Country Leaders?, defines economic sanctions as “government-inspired restrictions on customary trade or aid relations, designed to promote political objectives.

Donald Losman, in his book titled International Economic Sanctions: The Cases of Cuba, Israel and Rhodesia defines economic sanctions as penalties inflicted upon one or more states by one or more others, generally to coerce the target nation(s) to comply with certain norms that the boycott initiators deem proper or necessary. The forms that economic sanctions take also include interfering or restricting the movement of people, restriction of capital flows and withholding wealth in the boycotting countries.

Now even if we are conceptually given a definition of economic sanctions, many of us just deny without giving us their grounds for suggesting that targeted sanctions are not economic sanctions. The reason the deniers give for their position is, unfortunately part of those features that make the targeted sanctions economic sanctions – so-called individual sanctions. Tsvangirai is one of the deniers and seeing that it takes about several years for him to understand issues, we cannot afford him. Of course, I do not need to impose my will on the MDC supporters but I am only speaking through facts to demonstrate how destructive Tsvangirai has been and how he continues to be, by refusing to understand that Zimbabwe is under economic sanctions. Unwittingly Tsvangirai tries to make his case how President Mugabe’s economic policies have destroyed the country by pointing to the ever-rising inflation rate. It is, to a greater extent the problem of his economic sanctions that is causing such inflation as we have.

To further buttress the reason why Tsvangirai should not be re-invented is that he does not know suitable role models to learn from. He quotes former United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger as saying, "If you want to make peace, it's no good talking to your friends; you need to speak with your enemies." Well, that’s true but Tsvangirai forgets that Kissinger is someone who has a dirty record and whose guiding philosophy was that foreign policy should serve the national interest. True to his guiding philosophy, he went on to commit, according to journalist Christopher Hitchens in a British Broadcasting Corporation Channel Four documentary called Trials of Henry Kissinger, horrendous crimes. The BBC reported in April 2006 that a lawsuit was under way in Washington DC, in which Kissinger is charged with having authorised a coup against Chilean President Salvador Allende and the secret bombing of Cambodia, which, arguably, Kissinger engineered without the knowledge of the US Congress in 1969. He is also accused in the sale of US weapons to Indonesian President Suharto for use in the massacre of a third of the population of East Timor in 1975. In Africa, Tsvangirai could have identified the reconciliation work that was accomplished in South Africa, for instance, between Inkatha Freedom Party and the African National Congress as an experience from which to draw inspiration as opposed to Kissinger.

While Tsvangirai has seen the need for an all-inclusive talk to solve the Zimbabwean situation, his sense of judgement has demonstrated that he is a lurking danger to Zimbabwe. Right now, he continues to ignore the plight of people who are affected by the economic sanctions that he called for by denying their existence, except travel restrictions to certain government individuals. This position on its own is a strong case for arguing against re-inventing Tsvangirai.