|
Back to Index
"Can
anyone help? Will anyone help?" - Zimbabwe
Sokwanele
February 05, 2006
http://www.sokwanele.com/articles/sokwanele/cananyonehelp_05feb2006.html
As we enter our seventh
year of political turmoil, most Zimbabweans are desperate, despondent,
and disempowered. In the face of a total onslaught by their own government,
they feel helpless, and many have been made homeless. The economy is stuttering
to a halt as social breakdown escalates. Government actions are erratic
and oppressive and incapable of solving the chaos they have created. It
is hardly surprising that the popular mood has shifted during the past
ten months from a guarded expectation of change to a numbing hopelessness.
Six years ago, when
the ZANU PF government was rejected by the people in a constitutional
referendum and began its war on Zimbabweans, people believed that a democratic
electoral process and a respected independent-minded judiciary would eventually
rid them of an oppressive, increasingly irrational government. A popular
opposition party was in the ascendancy and waiting in the wings.
But after six years
of election campaigning and legal challenges, it is clear that the institutions
of democracy are so completely subverted that they cannot support the
will of the people or resurrect the rule of law. Quixotic economic policies
intended only to keep ZANU PF in power have seen production decline by
more than half and the vast majority of the population sink into penury.
Many hundreds of thousands, possibly millions have fled the country to
seek to survive elsewhere. The final blow to Zimbabwean hopes came with
the fracture of the opposition MDC late in 2005. While a schism within
the broad-based coalition was doubtless inevitable and resulted from significant
policy differences, the timing was inauspicious, and left those who still
hoped that some miracle might occur with no branch to cling to. Zimbabweans
on their own conclude they can not change the situation for the better,
in the face of a government that is prepared to use all means of repression,
including indiscriminate armed force, torture, confiscation of property
and systematic abuse of all human rights, to maintain its position.
The goal remains the
same - to remove ZANU PF from power and replace them with those genuinely
elected by the people and responsive to their needs. But if it cannot
be done through the current electoral process, what are the alternatives?
"Take them out the way they got in" says an aging liberation war fighter.
"No, the only way is non-violent struggle," answers the peace activist.
Zimbabweans have no stomach for a liberation war, especially given the
suffering and disappointing results now evident from the fifteen year
struggle of the 60's and 70's. And the earth has since turned - it would
be impossible in the regional context of the new millennium. Nor is this
British India, where the mass non-violent protests of the saintly Gandhi
could stir the conscience of an imperial power. Brave individuals and
groups will certainly continue non-violent street protests, but the mechanism
by which these would bring a change of government is yet to be discovered.
The point has been
made that once a state has failed, institutions have collapsed, and the
nation is ruled by brute force alone, the people will not be able to return
the situation to peace and economic development on their own - they will
require outside help. Early on in this interminable drama, Zimbabweans
began to look beyond their borders for help from the international community.
Individuals and opposition politicians have risked opprobrium and even
arrest by calling publicly for action from the international community.
Human rights organizations have appealed through the formal channels of
the African Union and the United Nations for help; they have been frustrated
at every turn. While the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
lends a sympathetic ear, the real power of the AU lies in the heads of
state who have become worthy successors to the OAU's old boys' club of
dictators. Even the UN is hamstrung by those states that do not want any
human rights abuses investigated lest their own might come under the spotlight.
Millions of Zimbabweans watched with envy as the American and British
armies removed Saddam Hussein from Iraq and longed for such action in
Zimbabwe.
From the beginning,
western governments were sympathetic to the plight of Zimbabweans. More
than three years ago they began withdrawing government-to-government aid
programmes citing corrupt electoral processes and human rights abuses.
Both the Americans and the EU imposed targeted personal sanctions against
top government and party officials, prohibiting travel and business relations.
They also provided food aid and other humanitarian assistance wherever
they were not obstructed by government, and funded civil society organizations
dedicated to expose and protest against rights abuses and those struggling
to build the future by developing pockets of democratic understanding.
The IMF has refused to resume balance of payment support until political
reforms are instituted. These efforts are important, but they will not
remove a stubborn dictator like Robert Mugabe, and political good manners
require an invitation by the neighbours before any more substantive action
can be taken. Thus President Bush handed the problem back to Mbeki as
his "point man" in southern Africa.
Zimbabweans also placed
their hope in President Mbeki. Surely this sophisticated champion of struggle
and democracy would be able to bring pressure to bear on his wayward neighbour
to accept the will of his people and retire. But whether through sympathy
with Mugabe or a naïve failure to correctly assess the forces at
play, Mbeki betrayed Zimbabwean hopes. The past three years have gradually
brought the realization that Mbeki is not our champion but has rather
been protecting Mugabe. Up to now we have heard no single powerful statement
from Mbeki denouncing ZANU PF abuses, but repeated statements of support
from his lieutenants.
But the crisis will
not go away. The situation on the ground deteriorates by the week. Zimbabwe
is now very close to the position of a failed state. Government institutions
no longer function for the normal business of government and have become
centres of patronage, handing out opportunities for self-enrichment to
those prepared to prostitute themselves by singing the praises of the
ruling party. The law enforcement agents do not enforce the law, but protect
their law-breakers from prosecution. A senior police officer states openly
that she respects political orders, not court orders. Democratically elected
local councils are systemically destroyed by a government minister. Public
revenues are used to enhance the private wealth of the few, and even humanitarian
aid is manipulated for political power and private gain.
Armed riot police
are used to chase struggling people from their homes, deprive them of
a livelihood and cow them into submission. And inexorably the economy
contracts, threatening the ability of the government to continue its essential
functions. The Zimbabwe dollar slides into oblivion, money cannot be printed,
water cannot be pumped or purified, electricity supply breaks down, ambulances
cannot operate, even the police are without transport. Only the riot police
and the army seem to be provided with vehicles from China and precious
fuel that is unavailable for other government departments. Month after
month we are promised a war against corruption, but time after time when
the big fish are arrested they are let off the hook to swim back into
the muddy waters. While the army tries to force people to grow food, supplies
dwindle and no one wants to slave in the fields while leaders make fortunes
by fraudulent handling of the people's taxes and other ill-gotten property.
Meanwhile, across the borders, impoverished Zimbabweans who turn to crime,
or simply undercut locals for jobs, are causing resentment that has recently
exploded into violence. South Africa and Botswana spend huge amounts trying
to turn back the flow of desperate immigrants, who find ever more ingenious
ways of dodging the authorities.
And as systems collapse,
the threat of open violence looms ever larger. Food shortages could touch
off riots; so could fights over transport, or even seething anger over
the lack of medical treatment. But these would probably be swiftly snuffed
out by the riot police and army. While mutiny is possible, it is unlikely.
More dangerous is the possibility of leaders engaging each other in the
quest for land, or for succession to the leadership. Already there are
frequent squabbles, and whoever gets the police on their side seems to
win. But the prizes to be seized are getting fewer. Important players
in the land grabs are military officers. What is to stop them using the
units they command to back up their claims? Especially in the light of
low pay and poor conditions for the ranks, who could be promised "extra
benefits" for backing an individual instead of remaining loyal to the
state. Already senior officers command their subordinates to accompany
them on expeditions of plunder. Warlordism is lurking in the background.
It could come to the fore. Zimbabwe could collapse into anarchy and civil
war, and we have seen from West Africa and Central Africa how quickly
this could degenerate into regional conflict.
African states have
refused to peer into the future to see the possibility for a new centre
of conflict, this time in southern Africa. They carry on with "business
as usual", burying their heads in the sand as the African Bank for Imports
and Exports keeps ZANU PF from drowning. What will be the response of
the rest of the international community? What should they do - for the
sake of Zimbabweans, for the sake of regional peace?
There seem to be three
possible stances. One is to continue with the targeted sanctions, diplomatic
boycotts and pressures, and hope that the economy will eventually bring
ZANU PF to a standstill. The second is to do a U turn and embrace ZANU
PF, hoping that a more moderate wing of the party will emerge from the
succession race and put Zimbabwe back on the development track. The third
is to intervene to prevent a wider catastrophe.
The first option is
currently being tried, with little effect. The ZANU PF response is to
make vituperative attacks on western nations, and cling more tightly to
their seats for a bumpy ride. Many Zimbabweans have also hoped that if
ZANU PF cannot be defeated at the ballot box, it will eventually succumb
to economic collapse; but all evidence points to the fact that they will
not vacate state house themselves under any circumstances. It is far more
likely that they will squeeze the last drop out of Zimbabweans to keep
themselves in office and prefer to see the country degenerate into open
fighting. That is where we seem to be headed if nothing is changed from
the present position.
The second option
is appeasement - "shake hands with the devil" and hope to keep the lid
on until the dictator dies or somehow goes away. Underlying this approach
is a belief that ZANU PF has a "moderate" wing that can be coddled and
promoted to take over once Mugabe retires or dies. If we can just hang
on until then, it will not be necessary to intervene, and meanwhile, we
must join him in bed, no matter how unpleasant the experience. South Africa
has recently appeared to do just this - cozy up to ZANU PF with co-operation
agreements not only between their military establishments but also between
their security apparatuses.
There are also noises
coming from the Americans that perhaps it's better to engage with the
Zimbabwe government. Is this under the persuasion of their point man?
Are they being convinced that a policy of appeasement is viable? Will
the IMF be persuaded that balance of payments support can be granted if
the debt is repaid, without the political reforms that have previously
been demanded? Is that why our government has made such frantic efforts
to repay the debt, even at the expense of food and medical supplies for
the people? Have they been promised something?
Surely appeasement
can only end in disaster. In the first place, balance of payments support
to this government will not mend the economy. In a system that depends
on patronage, any new funds that come our way will only become a drinking
trough for the elite who need to be satisfied - just as ARV's provided
by foreign donors end up treating well-placed persons rather than the
poor. That foreign exchange will be used to prop up the regime, strengthen
the instruments of oppression and keep the ruling elite in ZANU PF's pocket.
This regime is so far gone down the slippery slope that they do not care
about the economy or the people, only themselves. Secondly, the moderate
wing of ZANU PF waiting to take over is an illusion. All have become part
of the corrupt machinery and have to hide their past crimes from the public
glare. Whether it be the "military business" complex of the Mujuru's or
the Tsholotsho group of Mnangagwa, they helped to build this system and
will use it to protect themselves once the boss is gone. The system of
patronage and repression will continue. Even if outright conflict between
the two groups is somehow avoided, keeping the lid on until the transition
will only prolong the problem, and in fact give it a new lease of life
with a younger more energetic leader.
The third option is
intervention. This is what ZANU PF fears the most, and this is why they
boast loudly at every opportunity that they will defend Zimbabwe's "sovereignty".
They have often used
an important section of the United Nations Charter to argue that no state
has the right to interfere in Zimbabwe's internal affairs. But the United
Nations does have the right to intervene where a government's actions
constitute a threat to international peace. And where a government is
tyrannizing its own population or a section of it, international law has
developed precepts that eclipse the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention.
After all, it was this principle that allowed genocidal massacres such
as the Holocaust in Nazi Germany and the slaughter in Rwanda. Respect
for the sovereignty of a state is based on the expectation that the state
itself respects the dignity and basic rights of its people, and where
it does not, respect for its sovereignty gives way to the duty to intervene
to protect the rights of those people.
The Canadian government
initiated the setting up of an International Commission on Intervention
and State Sovereignty to investigate the issue of intervention for human
protection purposes. Its report, published in 2001, identified an international
customary law "responsibility to protect" described as follows: "Where
a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war, insurgency,
repression or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling or
unable to halt or avert it, the principle of non-intervention yields to
the international responsibility to protect". The Commission emphasized
that intervention is not a right of other nations, but an obligation;
it identified international law authority for the responsibility resting
on member states of the United Nations, and itemised mechanisms of intervention
available. These range from targeted sanctions and withdrawal of aid to
diplomatic boycotts, specific or total economic embargoes, and ultimately
military intervention. They also include criminal prosecutions through
international courts.
Unfortunately the
failure to intervene has often led to preventable atrocities, such as
in recent conflicts in West and Central Africa, not to mention Sudan.
The principle of "responsibility to protect" was therefore clarified to
include the responsibility to prevent, to react and rebuild. In other
words, when a situation cannot be saved by an existing government, it
is the duty of other nations to intervene to prevent conflict and abuses,
and to stay the course to rebuild that polity until it can maintain order
and justice on its own. This will benefit the people within the affected
country as well as the international community. The burden of restoring
order and justice is far greater if the situation is allowed to deteriorate
to warlordism and open warfare that spill over beyond borders into entire
regions. Ultimately in such a case there is no resolution without the
armed overthrow of the tyrants and/or international intervention, usually
under the auspices of the United Nations - with great difficulty and at
great cost and much further suffering. If the U.N. had intervened effectively
in Rwanda before the genocide, how different might central Africa look
today? Or in Congo/Zaire during the tenure of Mobutu?
Surely the only responsible
position of the international community is to urgently investigate how
the United Nations can intervene to prevent a Zimbabwean descent into
chaos. This could begin with a think tank or group of eminent persons
tasked by the U.N. Secretary General to develop a programme of action
within international law. It might include more serious sanctions, prosecutions
by the International Criminal Court, more effective boycotts, and ultimately
military intervention if these have no effect or if the situation deteriorates
to conflict. At the same time it should include humanitarian assistance
to those suffering from a collapsed economy and government repression,
and support for NGO's providing information in the absence of a free media
and those struggling to keep the ideals of democracy alive. The programme
would have to make provision for a transitional administration which could
organize internationally supervised elections and for assistance to rebuild
the political and economic institutions.
Could it work? Such
a plan would have to be presented to those nations in the Security Council
who are currently unconvinced that Zimbabwe is a problem - notably China,
possibly Russia - and also to the regional governments in Southern Africa.
They would have to be persuaded that it would be in the interest of Zimbabweans
themselves and the region to have a peaceful, law-abiding nation where
development and investment could bring returns to all players, and save
the whole region from a devastating conflict. As Zimbabwe teeters on the
brink, all members of the international community must consider very carefully
the future of southern Africa. Will they dither along until it is too
late? Or will they pull out all the stops to prevent a catastrophe?
Visit the Sokwanele
fact sheet
Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.
TOP
|
