Zimbabwe gamble

I wrote just over a week ago about the ambiguities of the power-sharing deal in Zimbabwe. A path forward for that country? Or a desperate delaying tactic by Mugabe and his supporters? So, should the international community now put its money where its mouth has been and support a putative transition process with funds? Knox Chitiyo thinks it should:

The role of the international community is crucial to the survival of the new unity government, and there is an expectation that the MDC can deliver on foreign investment. But so far the European Union, the United States, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund have given a tepid welcome to the deal, and have stated that the new government must "prove itself".

The key point, obviously, concerns how one reads those ambiguities. Is Zimbabwe already on the turn, so to speak, regardless of Mugabe's own intentions? Chitiyo thinks so:

[T]he goalposts of Zimbabwe's politics have irrevocably shifted. Although the agreement is notionally about power-sharing, in reality it sets the seal on the transition of power. The process will be lengthy, and fractious, but there can be no going back: Zimbabwe is entering a new era of leadership.

This report from Chris McGreal gives some evidence for thinking the turn is already a reality, at least in the effect it is having on people's attitudes in the country at large. That doesn't mean things couldn't still go badly wrong. But it suggests that a process has begun which is worth encouraging and supporting by every means possible. The relevant donors should take a gamble and start putting up the money.