Embassy response to the New York Times Op-Ed on Tuesday 24 June 2008

Peter Godwin, a Zimbabwean author who currently resides in Manhattan, wrote an article published in the New York Times Op-Ed on Tuesday 24 June 2008 entitled Soccer 1 Mugabe 0.

While encompassing the usual rhetoric and diatribe on Zimbabwe and President Mbeki’s mediation efforts in particular, this article departs significantly from others. Firstly, Mr Godwin cautions his audience “against booking a safari to South Africa or making “new investments in the country”. The article goes on to suggest that Zimbabwe should become to the South Africa-hosted World Cup what Tibet has been to the Beijing Olympics and concludes on a dramatic note by stating that “perhaps it’s time to share the Zimbabweans’ pain, to help persuade Mr. Mbeki to bear down on its source by threatening to grab the world’s soccer ball and take our games elsewhere”.

It is highly unlikely that Mr. Godwin will be sharing in the pain of Zimbabweans or South Africans for that matter from his high rise apartment in Manhattan. Unfortunately, the majority of black South Africans and their neighbours are not as privileged or as protected as Mr. Godwin. Indeed, their existence is dependent to a large extent on the state of the South African economy. If Mr. Godwin is genuinely concerned about the plight of Zimbabweans, he would realise that his flippant remarks have grave consequences, not only for those South Africans trapped in the vicious poverty cycle, but also for the over three million Zimbabweans who contribute and are to a large extent dependent on the South African economy.

Promoting tourism and encouraging foreign direct investment are Government economic imperatives that have been designed to contribute to the growth and advancement of our developing economy as well as to promote the socio-economic advancement of those South Africans who were systematically excluded from participation in the economy under apartheid.

The awarding of the FIFA World Cup to an African country for the first time in 101 years of FIFA’s existence was a proud moment in South Africa’s history. We are of the firm belief that the World Cup will be a catalyst for faster economic growth and seek to ensure that the opportunities and spin-offs can be accessed by all South Africans, with special emphasis on the previously disadvantaged groups. Discouraging investment and tourism to South Africa and suggesting that the World Cup be removed from South Africa could cripple the South African economy, thereby impacting directly on the lives of ordinary South Africans, more especially on the black South African majority and other African immigrants.

Mr. Godwin’s analogy between China and Tibet and South Africa and Zimbabwe is somewhat confusing. China claims that Tibet has officially been a part of the Chinese nation since the mid-13 th century, and should continue to be ruled by Beijing. South Africa on the other hand acknowledges that Zimbabwe was formerly known as Southern Rhodesia, and has never claimed Zimbabwe as its 10 th province. There is therefore no historical link between South Africa and Zimbabwe. The comparison between South Africa and China further casts a deep shadow on South Africa’s deep commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights and democracy as enshrined in our Constitution.

Mr. Godwin, whose family immigrated from England to Zimbabwe in the early 1950s, writes emotionally and irrationally on this subject. He states that “of course South Africa could use its economic power to draw Mr. Mugabe’s rule to an end in weeks”. If it is economic sanctions that Mr. Godwin is talking about, then he should know that South Africa would never support such sanctions, which have largely contributed to the rapid downward spiral of the Zimbabwean economy.

Secondly, it is important to take note of the fact that South Africa’s economic development and success can be attributed in large part to the hard work of immigrants from the region, including Zimbabweans. Unlike the previous apartheid regime, the current Government will not use its economic might and superiority to destabilise the region, but will work hard to ensure that the fruits of its wealth are shared with, and seek to improve and enrich the lives of our people in the region.

It is clear that Mr. Godwin’s comments are purely subjective and are a clear reflection of his personal feelings on this matter. Before making any further rash comments, it may be wise for Mr. Godwin to pause and to consider the consequences of his words, and the direct impact that it could have on the lives of ordinary Zimbabweans that he claims to be so concerned about!

Embassy of South Africa

Washington D.C.