African Union summits have not previously dealt with such a serious and pressing issue as Zimbabwe's political crisis over its runoff presidential election. The meeting in Sharm el-Sheikh, which ended last night, was preoccupied with it and has received unprecedented international attention as a result.
Given that the 56 AU leaders are divided between those supporting stronger and weaker action, reflecting varying fears about the precedents set were they in the same position as Robert Mugabe, this is not surprising. More so is their decision to support a national unity government between him and the Zimbabwe opposition to resolve the election crisis, despite resistance from both parties to any such course, and the explicit criticisms made by some states of the terror tactics which forced Morgan Tsvangirai to withdraw from the contest.
Their closer economic and security interdependence and mutual need for political support have made it essential that the African Union, a continental organisation, should change its traditional principle of non-interference in internal affairs and live up more to the high-minded democratic principles of its founding charter in 2002. The same applies even more to the regional Southern African Development Community, which has had the main role in handling the Zimbabwe issue. Its negotiating team led by Tanzania, Swaziland and Angola proposed the motion for a national government passed by the summit. One of its members, Botswana, publicised an unprecedented attack on Mr Mugabe, saying he should be excluded from attending such African meetings, because this "would give unqualified legitimacy to a process which cannot be considered legitimate." It also said the government and opposition must be treated as equal in any mediation.
In contrast, South Africa's president Thabo Mbeki has been far less willing to attack Mr Mugabe and has pushed an ill-defined mediation effort between him and Mr Tsvangirai. The AU's call for a national unity government could probably only work if it were agreed to call the elections again under more effective international supervision, and is thus potentially more radical than that. Given the regime's brazen acceptance of the uncontested result to install Mr Mugabe back in power any such course will be fiercely resisted. It can be translated into reality only by strong pressure from fellow African states, with international support.
That pattern of influence, in which neighbouring African states take the lead, is essential to head off the propaganda typified by Mr Mugabe's spokesman, who said yesterday, in a desperate attempt to undermine the legitimacy of such criticism, that western states led the attack on him for post-colonial motives. Neighbouring states bear the huge human, security, political and economic consequences of this disaster and have most to gain from its resolution. If they manage to tackle it with determination and confidence it would represent a major advance for their own development and that of their region as a whole. That is why they must have real solidarity from the rest of the world.