Zimbabwe: Solidarity
in a Time of Need
Clare Doube
Manager - Civil Society Watch Programme (CIVICUS)
It is a tragic
irony that the principles of democracy, human rights and the rule
of law that all Commonwealth countries must follow are called
the Harare Commonwealth Principles. While these principles were
largely respected by the host government when they were agreed
to at the 1991 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Zimbabwe's
capital; sadly, that is no longer the case.
Following its
suspension and then withdrawal in 2003, Zimbabwe may no longer
be a member of the Commonwealth but the plight of the country
and its people remains in the hearts of many in the association
as well as in the region and around the world.
It is for this
reason that in November 2006 CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen
Participation facilitated an African Solidarity Mission to Zimbabwe,
in collaboration with the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition. CIVICUS,
a Johannesburg-based international alliance dedicated to strengthening
civil society and citizen participation throughout the world,
runs a number of programmes, including Civil Society Watch (CSW)
which organised this mission. In line with CSW's focus on responding
to situations where citizen action and civil society rights and
freedoms are being threatened, the November mission to Zimbabwe
focused on the challenges faced by civil society in Zimbabwe and
the obstacles they must overcome in order to do their work.
The Mission brought
together senior and highly respected representatives from a diverse
range of civil society groups from across Africa. The members
of the team were: Don Mattera, South African writer and community
activist; Don Deya, the Executive Director of the East African
Law Society based in Tanzania; Luckson Chipare, former Regional
Director of Media Institute of South Africa based in Namibia;
John Kapito, a Commissioner at the Malawian Human Rights Commission;
Hannah Forster, Executive Director of the African Centre for Democracy
and Human Rights Studies in the Gambia; Jeremias Langa, News Director
of SOICO, the only independent broadcaster in Mozambique; and
Fatoumata Toure, of the Global Pan African Movement, based in
Kampala.
Travelling to
Harare and Bulawayo from 27 November to 1 December, the team met
with representatives of civil society including those from non-governmental
organisations, women, students, business, trade unions and faith-based
groups, as well as individuals in government and opposition parties.
This provided an opportunity for regional civil society to offer
solidarity to Zimbabwean civil society during the country's humanitarian
and human rights crisis. The mission also sought to discuss with
various stakeholders ways and means in which civil society can
effectively react to the repressive environment, and practical
assistance that can be provided from abroad, particularly from
the countries represented on the mission.
The existence
of a strong and vibrant civil society, alongside a robust state
with a prevalent rule of law, are key factors for the stability
and health of a country and underpin its ability to avoid and
effectively respond to crises. Tragically, the manner in which
the Zimbabwean government has recently exercised power has compromised
the functioning of its civil society. The Zimbabwean legislative
architecture comprising the Access to Information and Protection
of Privacy Act (AIPPA), Public Order and Security Act (POSA),
Constitutional Amendment No. 17, and the Criminal Law (Codification
and Reform) Act - among others - has severely narrowed space for
civil society to exist and engage. The pending NGO Bill threatens
to further hamper the legitimate work of civil society.
Tragically, the
narrow legal framework is not the only limitation placed on civil
society organisations that were raised with the African Solidarity
Mission. Others included attacks on human rights defenders and
other activists, with both physical violence and propaganda used
to undermine the individuals and their work; and control of communications
and resource flow. It was noted by the team that despite these
and other considerable challenges, ongoing intimidation and threats,
there are countless organisations and individuals continuing to
courageously work on improving the situation in Zimbabwe.
The Mission observed
how it is not just those who criticise the government who are
under attack, but that everyday life is a struggle for many. As
one person explained in a public meeting in a high-density suburb
of Harare, “There is no respect for human rights. There
are very high levels of corruption, very low levels of service
delivery while prices of these same services are increased considerably
and no accountability from those in authority”. The Mission
observed that life was particularly tough for those affected by
Operation Murambatsvina. While being denied entry to some Operation
sites, elsewhere the Mission members met with informal settlers
who indicated that their shacks, made out of motor vehicle scrap
metal and black plastic sheets, had been destroyed more than five
times, but they cannot leave as they have nowhere else to go.
Following their
visit the African Solidarity Mission made the following recommendations,
that the Government of Zimbabwe should:
One of the main
aims of the Mission was to also consider action that could be
taken across the region to improve the situation in Zimbabwe.
Therefore, in their communiqué, the team urged “international
partners to support the democratic reform of governance institutions
in Zimbabwe” and committed themselves as well as further
urging “regional governments and civil society institutions,
to continue to offer practical solidarity and tangible assistance
to the government and people of Zimbabwe”.
The Commonwealth countries
of Africa have an opportunity and a responsibility to be at the
forefront of this assistance. The struggles against colonialism
that they all have faced give a shared understanding of the urgent
need for solidarity in shaking off the shackles of a dictatorial
regime. Zimbabwe has previously offered support to its neighbours
in times of need most notably during the anti-apartheid struggle
in South Africa and now is the time for all of us to reciprocate
and offer tangible support to our brothers and sisters in Zimbabwe,
fighting once again for democracy and human rights to be a reality
in their country.
For more information
on CIVICUS' Civil Society Watch programme, mission or for a copy
of the mission's report, visit www.civicus.org and www.civilsocietywatch.org
or email: clare.doube@civicus.org
Voting
Patterns of Commonwealth Nations in UN
R. Iniyan Ilango, Consultant,
CHRI
If actions speak louder than words, human rights protection in the 53 countries of the Commonwealth is treading on thin ice. An analysis of voting patterns at the UN’s Third Committee done by the Washington based Democracy Coalition Project shows big gaps between the Commonwealth’s rhetoric and reality. The Democracy Coalition Project analysed six recent resolutions connected to human rights and democracy. Five are related to human rights violations in Iran, North Korea, Myanmar, Belarus and Uzbekistan. The sixth resolution sought a blanket ban on “preventing politically motivated and biased country specific resolutions and confrontational approaches”.
The Third Committee focuses on human rights issues and on the reports of the “special procedures of the newly established human rights council.” Among its 192 members are members of the Commonwealth who have a special mandate to promote and protect human rights because 13 sit on the Human Rights Council, and the nine sit on the Commonwealth’s own watchdog mechanism - in the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG). These members have dual mandates to protect human rights. Their voting record however did little to bolster faith that this responsibility weighed heavily on them.
Of those on the Human Rights Council, Canada and the UK opposed this dilution of human rights accountability. However, India, Malaysia, Pakistan South Africa and Sri Lanka voted to weaken human rights accountability. Bangladesh, Ghana, Mauritius and Nigeria abstained, while Cameroon and Zambia were absent. Of the CMAG members only Canada, Malta and the UK voted against any dilution of this process while Lesotho, Malaysia, St Lucia and Sri Lanka voted to get rid of country specific criticisms. Papua New Guinea and the United Republic of Tanzania abstained.
Standards should matter, or they have no meaning. Protection of human rights is one of the core aspects of the Harare Declaration which proclaims the Commonwealth’s fundamental political values. Member states who persistently violate its standards face suspension or expulsion. Suspect states are kept on a CMAG watch list. Pakistan and Nigeria have both had spells of suspension. UN mechanisms for examining human rights records are stronger than those of the Commonwealth, but few consequences flow even when reports are grim. At best, violating governments get rapped on the knuckles when they are specifically named for really bad behaviour.
Such behaviour puts in doubt whether there is indeed any Commonwealth standard on human rights and if there is, should there not be mechanisms that insist it be demonstrated globally?
If
the guardians of state accountability sleep on their watch
it does not bode well for the UN either. The present voting
also betrays the promise that “members elected to the Council
shall uphold the highest standards in the promotion and
protection of human rights” and lends validity to fears
that like its predecessor, the new Council may fail to keep
countries that are insensitive to human rights out of its
membership. At the UN, human rights is much the hand maiden
of foreign policy imperatives. Resolution and voting patterns
are guided by more realpolitik concerns and bloc alliances
than by any genuine commitment to an international gold
standard on human rights. The Commonwealth members’ voting
records just lends a few more nails to the coffin of the
burgeoning hope that the new Human Rights Council would
be able to hold violating countries effectively to account
for inflicting pain and suffering on their peoples. Perhaps
the next round will nail it down. (Source : Published
in the Jamaica Observer and other papers in the Commonwealth
in December ’06 & January ‘07)
|