Peter Mandelson: A deal to get us out of the Zimbabwe impasse

'For Blair, accepting the election, albeit on a strictly qualified basis, will not be easy'

Internal links

Mugabe bends as African allies step up pressure

'War veterans' murder farmer in night of terror by President's men

A few days in South Africa reveal the full extent of President Thabo Mbeki's dilemma over Zimbabwe. He believes that the country's thoroughly discredited ruler will not be forced out of office by outside intervention and that it is futile to pretend otherwise. Yet if you look across the range of editorial comment that might support his apparently quiescent attitude to Robert Mugabe's rule, and Zimbabwe's widely contested election result, you discover no cogent (or even uncogent) defence of the president's approach.

Indeed, the best explanation for his stance has appeared not in a South African newspaper but in in an "anti-colonialist" column in a British newspaper that argued in favour of leaving Africa to Africans. That's fine as a general observation except for two things. Africans are horrified by the impact that Mugabe is having on the continent's reputation and its newly flaunted commitment to good governance and democracy, enshrined in the New Partnership for Africa's Development (Nepad). Africa is not only Africa's business when the success of this partnership, by definition, depends on the rest of the world's commitment and goodwill.

Mr Mbeki, therefore, is losing ground rapidly and is in danger of imperiling his deserved reputation as the most capable and globally conversant leader Africa has to offer today. His economic understanding and policies are widely admired for their realism and courage. His own democratic credentials are untarnished. And he knows better than anyone how much his own country's prospects are linked to the fortunes of Africa as a whole.

His highest duty and responsibility, therefore, when he meets Nigeria's President, Olusegun Obasanjo, and Australia's Prime minister, John Howard, in London today to discuss the Commonwealth's response to Zimbabwe's poisoned election is to stand up for Africa's wider interests, clearly distance himself from Mr Mugabe's actions and in so doing ensure Nepad's survival. This plan represents the best hope in a generation or more of Africa turning the corner after decades of spiraling into poverty and despair. But Mbeki will be throwing away any chance of Nepad being taken seriously by G8 members if he does not move towards world opinion over Mr Mugabe. The choice is as raw as that.

The quid pro quo should be for Britain, America and others in the West to meet Mr Mbeki half way, coming from the other direction. There should be respect for Mr Mbeki's judgement as a seasoned and informed player in the region and acceptance that he is not pursuing a frivolous or cowardly agenda. It should be recognised that Zimbabwe is not a province of South Africa and that Mr Mbeki has to live with Mr Mugabe on his border, not safely thousands of miles away. And that it is not in anyone's interests – Britain's or South Africa's – to provoke a violent collapse in Zimbabwe, with all the consequences and costs that would entail.

In practice, this means forging an agreed plan of action that presents clear challenges to Mr Mugabe that are not impossible for him to accept and then confronting him with a united front if he refuses to do so.

The starting point for such an approach is an unambiguous statement that the lead up and conduct of the elections in Zimbabwe fell below the standards required for endorsement by the Commonwealth. The next step should be to assert that the results cannot stand as they are and that a representative, more broadly-based government should be constituted that reflects the balanced nature of the election "result". Morgan Tsvangirai might prefer to keep his distance from such an arrangement so as to continue as an independent and watchful observer but his freedom and safety, and that of his followers, must be demanded.

A subsequent condition should be implementation by Mr Mugabe of previous international undertakings given by him, including the Abuja agreement on land reforms, and full respect for Zimbabwe's constitution and the country's rule of law. Ignoring the views of other members of his government so as to push further erosions of liberty and media freedom through parliament would be deemed unacceptable to the Commonwealth with suspension and other sanctions following immediately.

Could Tony Blair, with his outright condemnation of Mr Mugabe, live with this approach and could Mr Mbeki, with his resentment of outside dictats, sign up to it? For Mr Blair, accepting the de facto result of the election albeit on a strictly qualified basis, will not be easy. For Mr Mbeki, committing himself to uncompromising measures against Mr Mugabe should he fail to accede to the Commonwealth's demands within a prescribed time, will be hard given his stance to date. But the alternative is a Commonwealth stand-off, with the only smile left on anyone's face belonging to Mr Mugabe.

Neither Mr Blair nor Mr Mbeki could draw comfort from that but, of the two, Mr Mbeki and his country will come off worse than Britain if Mr Mugabe remains unchecked and the world shrugs and turns away from Africa for a another generation.

The writer is a former Labour cabinet minister