Africa's failure to condemn Mr Mugabe is a sign of political cowardice

Internal links

African leaders drop attack on UK's Zimbabwe policy

Morgan Tsvangirai, the Zimbabwean opposition leader, appears in the Supreme Court today to defend himself against prosecution for terrorism. The Zimbabwean government is seeking foreign aid because of a shortage of food, following violent disruption of the country's farming. The Organisation of African Unity, which yesterday concluded its summit in the Zambian capital, Lusaka, backed off at the last moment from wholehearted support for the Zimbabwean leader, Robert Mugabe – but the statement that Zimbabwe and Britain should "get together" on land ownership also managed to avoid full-scale condemnation of the violence that Mr Mugabe has unleashed.

Each of these three strands is depressing. Together, they send a singularly grim message. Mr Tsvangirai heads the Movement for Democratic Change – the party which courageously challenged President Mugabe in elections last year, and which is Zimbabwe's best hope for unseating Mr Mugabe, after 21 years.That is the reason why Mr Tsvangirai is now charged with terrorism, under laws framed by the white-minority rulers of the old Rhodesia for use against leaders of the independence struggle.

On Zimbabwe's food problems, the story is equally dismal. In normal circumstances, a finance minister's declaration that "our budget does not allow for food purchases" should be treated sympathetically. But these are not normal circumstances. Just as those who wanted democracy in South Africa supported sanctions against the apartheid regime – however painful they might be for ordinary South Africans – so the Mugabe regime disqualifies itself from international generosity when it is so obviously the author of its own misfortunes.

In some respects, the failure by the OAU to condemn Mr Mugabe is most depressing of all. At the weekend, foreign ministers at the summit criticised the attempts "to isolate and vilify Mugabe". According to this reading of events, the only reason that anybody in Europe might dare to criticise Mr Mugabe was because of a secret hankering for the old days of white colonial rule.

In reality, this confirmed the impression that the OAU itself lives in the past. Yesterday, the summit backed off from endorsing the tough language of the foreign ministers' weekend declaration. But, shamefully, it did not criticise Mr Mugabe, who declared: "We and the rest of Africa are now speaking in the same language."

Land reform is needed; the inequities of ownership must be addressed. But Mr Mugabe has had two decades to address the problems – and failed. (In just seven years of democracy, South Africa has done more.) Only when Mr Mugabe's own political position was threatened did he suddenly seize on this explosive issue. He encouraged licensed thugs; dozens have died and thousands were left homeless in the violence that followed. African leaders are in a uniquely strong position to "isolate and vilify" Mr Mugabe. Mr Tsvangirai was right yesterday to note that the failure to do so ignores "rampant lawlessness". Condemnation of the Zimbabwean government has nothing to do with colonialism, and everything to do with democracy. As Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, told the Lusaka summit this week: "Africa must reject the ways of the past and commit itself to building a future of democratic governance."

African leaders have talked in recent days about the proposed creation of a new AU – an African Union, theoretically modelled on the European Union, with its own parliament, executive and transnational laws. The political cowardice on Zimbabwean thuggery does not, however, set an encouraging precedent in this regard.