|
Nothing wrong with Ramaphosa,
only somebody made a blunder
The NATION
Story by PETER MWAURA
9. 02. 2008
South Africa’s legendary negotiator and mediator Cyril Ramaphosa
was made a sacrificial lamb, killed to disarm or appease President
Kibaki’s PNU and keep the mediation process going smoothly.
Mr Ramaphosa was the best and most experienced chief mediator
Kenya was probably ever going to get.
Within 48 hours of his arrival in Nairobi, PNU had him ejected
from its mediation talks with opposition leader Raila Odinga’s ODM
on the disputed presidential election results.
PNU claimed he was biased, arguing that he had business links with
Mr Odinga and funded his presidential campaign, claims which both
Mr Odinga and Mr Ramaphosa denied.
PNU did not provide any evidence for the claims, but it may know
something that we don’t. But ejecting Mr Ramaphosa from the talks
so unceremoniously was a blunder.
Team leader and former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan also goofed
by bringing in Mr Ramaphosa as chief mediator without preparing
the ground for his acceptance by all the parties.
After all, the talks are about mediation, not arbitration, and
mediators must be acceptable to all the parties.
MR ANNAN SHOULD ALSO HAVE Remembered that while ODM’s strategy is
to escalate the political crisis by internationalising it, that of
PNU is to keep it domestic even as it loses out on that front.
Yet the failed introduction of Mr Ramaphosa must be seen in the
context of the nature of mediation as a form of dispute resolution.
Mediation is assisted negotiation. A third party is brought in to
help the parties develop a solution to which they both can agree.
While the third party should be neutral, impartial, objective and
trustworthy, he is not the decision-maker.
It is up to the parties to agree on a solution that meets their
needs. The mediator is only there to guide the process and to keep
the parties talking, not fighting.
The responsibility and authority for coming to an agreement
remains with the parties. In practical terms, PNU gained nothing
substantive by dismissing Mr Ramaphosa out of hand.
In fact, what the party thought it had gained, the Government lost
on the diplomatic front. South Africa has now become the first
government in Africa to say publicly that it does not recognise
President Kibaki.
Kenya needed Mr Ramaphosa more than he needed Kenya. Actually, Mr
Ramaphosa did not need Kenya at all. At 55 years, he is a
self-actualised, extremely wealthy politician- turned-businessman
and a potential president. He is one of the most influential South
Africans.
As chairman of the Shanduka Group, whose shares are valued at
$66.87 million (about Sh45 billion), he has everything.
He controls access to the banks and insurance companies and his
political friends and media links are legion. He has interests in
three of South Africa’s most influential newspapers — the Sunday
Times, Business Day and The Sowetan.
Apart from trying to help Kenya out of its political crisis he
spends his spare time with his doctor wife Tshepo in the fight
against HIV and Aids. I believe he was genuine, and I find it
difficult to believe that he would compromise his reputation for
the sake of an individual politician in Kenya. A former trade
union leader and apartheid-era politician-cum-negotiator, Mr
Ramaphosa had something to offer Kenya.
He is a specialist mediator in the field of political disputes and
an expert dispute resolver. He is not new to gamesmanship and
high-risk politics.
Mr Ramaphosa practised, and understands, the politics of
brinkmanship, which seems to characterise the Kenyan crisis.
He has a reputation for pushing to achieve the most advantageous
outcome and bringing a sense of appreciation of the big picture,
which is probably what Kenya needs right now.
BY SAYING NO TO HIM, THE Government looked mean-minded. It even
provoked bad blood with South Africa. Shortly after he returned
home, Mr Ramaphosa’s government unleashed a scalding attack on
Kenya.
Deputy Foreign minister Aziz Pahad said his government “rejected
with the contempt it deserves” the claims by PNU that Ramaphosa
could not be an honest broker.
These sentiments were shared elsewhere. As US ambassador Michael
Ranneberger said, it is unfortunate that Mr Ramaphosa was ejected
from the talks, as “he is a good and effective negotiator”.
However, the envoy observed correctly that “it is important that
any mediator is acceptable to both parties for talks to succeed”.
Even as many people regret Mr Ramaphosa’s rejection, we should ask
another question: Who is paying for the mediation costs — the
Americans or the British?
Or is it the European Union, the United Nations or the African
Union?
It would be a smart idea if ODM and PNU paid for the costs shared
equally between them and charged by the hour. The longer it takes
to reach a settlement the more they would pay.
|
