As African leaders left the
African Union summit meeting in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh,
it became clear that the Heads of State and Government had long abandoned
the principles that led to the very creation of the African Union.
It
shall be recalled that the 1994 Rwandan genocidal massacre marked a
catastrophic period that not only unearthed the utter failure of humanity,
but also left a scar on the conscience of Africa. Fortunately, African
rulers seemed to have learnt key lessons and indeed enacted upon some
of them. In 2001, they dismantled the 38 year old Organisation of African
Unity (OAU) which had clearly failed to bring peace and prosperity to
Africa. In its place, African leaders established a new African Union
(AU) and awarded the organisation the right to intervene in member states.
The new era that was to ‘dawn on Africa and for Africa' bound the
continent to democratic principles and further called for the adherence
to principles of good governance, transparency and human rights.
Yet, it was barely 10 years
after the 1994 Rwanda genocide that a similar catastrophe went underway
in the Darfur region of Sudan. The new crisis raised fundamental questions
relevant to the continent's peace and security. What lessons had Africa
taken on board in order to prevent itself from sliding into the dustbin
of history as a failed continent? Indeed, the AU's failure to intervene
in Darfur marked the first signs of history repeating itself with the
new organisation increasingly proving itself to be an old wine chilled
in a new bottle. And even before protection could be afforded to the
suffering population in Darfur, Robert Mugabe's hold on to power made
a mockery of the AU's democratic principles, as was clearly the case
in the Zimbabwean elections of 2000, 2005 and 2008.
It is in this context that
African rulers must uphold the pledges which they have committed themselves
to, including democratic principles, good governance and respect for
human rights. Indeed the AU Charter gives the Union the right to intervene
in order to stop war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity,
as well as in situations which amount to serious threats to legitimate
order. While there are no cases of genocide and war crimes in Zimbabwe,
the commission of crimes against humanity is largely uncontested. Furthermore,
in addition to the torture and other violence, the political and economic
situation in that country clearly amounts to serious threats to legitimate
order to the entire region.
As history will soon remind
us, the AU's success, or failure, in achieving its principles and
objectives, will be determined by African leaders' political will
and ability to uphold the pledges to which they have committed themselves
to. They must see the pressing need to liberate Zimbabweans from Mugabe.
Indeed, in a similar manner to the dictatorial regimes of Idi Amin and
others, the Zimbabwe debacle highlights the dangers of strict adherence
to the sovereignty principle. Therefore, the African regional norm of
non-intervention which previously condoned gross violations of human
rights across the continent can no longer be upheld if Africa is to
be taken seriously in a globalised twenty-first century. In this regard,
Zimbabwe's suspension from the Union and the subsequent deployment
of AU troops would go a long way in restoring peace and security to
the African continent.
First off, the AU cannot in any way interfere in Zimbabwe. Who will read that statement? Yar Adua? Did you see how he got into office? Maybe Mubarak? Hmmmm, Zenawi - who I saw at the G8 in Japan recently schmoozing with people calling Mugabe Hitler. James, crimes against humanity is a legal term, it is not something to bandy about lightly. Of course buffons like Raila and Tsvangirai will keep suggesting this to an eager and ready global media, but bad as things are in Zimbabwe, ugly as they are sure to get, hyperbole is Mugabe's best friend. When you say Mugabe and Idi Amin in the same sentence you are of course gagging to be ignored, no?
It really has not occurred to any of these eager liberators that a good number of Zimbabweans actually support the Mugabe government? That they loathe Tsvangirai? Is this going to be another of those 'they will receive us with flowers and sweets' day dreams?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Yes Please written by James , July 18, 2008
Yes, the AU is not likely to take any decisive action on Zimbabwe, I am only making the case for intervention based on the AU's own principles. And yes, the term 'crimes against humanity' is a legal term which I use intentionally. The violence by the Zimbabwe government clearly meeets the 'widespread' and/or 'systematic' criteria.
As for using Idi Amin and Mugabe in one sentence, that is intentionally done too. They are both known as ruthless dictators who oppress their own citizens, its only a matter of degree that separates the two. Yes I risk being ignored, but that is precisely the problem with Africa.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
AU, a toothless mongrel written by jaya wardene , July 18, 2008
A most welcome piece by James Muiruri. Writing about Zimbabwe these days has become such a frustrating exercise. Many people will put up their hands in despair saying :....what's the use? Nothing changes, so why bother.
Muiruri's article brings in a fresh outlook saying boldly : Zimbabwe matters and we must keep it in focus, we must continue to raise our concerns and to highlight the suffering of the people under this brutal regime long after the international media have gone back home.
Muiruri rightly states that the AU has responsibilities towards all her citizens. Sadly Mr Wanyama is also right: The AU may have high moral and democratic ideals but it lacks the will or the means to carry them through. The principles of good governance or the readiness and determination to intervene in a member state to save life and limb will remain the sweet words of lofty declarations never to be reflected on the ground. A perfect example is Darfur. The dictators and hyenas never turn against their own.
Muiruri, I must urge you and others to continue writing. I pray that you will continue to give moral support to the people of Zimbabwe in this their arduous struggle against the corrupt, incompetent and tyrannical government of Robert Mugabe and his military. Along the way you will undoubtedly come upon diverting influences suggesting that to be against Mugabe is synonymous with being a western stooge or a BBC sympathiser. You will no doubt hear numerous arguments that blame all the woes of Zimbabwe on her former colonial master. These are all red-herrings. Avoid too the sterile debate that hinges on the premise that "there are far worse dictators than Mugabe". It is of little consequence to people in Harare, Bulawayo or the Zimbabwean countryside.
Robert Mugabe was an influential leading light in Zimbabwe's liberation struggle. At independence the intellectual Mugabe ushered in a new period in African politics and for many years he was the custodian to a prestigious and well-respected country in the World arena. He oversaw a stable economy and a Zimbabwe that was proudly referred to as Southern Africa's bread basket.
We are where we are now. Zimbabwe has all but collapsed. It is crippled by rising inflation, severe food shortages and high unemployment. Three million Zimabweans have been forced to seek refuge outside their country. The so-called war veterans have turned aginst their own people killing, raping and maiming those who are opposed to Mugabe's Zanu-PF. Muiruri you must write about these things. To those who find fault with what we are saying, let us ask them to tell us clearly why Zimbabwe could possibly need another term of Mugabe rule. Given the near total collapse of Zimbabwe who could possibly re-elect the 84-year old for a sixth term?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
... written by Chiedza Mutizwa-Mangiza , July 18, 2008
James while I commend the spirit of the article, you have, in my view, failed to do the very same thing that all the media tirades on Zimbabwe have, and that is to address the Zimbabwe crisis contextually, and to address the deeper problems associated with military and general crisis prevention/alleviation. I have read article upon article, comment upon comment (not here, per se) with very superficial views rather than real working solutions.
To begin, in general terms, while I appreciate your attempt to 'hit the nail on the head', as it were, with your suggestion of military intervention, you have simply fallen short. The crux of your argument appears to be the clear lack of political will among African states to take real economic measures against Zimbabwe, what then could possibly convince the very same half-hearted African leaders to unanimously allow military intervention. This is the first, and rather obvious, irony.
More specifically, what would this military action entail? Are you aware for instance about the level to which civil society has been infiltrated by Zimbabwean intelligence? Or even the threat of the armed government trained youth militias, and the (still) armed war veterans who swear they will return to the bush before any type of military action is taken against Zimbabwe?
Just to make it absolutely clear, I do not support Mugabe, nor the belligerent Zimbabwean government, only that I am very aware of the military capabilities of the 5th brigade, for instance, who were trained by the Korean Army under Kim Sung to 'eliminate and destroy'. And this did this with great consequences in Matebeleland where over 20,000 civilians died and were buried in mass graves. While the 5th brigade officially disbanded in 1984, it is commonly acknowledged that their training and practice had been passed on to the Boda Gezi Youth Militias, who as under- educated brainwashed Zimbabwean youths supporting Mugabe, feel they have nothing to lose. It saddens me deeply but there are still people in Zimbabwe who fervently support Mugabe, be it as result of indoctrination or otherwise, they are trained and armed and prepared 'to go to war', to quote directly. To broach military intervention in Zimbabwe in not only naive, it is to invite full out war. Are you really suggesting this is what Zimbabwe needs? And are you suggesting this in lieu of diplomacy or alongside it?
There is no doubt that something must be done in a multilateral capacity to prevent further human right abuses, political alienation, and indeed to address the growing humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe. I certainly agree with you that the political will simply is inadequate. African and developed countries alike have paid and continue to pay lip service without delivering real tangible solutions and/or results. I do not suppose to have the answers, nor am I so presumptuous to believe I hold the solution to this Zimbabwe crisis. I can only say this, military intervention is the last thing Zimbabwe needs. It is NOT in the interests of the Zimbabwean people at large.
Your suggestion brings to mind the 'peace keeping troops' sent to the DRC as sanctioned by the SADC. What a joke! Zimbabwean troops themselves came back to Zimbabwe, reluctantly, after plundering and looting diamond and gold mines and leaving the country perhaps worse off, from an economic and social perspective. We have also heard of AU troops in other regions - Sudan, since you use this as a contrast. The United Nations Security Council approved a resolution in July 2007 for a joint AU-U.N. force absorbing the 7,000 AU troops in Darfur, but the force is still far from deploying its full total strength of 26,000 and we know they are fighting a losing battle even there. It is acknowledged, commonly that AU troops are seriously underfunded. Even in Somalia, where the initial plan was for a peacekeeping force of around 8,000, but so far only 2,000 Ugandan and Burundian troops have been deployed. Uganda even offered to take over the force singlehandedly, but no AU countries have come up with the money!
Zimbabweans are by nature averse to violence due to a prolonged and very very violent struggle for independence that ended a mere 26 years ago. Perhaps this is a fault on their part, but I guarantee it would be close to impossible to find in Zimbabwe a single village where ten people would be pro military intervention. It is NOT what the Zimbabwean people themselves want.
Those Zimbabweans who put forth this borderline ridiculous idea as a solution are those who are able to seek refuge at the Dutch embassy and enjoy exile and immunity in neighboring and developed countries, and supported by those such as myself who already enjoy protection and distance being in the diaspora. The vast majority of the Zimbabwean peasantry and the educated class alike who are still in Zimbabwe, unfortunately to do not possess this privilege.
We are now clearly in an era where we have moved past reactionary policies James, rather, opting for the much more effective use of preventive diplomacy to avoid violence. We condemned the attempted Gambian coup d'etat resoundingly by foreign parties because unfortunately, sovereignty remains one of the tenets upon which the AU itself is built. I agree with you that this is a problem that needs to be addressed by Africans at large, but African leaders are still simply not willing. If one considers the African Peer Review Mechanism and instrument created to ensure good governance practice in Africa and that Kenya was humble and wise enough to accede to, the fact remains that is ELECTIVE. This is the nature of African regional integration and it moral aspirations - noble, but lofty.
To compare Zimbabwe to Rwanda is fruitless, redundant even, by virtue of the fact that it was clear and easy to prove the case of genocide, which in itself warrants to use of force. The current violence in Zimbabwe is not ethnic, nor is it tribal I'm afraid. Perhaps Zimbabweans may have had more luck if it were. Human rights violations however cannot suffice alone in this effort. As as for their being a threat to real order, this is much too ambiguous a statement to allow for intervention. Any half baked lawyer, such as myself, will give you 10 reasons to disqualify the idea that there is no legitimate order in Zimbabwe - however untrue that might be. Even legally, there is not much elbow room for your argument I fear.
Suspension from the AU is perhaps the more considered of your approaches. That being said, Zimbabwean leaders are much too arrogant, and draw too much unwarranted 'undercover' sympathy from their African counterparts for that to really happen and have any real effect.
Something must be done, yes James. But I say no, no, no to military intervention James - resoundingly.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
... written by Chiedza Mutizwa-Mangiza , July 18, 2008
Jaya, like you, I appreciate the media coverage on Zimbabwe, and being an angry, young Zimbabwean who feels robbed of the opportunity to live and work there, I also believe that it is highly necessary. Only, I would vote for a more detailed, contextual approach, one that is solution based and not consisting of the same old stone-throwing rhetoric which I have read from various news outlets, ad nauseum. While the duty of the journalist is to report the facts, with respect, my view is that media platforms such as this should provoke less elemental superficial quotations about the deplorable state of Zimbabwe economy, politics and social welfare, and lean towards deeper analysis.
I do fully support the comments by jaya wardene. I am also glad that the article has generated into a lively debate. For a start, I wonder if Chiedza read my post in detail. I am also not sure whether she understood the point that was being made. But just to make it clear, I was making a case for intervention based on the African Union's own principles and at this point, I would refer you to the Constitutive Act of the AU.Even Zimbabwe is itself a signatory to the African Charter and consented to the provisions regarding the right to intervene. To then argue against it in clear circumstances such as those in Zimbabwe is surprising.
The matter is simple and straight forward, the AU has the right to intervene in a member state where there are human rights violations and a threat to legitimate order. So the AU should intervene, but it has not. The majority of the commentators on this forum agree that it is yet another case of failure by African leadership. Even Chiedza agrees on this.
However, while I appreciate your valuable contribution Chi, it is hardly surprising that we disagree, particularly given that her comments are not really a response to my note but rather a summary of her informed assessment of the subject matter.
1. Chiedza, I talked of intervention which you interpreted as meaning military intervention in order to disagree with the notion.Once again, I refer you to the note.But I am glad you agree that the AU should suspend Zimbabwe until it adheres to codes of good governance.
2. I did not compare Zimbabwe to Rwanda as Chiedza suggests, although the two are a matter of degree and indeed, Rwanda should act as a reminder of the need to take decisive action in the face of catastrophe.
3. Let me emphasise that the Zimbabwean problem is not only an internal matter. It is an African problem and we are duty bound to speak up against oppresive regimes. The OAU assisted Zimbabwe to attain her independence, the AU must NOW defend and protect Zimbabweans from Mugabe's ruthless regime. That was my point.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
On a point of information..... written by Chiedza M-M , July 20, 2008
James, while the title of your original note ('Zimbabwe, the AU and the Case for Intervention') and its introduction were ambiguous, it became clear by the time I finished reading it that you are indeed making a case for military intervention in Zimbabwe. It was the bold, unequivocal statement that closed the note, stating that (I quote) 'suspension from the Union and the SUBSEQUENT DEPLOYMENT OF AU TROOPS would go a long way in restoring peace and security to the African continent' that made your position on the neccesity for 'military' intervention evident.
While your point is that Zimbabwe needs defence against Mugabe's regime, it is the method you suggest that requires reflection. We clearly agree on the inability of the AU to act, in spite of the assertions of the AU constitution. The fact remains that the unique circumstances of Zimbabwe create serious complications in justfying military intevention and its workability. While the Union's principles are to be adhered by all members in order for it to have any legitimacy as a body, the blanket approach has no place in African politics. It is a)unworkable, b) unrealistic and c)untenable. Each country's history and contemporary disposition is unique. These considerations must be taken to into account before any type of intervention is considered in ANY African country. As such, the non intervention in Rwanda vis-a-vis the 1994 genocide cannot really be mentioned with non intervention in Zimbabwe in the same breath. They are incomparable and to state that the difference is a matter of degree is indeed to make a comparison. When peace and security are at stake, there can be no room for general assesments, nor naivete, nor underestimation. The point cannot be to punish Mugabe and his regime at the expense of Zimbabwean civilians, but to ensure the most peaceful transition of power is made.
I cannot see how, in light of the facts I outlined in my previous comment, the case for military intervention can have any weight. Should it be the case that you have not reconsidered your view, I would like to hear exactly how military intervention would work in the light of the facts specific to Zimbabwe mentioned above.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
... written by mkosakabila , July 21, 2008
Thanks James, I rather find your forays into this topic quite interesting. Did you ever get to hear of Operation Nifty Package of the late 80s, something to do with Manuel Noriega? Just a wild thought! Not to sidetrack from my initial thought: Like Rev. Jesse Jackson I'd like a nut squeezed. Unlike Rev. Jackson, I'd like for the nut to be the AUs and the allegation would not be talking down to some folks but rather not listening to them. Meanhwile, it would be quite nice to hear other thoughts on 'solutions' besides the rather sterile critiques of Muritu's article.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Direction written by jaya wardene , July 21, 2008
Thank you Chiedza for your valuable contributions. I dare say that yours are by far the most instructive comments on this thread coming as they do from a Zimbabwean and a patriot.
You raise some crucial points an important one being your plea that we should not make the mistake of allowing a military invasion of your country. Ditto that. Military adventures acquire a life of their own once they are kicked off. Zimbabwe must not go the way of the DRC or indeed Iraq. It is far better to follow a path of negotiation.
It comes as no surprise to me that you are unimpressed by the ongoing coverage which is nothing more than 'stone-throwing'. A competition of who can shout loudest, totally devoid of answers to the pressing questions that we have before us. We are increasingly frustrated that the all-powerful government is able to counter any moves that the opposition may have. We would welcome more input from Zimbabweans from across the political spectrum as well as from people who are aware of the politics of Zimbabwe.
It is no exaggeration to state here that as much as the west likes to sing to us, Zimbabwe's problems will never be solved by Mr Thabo Mbeki turning off a power socket. Only the people of Zimbabwe will be able to find solutions to the economic and political problems of today.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
... written by Savco , July 22, 2008
Ndeipi Chiedza? I am impressed by your analysis. I tried to suggest the same on this website a few months ago and received insults for my efforts. I am in deed glad that ZANU-PF and the MDCs have agreed to have dialogue. It's also noteworthy that the dialogue would address issues such as the land question, external interference, sanctions, rule of law, prevention of violence, media, state organs etc. I hope they can find some middle ground as a winner takes all approach that some (on both sides) are suggesting will just plunge Zim further into chaos.
However, I always wonder how come Britain's involvement in this whole mess is never discussed in the main stream media. These are historical facts and they need to be out in the open. I believe in keeping things fair and balanced. Why the blackout?
Jaya, u said:
You will no doubt hear numerous arguments that blame all the woes of Zimbabwe on her former colonial master. These are all red-herrings.
I beg to differ, they are not all red-herrings. Some may be diversionary but some are real grievances that were like a ticking time bomb. For instance Kenya's land problem pales in comparison to Zimbabwe's (and in deed most of southern Africa) land problem.
To finish it off I'd like to quote Mandela since it was his birthday a few days ago. He says
Know your enemy and his favorite sport
In the case of the Brits this sport is called diplomacy. Trust me it's not that they love Zimbabweans so much.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
... written by James , July 23, 2008
Chiedza,
Once again, I urge you to read my article carefully and we can debate about its contents. At the meoment, I am finding it difficult to engage for the following reasons.
I talked of intervention and NOT military intervention. The fact that I talked about deployment of troops does not mean it has to be military. At this point I refer you to the African Union Mission in Sudan where the AU has deployed troops. Indeed, the troops there have not intervened and are there with the consent of the Sudanese government. Now without clearly appreciating this point, I am afraid I am unable to engage with you in a constructive manner. Nevertheless I refer you to Ian Brownlie and Hedly Bull on the meaning of intervention.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
... written by Chi M-M , July 25, 2008
Disengage if you will Mr Muiruri, that would not necessarily be a loss! The issue of Zimbabwe is much greater than you and I and our difference of opinion, in particular, your under informed view does not essentially add value to the debate at large.
It is I in fact who was finding your reasoning difficult to understand, and had grown weary of your refusal to acknowledge that you did indeed propose military intervention, but I now see that there is a clear confusion on your part about what military intervention is, which accounts for your backtracking and mincing of words.
You choose to call military intervention ‘the deployment of troops’ and choose to believe it is an altogether separate form of conflict alleviation. Surely peacekeeping, peace enforcement, collective martial security, even ‘the deployment of troops’ require the resence of foreign military personnel and are as such all alternative terms for what is essentially military intervention - the intervention by a military force - the only thing that differentiates them is the rules of engagement. This is why I have asked you severally to explain the nature of this military intervention that you are so akin to calling ‘the deployment of troops’ and that you propose as a possible solution to Zimbabwe‘s troubles.
Even on the most basic level, you must see that when you call it a peacekeeping mission/deployment of troops rather than military intervention, people are apt to look at it more positively because language affects the way in which we perceive conditions but there is no fooling anybody with an ounce of wit with these language games, it is still Military Intervention. Even when the precedent for military intervention is far from encouraging you go on to site the presence of AU troops in Sudan, but what does their presence actually achieve? Your example is meaningless and unhelpful at best!
I appreciate your point James on the ‘meaning of intervention’ Bull‘s definition requires that intervention be non consensual, but if you are basing this argument on a 20 year old definition of intervention provided by Bull you are more lost than I thought. I will remind you his text ‘Intervention in World Politics’ (a 1985 publication) presents a very outdated modality of intervention, 20 years on ideas of intervention have changed. I will refer you to a much more contemporary political theorist, Alex de Waal, who analyses intervention in the African context.
I sense Mr. Muiruri, that these assertions of yours are based on very simplistic and general ideas about conflict alleviation - gut feelings, if you will. Zimbabwe is a complicated country, I cannot stress this enough. While the AU still needs to do more to provide a coherent peace and security architecture, we as responsible African ‘thinkers’ and future movers and shakers, should take greater care to do our homework and really learn and appreciate all factors involved, with regard to Zimbabwe and debate comprehensive solutions that are actually enforceable.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
It really has not occurred to any of these eager liberators that a good number of Zimbabweans actually support the Mugabe government? That they loathe Tsvangirai? Is this going to be another of those 'they will receive us with flowers and sweets' day dreams?