Friday August 20th 2010
Anyone who has read Eleanor Sisulu’s absorbing biography of her parents-in-law, ‘Walter and Albertina Sisulu In Our Lifetime’ must know that Eleanor is a woman whose views on human rights are worthy of close attention and respect. Her understanding of what it means to live under oppressive regimes, whether it was apartheid South Africa in the past or Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe today, qualifies Eleanor Sisulu to comment meaningfully.
Speaking this week about the failure of SADC to take action on the Zimbabwean problem, she commented that SADC might act more decisively if Zimbabweans themselves were seen to be active. Her argument is that without a visible demonstration of dissatisfaction on the ground from ordinary Zimbabweans, it is easy for SADC and South Africa in particular to claim that all is well in Zimbabwe. President Zuma made just that claim this week in his report to the SADC Summit on the Zimbabwe situation. As a result, not one word of condemnation was heard from the SADC Summit about the human rights abuses and political violence taking place in Zimbabwe. Instead, presumably in the name of preserving its own unity, the SADC Summit chose to issue a thirty-day deadline to solve the outstanding issues of the GPA and set guidelines for elections in 2011. How those elections could possibly be ‘free and fair’ without international monitors and impartial policing was not dealt with. Once again Robert Mugabe had been given a free hand to demonstrate to the world that Africa is on his side and, even more significantly, that his own population is content with the situation since there are no public demonstrations of dissatisfaction. That point is even further emphasised when the MDC declares itself ‘happy’ with the outcome of the SADC deliberations; as SW commented it is hard to see what exactly the MDC is ‘happy’ about when the outcome of the SADC talking-shop was precisely zero. The Zimbabwe problem is no nearer a solution and the violence and repression on the ground continues unabated.
Taking all these points into consideration, it seems to me that Eleanor Sisulu makes a valid argument: without an active demonstration of their displeasure the generality of the Zimbabwean populace – and that includes the MDC leadership- is content with the status quo. Without the evidence of people’s dissatisfaction, Robert Mugabe and his followers can sleep easy in their beds knowing that there is no real threat to their power base. What do they have to worry about when the police willingly connive in the violence against the brave few in the rural areas who continue to speak out against their oppressors?
This week alone there were verifiable reports from Masvingo, Chimanimani, Chipinge, Nyanga North and Murehwa of armed CIO and Militia youths taking violent action against activists for ‘being too vocal’ at Constitutional Outreach meetings. With Robert Mugabe’s assurance on Heroes Day that “No one is going to be prosecuted for politically motivated violence”, the perpetrators of violence have nothing to fear from the law.
It was an article in the UK Independent this week about Burma that brought home the reality that repressive regimes deserve the undivided attention of the international community if there is to be justice for the victims of violence. While Zimbabwe has not yet descended into the hell that is Burma, there are frightening similarities, not least the immunity that continues to protect the army, CIO and Youth Militia in Zimbabwe. The Independent’s article about Burma was titled, “The long arm of human rights law is the only thing that will frighten the generals to change.” It has taken 45 years for the UN, NGOs and human rights experts to document the pattern of systematic human rights abuses, summary executions, torture, forced labour, mass rape and the recruitment of child soldiers that have taken place in Burma. At last, Washington has given its support to a UN commission of enquiry and the hope is that those countries which have failed to condemn Burma in the past – for financial or trade reasons - may now be forced to take action against the generals who have up to now acted with complete impunity; an impunity enshrined in Burma’s constitution which guarantees immunity for any act committed by the regime in the execution of its duties.
Whether the Burmese generals will ever face trial at the ICC remains to be seen. It is just possible that fear of such a prospect may actually persuade them to modify if not completely change their behaviour. In Zimbabwe’s case Robert Mugabe still appears to have the support of South Africa, SADC and the AU. His status as a liberation hero – more than a little tarnished now - apparently entitles him to lifelong solidarity and support from Africa. As for western opposition, Africa applauds when Mugabe claims that it is no more than racist colonialism and hostility for his action against the white farmers. As Eleanor Sisulu rightly says without active and vocal opposition from the Zimbabwean people at home, SADC has no reason to discontinue its support for Robert Mugabe.
Yours in the (continuing) struggle, PH. aka Pauline Henson.
|