By Msekiwa Makwanya

AS BRITISH Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that he is quitting as Labour leader last week, many rightly noted that Zimbabwe will go down as one of the areas where his foreign policy clearly failed. There are many fronts that Blair’s policy on Zimbabwe failed on, but in my view, probably his greatest mistake was to refuse to engage President Robert Mugabe in his 10 years at number 10 Downing Street. Failure to engage Mugabe, given Zimbabwe's historical link with Britain, complicated issues particularly when the Lancaster House Agreement of 1979 began to unravel with the take-over of white-owned commercial farmland.

With the refusal to have any sort of contact with Mugabe went the UK’s leverage in influencing any policy shifts by the Zimbabwean leader, and battle lines were drawn. It is mystifying for followers of world politics how Blair can negotiate with Iran, which could one day nuke everyone, and then refuse to talk to a little dictator in Africa whose most serious crime in the eyes of the British was to seize commercial farms. I say that because when Mugabe committed some of the worst atrocities ever witnessed in Africa, killing some 20 000 people in the Matabeleland region, Britain enthusiastically hosted him and even rewarded him with a knighthood. It is clear, therefore, that Britain’s beef with Mugabe is very much connected to land than the human rights violations that they continue to harp and yap about daily.

Blair's legacy of using force in some trouble spots around the world invoked sad memories of a new form of imperialism under the guise of promoting good governance. The Western media, especially the BBC, fell into the trap of exaggerating the situation, particularly in Zimbabwe. The Zimbabwe government's response to Blair's foreign policy was to appoint former guerrillas to all strategic institutions on account that these were coming under threat from British saboteurs, and we now have a very militarised civil service.

Mugabe's government adopted a siege mentality, and began seeing the opposition as the enemy within. Unfortunately, this coincided with the obvious financial and material backing of the opposition by Western countries, followed closely by sanctions which sent alarm bells ringing across Africa. Britain's influence in the world was not used appropriately in some cases, and this only helped to raise political temperatures in Zimbabwe rather create an environment conducive for dialogue.

The Zimbabwe Democracy and Recovery Act 2001 signed by the US President George Bush literally legislated for change in Zimbabwe, in a way that was seen as a dangerous precedent by other African leaders who to this day look at the opposition with suspicion and refuse to condemn Mugabe publicly. One thing that becomes obvious from the reaction of African leaders is that the liberation struggle created a strong and enduring bond among the former freedom fighters that, when faced with a perceived enemy of Blair's nature, they would naturally close ranks and stand firm, usually at the expense of civil liberties.

It is common cause Mugabe had a soft spot for everything British, but Blair failed to seize on that and use it to nudge Mugabe towards democracy. Even as late in the Blair premiership as February this year, Mugabe was still trying to reach out. He railed against Blair for making him an “outcast”, and said he hoped his successor, Gordon Brown, would adopt a different stance. "We are hoping that with the departure of Blair there will be a better situation there and they can be talked to," said Mugabe. "The Blair government is a queer government and Blair, of course, behaves like a headmaster, old fashioned. Do it or if you don't do it, you remain punished and an outcast.”

Let’s face it, if the UK and Americans can still hold talks with the Sudanese, Somali, North Korean and Iranian governments, why is it so difficult a thing to countenance talk to Robert Mugabe? Is not what we all want a democratic and thriving Zimbabwe? It is this senseless position of the West that makes Mugabe suspect that foreign governments want to impose a puppet government which will return farms to white farmers, or worse. A decision, Mugabe's officials say, has been made to get rid of him and put Morgan Tsvangirai at State House. No other outcome will do for the West.

Had Blair engaged Mugabe earlier on and kept Britain’s promise to compensate white farmers who lost their land, Zimbabwe could be a different place. We will never know just how much Britain maintaining its leverage on Zimbabwe’s political situation would have achieved, because Blair missed the opportunity. Could it be that Blair felt too superior to talk to Mugabe? The British media was critical of Jack Straw's handshake with Mugabe, and at Pope John Paul II's funeral, the same British media could not countenance Prince Charles sitting next to Mugabe. Blair himself refused a seat next to Mugabe at that funeral, yet he was publicly asking President Mbeki to talk to Mugabe. We have a right to know why Mbeki is thrust in that position, when Blair, whose government is the one in a bilateral confrontation with Zimbabwe, refused to do so.

As Blair takes his final bow later in June, there is a legitimate verdict waiting for him in Zimbabwe, which is that failure to engage Mugabe was not such a wise decision after all. Progressive Zimbabweans, clearly aware that the Western ostracisation of Mugabe is making a worst monster, will be hoping that Brown will take a different path from that walked by Blair and engage Mugabe. The Western countries are failing to engage Mugabe constructively on matters that originated from Britain's historical involvement with Zimbabwe. The Chinese, Asians and the rest of Africa have not isolated Mugabe. This is harsh reality that those who find it hard to blame anyone other than Mugabe will not countenance.

Mugabe has made grave mistakes, there is no doubt about that, but it does not help us to deny a historical fact that an opportunity to put a closure to the Lancaster House Agreement of 1979 which fell to Blair was missed when he failed to engage Mugabe. When the ordinary Zimbabwean hears that Tony Blair is now leaving office without ever setting foot in the country that he talked about so much at international gatherings, they will wonder what he hoped to achieve by shouting from afar.

A visit by a future British leader will be a positive development and could possibly lower political temperatures and support Mbeki's mediation efforts. Of course there are areas that the government of Zimbabwe has openly admitted requires change, and corruption tops the list. President Mugabe and Dr Gideon Gono have talked of incompetence and corruption in key state institutions as something that need urgent attention and they need help. The bashing of lawyers and opposition activists has not helped Zimbabwe's image as a country, but Zimbabweans should not support anyone who wants to isolate their country. As long as a country has an ambassador in Zimbabwe, they should facilitate communication and direct talks at top levels of leadership on matters that concern them rather than shouting from afar like what Blair did.