Robert Mugabe has officially resigned in Zimbabwe, bringing an end to his dictatorial regime and ostensibly opening up the doors to democracy. Germany’s coalition crisis puts the future of the European Union in jeopardy, while Japan’s softness on its military could be inadequate to deal with North Korea, which the US has officially redesignated as state sponsors of terrorism.
The end of an era
Refusing to be swayed by the test of time, Robert Mugabe has withstood global movements, scheming rivals, and changing times. That is, of course, until Tuesday, when he officially resigned as president of Zimbabwe after 37 years in power. As Krishnadev Calamur notes in The Atlantic, “Mugabe is the only leader much of Zimbabwe’s population, whose median age is 20, has known—and he seemed destined to remain in office until his death.”
“Although Mugabe seemed emblematic in the West of a kind of “big man” rule in African politics, the truth was that by the time his reign came to an end he was increasingly the exception rather than the rule. The continent has for years been moving away from the kind of politics where a single autocratic leader, often supported by the United States or, before its collapse, the Soviet Union, dominated a nation for decades,” writes Calamur. “One reason for Mugabe’s longevity could be the fact that relative to other African countries, Zimbabwe shed white-minority rule only in 1980, decades after the wave of decolonization swept the rest of Africa. Racist rule is a recent memory in the country, and Mugabe, despite his obvious faults, represented the successful fight against it.”
The dramatic coup has now officially drawn to a close. “Mugabe at first seemed reluctant to go, but ultimately the father of modern Zimbabwe knew it was time for his country to turn the page.”
The flip side
“A revolutionary anti-colonial leader who held power for almost four decades. A government rife with nepotism and corruption. A people beset by poverty. Hope for a democratic transition, but far more skepticism that it would ever happen. No, this isn’t Zimbabwe — it’s Angola,” writes Max Bearak in the Washington Post.
Angola’s new leader, João Lourenço, is surprisingly forging his own path and not following in his predecessor José Eduardo dos Santos’s footsteps. dos Santos chose Lourenço as his successor, giving the impression that the autocratic rule would continue. However, Lourenço has made some radical changes over the last three months, like firing the heads of the intelligence service and national polices and dismissing the governor of the central bank.
“These moves seem geared toward stripping the dos Santos family of its near-monopoly over state power and finances. But observers still urge caution. While hopes are high after Lourenço’s initial actions, it’s still too early to tell whether he is on a truly liberalizing path,” writes Bearak.
Angola is an interesting flip side to the current situation in Zimbabwe. “Given the tendency toward pessimism around democratic transitions in Africa, Angola’s is one to watch closely,” Bearak warns. “If Lourenço successfully dismantles the dos Santos empire — and refrains from creating his own — it could be an example for others to follow.”
A post-German Europe?
With the abrupt, unanticipated end of the coalition negotiations, Ana Palacio in Project Syndicate questions whether Germany become incapable of remaining the leader of Europe, and guiding the continent to stability.
Germany has been leading the response to all the crises Europe has seen, and Merkel’s policies have been celebrated and seen as frustrating in equal parts.
“The EU is nothing without Germany. That is why Europe cannot afford simply to wait around, hoping that Germany will suddenly decide to resume leadership. Instead, it must tackle the German question head-on, just as it did after WWII, by working actively to re-anchor the country in the European project,” writes Palacio.
Urging the EU to make some fundamental changes, Palacio observes that by the time a new German government is in place, the EU will be preparing for parliamentary elections in June 2019, and will also be selecting a new European Commission. “Unless the EU changes its approach, it will be doomed simply to hold its breath from one election to the next,” she writes.
The “warrior nation”
When Trump referred to Japan as a “warrior nation” in a recent interview, he ended up putting the fear of a remilitarized Japan back on the table, even though the military in Japan is “toothless”, writes John Pomfret in the Washington Post. Trump recently claims he told China “You’re going to have a big problem with Japan pretty soon if you allow this continue with North Korea.”
There remains little political support for a stronger military, however. The chances of passing laws to support to the military are slim to none.
“For years, Japan’s media have poked fun at the Self-Defense Forces. The “Godzilla” movies of the 1960s portrayed Japanese troops as incompetent yokels who invariably fled in Godzilla’s wake. Those who join Japan’s all-volunteer military are still looked down on and the recruits are poorly paid. A rapidly aging society is also cutting into recruitment,” notes Pomfret. “For years, each time a politician in Japan advocated military reform, he or she was lambasted as a warmonger, a fascist or a denier of Japan’s crimes during World War II. While this tendency has waned, Japanese voters remain reluctant to devote more resources to protecting their country.”
However, Pomfret thinks that Japan is going to need to do more to keep the peace in the region, calling Northeast Asia “one of the most dangerous neighborhoods on the globe”, with defiant and reactionary countries like North Korea and China always on the radar.
An official gauntlet throw
It’s obviously not the first time North Korea has found itself designated as a state sponsor of terrorism. As the Trump administration ups the ante against the Pyongyang regime, Adam Taylor analyses the history of North Korea’s time on the list of state sponsors in the Chicago Tribune.
“Since 1979, the State Department has kept a list of countries that are alleged to have “repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.””, Taylor writes. But “exactly what makes a country a sponsor of terrorism is kept relatively vague.”
“Two decades after being designated a state sponsor of terrorism, North Korea was removed from the list in 2008 by the administration of President George W. Bush. It was a controversial move; then-Sen. Barack Obama was among those who supported it, calling the decision “an appropriate response.”” Also, at the point, nuclear disarmament talks with Pyongyang were faltering. The Bush administration was hoping to salvage the situation by delisting North Korea.
Taylor writes that the 2008 decision to delist was controversial, and the administration still remains divided on whether it was a good mood to put North Korea back on the list or not. “One key bone of contention is whether North Korea has committed acts of terrorism in recent years,” writes Taylor. It remains to be seen how Pyongyang will react to this official marking of targets.