Zimbabwe: It’s just not cricket

MANOJ MITTA

WHEN the Europeon Union first tried in 2002 to bring a resolution against Zimbabwe, it was scuttled by a procedural no-action motion with a margin of just two votes. Following the re-induction of the United States in the CHR, there is a renewed effort this year to make amends for the debacle in the previous session. The first salvo was fired last week by Australia as it engaged in acrimonious exchanges with Zimbabwe in the course of the prolonged debate under Item 9 of the Agenda. On its part, Zimbabwe has come up with a five-page aide memoire urging member states to vote in favour of the no-action motion it again proposes to initiate on the EU's draft resolution.

What has added to the build-up to the voting is the US State Department's robust attack on Zimbabwe on 31 March 2003 in its annual country reports on human rights practices. In fact, the US has upped the ante by clubbing Zimbabwe with  rogue states such as Iraq and North Korea. It accused Zimbabwe's security forces of extrajudicial executions of government opponents. Though the US report does not give statistics of how many extrajudicial executions had taken place, it contains details of several cases of people who were either abducted, tortured or murdered allegedly by state forces, especially the secretive Central Intelligence Organisation.

These recent developments have come on top of the economic sanctions already imposed upon Zimbabwe by the European Union and the ban it clamped upon President Robert Mugabe and other leaders of his regime from travelling to any of its countries. Zimbabwe has also been suspended from the Commonwealth on charges of violating democratic norms during its 2002 presidential election, which was widely reported to have been marred by violence and intimidation. The Commonwealth took action against Zimbabwe on the decision taken by a three-member team, significantly comprising the leaders Australia, South Africa and Nigeria.

The composition of the team that suspended Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth is significant because the three countries are ranged on opposite sides in the CHR. While Australia has been all through an aggressive proponent of the EU's draft resolution, Nigeria and South Africa, despite their involvement in the suspension decision, very much voted in favour of Zimbabwe's no-action motion in the 58th session of the CHR. 

Thus, the very countries that transcended extraneous considerations on the Commonwealth platform seem to have succumbed to African solidarity at the CHR. The Nigerian delegation, which took the floor on behalf of the African group, sought to justify its opposition to the resolution by calling it an example of the selective 'naming and shaming' that goes on in the CHR.

Much to Mugabe's luck, the Nigerian position found takers in many countries - not only in the African group but also in the Asian group and  Russia. While the rest of the groups voted against the no-action motion, Zimbabwe escaped by the skin of its teeth because of  the abstention by two Latin American countries, Brazil and Venezuela, and one African country, Cameroon. 

The balance is very precariously poised and it may tilt on either side when the Zimbabwe issue is put to vote again in the current session. The western group has been speaking to many nations in Africa and Asia, requesting them to look beyond the rhetoric unleashed by Mugabe regarding land reform and to look at the Commonwealth Expert Group's report regarding the human rights situation. The fact that the majority of countries in the Commonwealth are non-Western invalidates Mugabe's use of racial rhetoric to sidestep human rights issues. By drawing states' attention to the report of the Commonwealth Expert Group, the Western Group hopes that member states will be able to perceive the reality of the situation and vote accordingly.

As far as the substance of the resolution is concerned, it derives strength from the fact that the Mugabe administration has done little to address the human rights situation despite the respite given to it last year. Only last month, the security forces in Zimbabwe are alleged to have arrested and beaten hundreds of people who participated in a strike organised by the opposition party, Movement for Democratic Change. The Government has been frequently in the news for the manner in which it has reportedly cracked down on political opponents, human rights defenders and journalists, while enforcing draconian laws called the Public Order and Security Act and Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Worse, it is also reported to have been vindictive with inconvenient judges, to the point of even arresting them on trumped up charges.

It is apparent that land reforms, or lack thereof, have been a factor in the escalating human rights crisis in Zimbabwe. But the western countries have been wary of focusing on the land reforms issue in the CHR, lest they play into the hands of Mugabe who has projected it as a white vs black dispute. Although the resolution on Zimbabwe that was drafted by the EU at the 58th CHR noted "the importance of fair, just and sustainable land reform" in a preambular paragraph, it failed to recommend any concrete measures to address the issue of land reform in the operative paragraphs. Mugabe's strategy throughout the two-year crisis has been to blame the country's collapsing economy and escalating law and order problem on a sinister alliance of Britiain, white farmers and assorted 'traitors' who are conspiring to reverse the country's independence and prevent his tackling of injustices of Zimbabwe's highly unequal land holding. 

Zimbabwe's justice minister, Patrick Chinamasa, echoed this strategy when he dismissed the recent US report on his country's human rights violations as an attempt by Washington to wield the human rights card on behalf of British Prime Minister Tony Blair. 'Everybody knows that the US is writing these baseless reports about Zimbabwe in a bid to scare us to retreat from our land reform programme,' Chinamasa said to the press in Harare. 'It is payback time to Blair for the support he has given the US in its war against Iraq.'

Many of the developing countries that have supported Zimbabwe in the CHR give credence to Mugabe's claim of being a victim of an Anglo-Saxon conspiracy to prevent him from divesting white farmers of their vast holdings. Land reforms have been fraught with controversies everywhere. But Zimbabwe alone has been highlighted in this controversy because South Africa has not so far embarked on such an ambitious land reforms programme. Which is why the Nigerian delegation asserted last year in the CHR that the land reforms programme, which underlies the various problems in Zimbabwe, was a political issue and not one of human rights violations.

While there can be no denial of the political aspect of the land reforms programme, Mugabe cannot be allowed use it as a cover to unleash a reign of terror in the way he did against white minorities (who constitute less than one per cent of  Zimbabwe's population) and those blacks who did not agree with him.

Indeed, the political aspect may be inextricably linked to the land reforms issue but that is no valid argument for suggesting that the CHR should condone the growing incidence of human rights violations in Zimbabwe. The cause of the problem does not detract from its adverse effect on human rights. If the CHR is again swayed by political arguments on the Zimbabwe, it will set a dangerous precedent for other developing countries.