The Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum utilised the ‘Symposium Declaration’ as part of its lobbying initiative with the Commonwealth at the Marlborough House discussions and subsequently in Abuja, where the Zimbabwean government formally withdrew its membership of the Commonwealth. The Declaration was also disseminated to African embassies in Pretoria and Harare, but elicited no formal response. Indeed, SADC representatives have been conspicuously silent around these issues, presumably a reflection of ‘quiet diplomacy’ and a fundamental unwillingness to be seen as interfering in the affairs of another State, apparently regarded by many AU members as plausible justification for their inaction. Civil society in Zimbabwe has increasingly turned its attention to influencing civil society groupings in the region, and South Africa in particular. As the pivotal external player in the region and continent, South Africa has the ‘point’ role for the international community in facilitating a resolution to the Zimbabwean crisis. Its cautious approach has increasingly galvanised groupings inside South Africa to challenge government policy (of ‘quiet diplomacy’), and to urge it to exert more pressure on the Zimbabwean government. Consolidating these gains requires a much closer level of interaction and co-operation between all civil society groupings. South Africa’s own experiences of trying to secure justice and accountability, including an end to organised violence and torture, provides an opportunity for messaging that should resonate with many South Africans. South Africa’s ‘organised’ civil society provides an important potential conduit to the broader South African public, but it is important that Zimbabwean voices and priorities are the ones articulated. There are also a broad range of specific communities in South Africa (i.e. students, the legal profession, trade unions, victim groupings) which have equivalent groupings in Zimbabwe that are able to explain what has been happening in Zimbabwe. These groups should be equipped to address issues of justice and accountability in their deliberations with colleagues from South Africa. In this regard the establishment of the Zimbabwe Solidarity and Consultation Forum in early 2005 is an important development.39 It is also important to ascertain the South African government’s position vis-à-vis engagement with a transitional justice agenda. No mention has been made of justice and accountability issues by South Africa, and it is likely that it would prefer not to comment on them. Indeed, South Africa’s official position has ostensibly downplayed the human rights situation. Although somewhat predictable, this position runs contrary to their stated support for the internationalisation of human rights standards, and their vocal support or condemnation of other human rights issues and causes. This should not, however, prevent the promotion of a discussion on these issues, and for South Africans, including the South African government, to hear from Zimbabwean civil society what they think should be happening in this regard. Making the debate inclusive? It is necessary for civil society groupings to examine how to generate a broader participation in the discussions around issues of transitional justice. A number of generic constituencies within ‘organised civil society’ with which there should also be further engagement have been identified. This includes, political parties, the trade unions, the church, women groupings, students and youth groupings. In addition, specific consideration should be given to the broader victim constituency, which is becoming more organised. 39 The Forum is a network of South African progressive civil society organisations including youth, women, labour and churches and students that are engaged in the promotion of solidarity for peace, democracy and human rights for Zimbabweans. 23