I haven’t written a blog for ages and feel bad about it. There’s been a lot going on – most of which is wonderfully covered by my colleagues. However, none of us has as yet been able to push forward a UK move to lessen the awful terror that is unfolding in Zimbabwe.
Most of you will know by now the bare facts: in the previous elections the oppositon side, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), won the parliamentary election and most probably the presidential election. However, Robert Mugabe (or at least those around him) have refused to reveal the figures for the presidental vote and have forced another election due to be held on 28th June.
Meanwhile, agents of the state namely the army and the police have upped their brutality to new levels. Zimbabwe has been a virtual police state for some years now but the most recent actions are truly terrible; torture has been routine in police stations, now whole villages are being terrorised and beatings have been replaced with severing of limbs, gouging of eyes and murder. These outrageous acts committed in order to hold on to power have alerted the world – but it seems the world is powerless to intervene.
The chief player is and always has been South Africa ( and other member states in the Southern Africa region) and it is Thabo Mbeki, the SA President, who refuses, apparently, to do anything but support his former fellow liberation colleague, Robert Mugabe. Tragically it is perhaps only South Africa that can influence events in the next couple of weeks leading up to the second round of elections.
The UK Government is in a peculiarly difficult position since Mugabe’s long standing rhetoric has been to denouce its former colonial ruler. Despite this it is clear that the Foreign Office, which has an ambassador in this former Commonwealth Country, is not only hugely informed on the details of events but also contributes substantially to any mechanisms to promote civil society and humanitarian organisations. Moreover the Minister, Lord Malloch-Brown provides regular confidential briefings to those of us who have a continuing and urgent concern about the deterioration in Zimbabwe.
At the moment we have to accept that there is not much else we can do, other than try to keep this catastrophe in the public arena and to support where and whenever we can those organisations which are trying to free our friends and colleagues in detention and suffering severe torture.
This I think is a wise policy.
Baroness,
This is my first blog post here. I’m a US citizen interested in learning more about the House of Lords (just thought I’d share that so you know I’m not writing from Britain). My question is this: why is Britain so powerless to stop this obvious violation of human rights and abuses of power? Could Britain not petition the U.N. to send peacekeeping troops to the former Commonwealth Country? Perhaps it is just a function of United States foreign policy that makes me think that there is surely more that can be done other than watch and keep talking about it? I’m not trying to be rude, so please excuse me if I’ve come off that way – I merely do not understand.
Respectfully,
James
James: I’m not a Lord or anything, but might be able to help answer your question. Whilst we’d like to go and help Zimbabwe, the overwhelming feeling is that the moment British troops enter Africa, leaders of African countries will start feeling threatened by the idea of colonial history repeating itself. The only effect will be a strengthening of Mugabe’s position.
Long story short: we can’t go in there without looking like colonialists.
The key player here is South Africa. If Thabo Mbeki can be persuaded to bring pressure upon Zimbabwe, Mugabe may be forced to step down. They did turn away a shipment of arms (from China, no less) bound for Zimbabwe, that came into a South African port. So some progress is being made.
I am an Indian and as such, my country has had first hand experience with colonialism. While those who have engaged in it should feel the additional moral burden of justifying their future actions, in the case of genocide there can be no justification for inaction.
With his threats of violence, mass starvation, and expulsion of aid agencies Mugabe has definitely crossed the line from unbalanced ex-liberation fighter into Genocidal maniac.
If the Security Council of the United Nations does not act, its members should resign
Unfortunately some of the leaders in southern Africa have long relationships with Mugabe and so continue to support him. Mbekis position can only be described as active support, while desperately trying to appear to world leaders as being impartial. The recent racist violence in South Africa, which led to trains and buses being used to send Zimbabweans back to their country is also probably linked to the upcoming elections.
Anyway, regardless of what action you do or don’t take regarding Zimbabwe you are likely to be branded a racist so at least you are acting according to your own moral convictions.
James:
I believe the main problem is the UN doesn’t have a mandate to interfere in the internal affairs of a country. Of course the argument could be made that the problems in Zimbabwe are having a wider effect on stability across the region.
I think the British government have little ground to stand when they accuse others of terror. The unprovoked war of aggression in Iraq is more heinous crime than anything committed by Mugabe. I think we should stay out of other countries business and concentrate on reigning in our own violence and terror.
@ Alex:
Normally you’d be right about UN not allowed to intervene in the affairs of a sovereign state. In the case of Genocide, however, the UN Genocide convention explicitly allow (actually I believe it requires) action
As an American who as lived in Zimbabwe, and still has friends there, I can assure the other readers that the crimes committed in Zimbabwe are even worse then reported. The British should do anything it can to try and help end the fighting.
FWIW, perhaps the most the UK can do to aid in any way the Zimbabweans, is to report accurately what is being done to who, and how it is being done. And put pressure on SA President Mbeki to follow up on the implications of some parts of the ANC charter.
Give names and places. These atrocities aren’t happening to nameless non-entities – they are happening to real people.
According to the CIA world factbook Zimbabwe, the US equates to 10.4% (2006) of Zimbabwe exports, I do wonder if this underlines why the USA have not done anything , ” We are getting dirt cheap imports, lets ignore what happens in their country”.
The question we should be asking ourselves is what does England economically get out of this? Its a very morose question but that’s how our government thinks and works most of the time.
Gareth, I support you comment however in Iraq there is money to be made. Zimbabwe has more in common with the brutality that the Palestinians are receiving from Israel.
@Gareth:
You said “The unprovoked war of aggression in Iraq is more heinous crime than anything committed by Mugabe.”
I think you would have a very hard time supporting that statement. The United States and its allies probably shouldn’t have attacked, but the troops haven’t been cutting off limbs, gouging out eyes, raping women, and murdering innocent people. Quite the opposite, they have been protecting people from the radical terrorist organizations (much like Mugabe) that want to gain power by any means possible and eliminate democracy. The media portrays this war as terrible and “heinous” as you called you it, but I know better. I have several good friends who have served in the Iraq war, and they all came back saying that they were thanked by countless men, women, and children who live in Iraq. Most people there are just glad for a single night’s sleep where gunshots aren’t fired, made possible now by the presence of the troops.
@Alix
It saddens me that you can believe this.
Please don’t apologise – we heard your dulcet tones last night on ‘Today In Parliament’, so we know you aren’t ‘swinging the lead’.. !
Take care, BG
James, to some extent your entirely legitimate question is answered by the next comment from Liam. We are perceived as colonialists and to send a force would confirm that view.
The issue is also complicated by the fact that Zimbabwe, like all other countries, is a sovereign state and as such has a RIGHT not to be invaded. The question then becomes what are the criteria for intervention and International Law does rule that genocide is a legitimate (indeed even mandatory) reason for intervention.
Krishna makes the point succinctly – but again international law is pretty tough on what constitutes genocide. The massacres in Rwanda in 1994 were undoubtedly genocide and, shockingly, because this obliges countries which are party to the UN Genocide Conventions, to intervene. Many countries did not wish to send forces to this small and in a geopolitical sense relatively unimportant. The device they developed was to refer to the genocide as ‘mass killings’ to absolve themselves from sending forces to prevent the genocide.
Alex Benee hits the spot – it seems whatever governments do in the context of terrible tragedies such as Zimbabwe, you can’t win? Or are we here dealing with political expediency and not moral force?
Samuel White and Lesley Parish – you will be relieved to know that there are organisations that are meticulously recording every possible incident of inhumane treatment and torture. Doctors are secretly recording the injuries they are obliged to treat and getting the information out of the country. The day of reckoning WILL come for those who have perpetrated massive torture.
Thank you all, especially BG!