It is easy to assert that the political negotiations in Zimbabwe have reached crunch time. But it might be more accurate to say that the negotiations that have been fraught from the outset are facing their last best chance of peaceful resolution. This assumes that both parties want peaceful resolution, or resolution at all, despite the fact that such assumptions would fly in the face of all that Robert Mugabe has done and said for the lasr decade in general and with regard to these negotiations, for the last year and a half.

The question for the outside world has continued to be what to do to prod Mugabe along, how to cajole and flatter the old despot when necessary, how to condemn and flagellate his regime the rest of the time, and how to recognize the sufferings of Mugabe’s victims in their millions. President Obama weighed in recently by honoring Women of Zimbabwe Arise, an organization that has steadfastly and bravely resisted Mugabe at considerable risk.

South African President Jacob Zuma, meanwhile, believes in providing encouragement for the Zim negotiations by asking for Zim’s reinstatement into the Commonwealth. I do not deny Zuma’s motives. He is not burdened by his predecessor Thabo Mbeki’s dithering nor is Zuma known as being especially sympathetic toward Mugabe. Nonetheless I think Zuma’s desire is premature. Mugabe has done little but delay and equivocate in a situation in which delay and equivocation serve Mugabe well. It is one thing to call for renewed aid to Zimbabwe in hopes of luring foreign investment and development support that the population desperately needs, and that can be withdrawn if necessary. Readmission to the Commonwealth should go to Zimbabwe only at the completion of this process, not now, when so much is left to be done and when Mugabe can reverse the few small gains with just a call to the men with guns.

Is the new trend of African nations selling or leasing agricultural land to foreign companies or countries a new form of colonialism (”agri-imperialism”) or a savvy form of investment and partnership? These are the questions raised in recent articles in the  New York Times Magazine and Washington Post. The deeply unsatisfying answer from my vantage point is: We don’t know, and it depends. There is nothing innately imperialist about these sorts of partnerships. But Africa observers are probably right to worry about the potential for exploitation. One would hope that these agreements would always involve pretty substantial commitments to local development and food production and would have opt-out options that would not lock Africans into unexpectedly onerous agreements and that African governments would first and foremost have the larger interests of their countries in mind. But yes, the skepticism is probably warranted.

On December 4 the run-up to the 2010 World Cup will begin in earnest as FIFA will conduct the draw for the tournament. South Africa is thus preparing for its long run in the public eye. Danny Jordaan, the CEO of South Africa’s World Cup hosting duties and thus the country’s uber-booster, insists that the 2010 event will be the best ever. Granted, what else is he going to stay? Still, it’s nice to see the country grasping for the brass ring.

One of the big issues that everyone worries about is whether crime will rear its ugly head during the tournament. The answer, of course, is that it will. Just as crime happened in 2006 and 2002 and 1998 and 1994 and . . . But the real issue is how much will it do so and how is South Africa dealing with crime not only for the tournament, but hopefully by developing policies not geared only toward 2010, but toward reducing crime rates in the short- but also long-term. Jordaan insists that the World Cup will be safe. And certainly the short-term palliatives to keep the foreign visitors safe are in the planning process, including the establishment of special “World Cup Courts.” It remains to be seen whether the larger integration of World Cup crime efforts with an overall anti-crime program is also part of the planning.

Jordaan also hopes that fans across the country and the continent will back the African teams. Surely they will, though there is a tendency among African football fans to embrace foreign powers such as England and Brazil (Although it seems like Brazil is just about everyone’s second favorite team in Africa and elsewhere. They are like the anti-ManU or Anti-New York Yankees, teams everyone but their fans love to hate.)  This will be easier to do if African teams experience some success (and recent history indicates that at least one of Africa’s entries will make the knockout rounds). And it would help if Bafana Bafana would improve. Right now they are the 86th ranked team in the world, the lowest ranked of any national team that will play in 2010.

The excitement is building. And if all goes well, your faithful FPA Africa correspondent will be reporting live from South Africa next June and July.

Sudan is delaying the country’s long awaited elections yet again. But this time the reasons seem legitimate: The National Elections Commission (NEC) announced a six day delay to the elections in order to allow more time for voters to register at least in part at the behest of opposition parties. Sudan state media issued an NEC statement announcing that the voter registration deadline is extended until December 7th (from November 30th) and the elections date is consequently being moved from April 5 to April 11 of next year.

So, it appears that China’s policies toward Africa might disproportionately benefit the powerful and the privileged? I, for one, stand flabbergasted.

The South African government has announced the formation of a new anti-corruption team. A cabinet statement announced, “The South African government takes strong exception to corrupt practices and regards the matter very seriously because of the potential damage that this could cause to the country’s reputation globally.” South Africa ranked a middling (which is to say not particularly good) 55th of 180 countries assessed in Transparency International’s “Corruptions Perception Index” for 2009. (New Zealand placed first, Somalia, no surprise, finished last.)

Establishing a mechanism to deal with corruption is, of course, simply the first step in this process. The most important step will be giving the body teeth to root out corruption wherever they find it. Whether the ANC will have the stomach for that bit will be the real test of the party’s, and as a very real consequence the country’s, commitment to transparency and weeding out corruption.

Zimbabwe has started withdrawing troops from the country’s diamond fields at the behest of the countries behind the Kimberley Process. Now, to be fair, this is one Zim-related narrative that is not simply part of a larger “Mugabe = Bad” narrative. The troops were posted at the diamond fields in Marange in the eastern part of the country in order to clamp down on illegal mining. But before long the solution was worse than the problem, as Mugabe’s troops began engaging in pretty blatant human rights violations, which is too frequently par for the course for Zimbabwe’s military, which has operated with impunity for too long, especially after 2000 or so.

I am pleasantly shocked by the news that South Africa has already moved out of recession. According to Statistics SA, South Africa recorded modest positive growth in the third quarter.

In a disquieting assessment, an economist has concluded that South Africa could have the most expensive electric rates in the world if ESKOM’s price hikes go into effect. And given the rates of poverty and the status of the working classes and general economic precariousness in South Africa, this is alarming news that could fast turn disastrous.

Any discussion of contemporary South Africa will come around to the issue of crime fairly quickly. And whenever issues of crime come up someone will raise the issue of “getting tough” on crime. (And this happens everywhere, not just in South Africa –  it certainly does in the United States, for example.) But what does it mean to get tough on crime? Because surely no one advocates being soft on crime, though certainly there are those who will accuse those with whom they disagree about their squishiness on crime and punishment related matters — few issues bring out demagoguery quite as quickly as crime.  Coupled with getting tough should also be attempts to get smart, because indiscriminate toughness almost inevitably victimizes the innocent without demonstrably improving our chances to nab the guilty.

[Audio from the NPR story here.]