December 10, 2007

THE EU-AFRICA SUMMIT AND THE MUGABE FACTOR

Although Europe remains Africa's biggest trading partner, Beijing's financial ambitions were underlined recently when a Chinese bank bought 20% of Standard Bank, Africa's largest lender, for US$5.4 billion. The Chinese onslaught is of concern to European countries and the EU "nervous" approach to its relationship with Africa is quite obvious.

African leaders feel they have nothing to loose by putting pressure on Europe to treat the African continent with respect in view of its abundant raw materials. This is shown by their solidarity with Zimbabwe's leader. British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown needs to understand that Robert Mugabe remains a liberation hero to some African countries.

It was illogical, therefore, for Gordon Brown to boycott the summit saying he cannot share the same table with Mugabe because of the Zimbabwean leader's controversial human rights record. Mugabe needs to be confronted and it is at such a forum that European leaders need to raise their voices against tyranny that is being perpetrated by Robert Mugabe under the guise of Pan-Africanism.

It should be noted that political stability is vital for the success of the New African Partnership for Development (NEPAD) - the African Marshall Plan. This plan was endorsed by the leaders of the G8 countries on July 20, 2001. The Group of Eight (G8) is an international forum for the governments of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. Together, these countries represent about 65% of the world's economy. NEPAD was then finalised by the Heads of State and Government Implementation Committee (HSGIC) on 23 October 2001 in Zambia.

NEPAD's four primary objectives are to eradicate poverty, promote sustainable growth and development, integrate Africa in the world economy, and accelerate the empowerment of women. It is based on underlying principles of a commitment to good governance, democracy, human rights and conflict resolution; and the recognition that maintenance of these standards is fundamental to the creation of an environment conducive to investment and long-term economic growth. NEPAD seeks to attract increased investment, capital flows and funding, providing an African-owned framework for development as the foundation for partnership at regional and international levels.

In July 2002, the Durban AU summit supplemented NEPAD with a Declaration on Democracy, Political, Economic and Corporate Governance. According to the Declaration, states participating in NEPAD ‘believe in just, honest, transparent, accountable and participatory government and probity in public life'. Accordingly, they ‘undertake to work with renewed determination to enforce', among other things, the rule of law; the equality of all citizens before the law; individual and collective freedoms; the right to participate in free, credible and democratic political processes; and adherence to the separation of powers, including protection for the independence of the judiciary and the effectiveness of parliaments.

The Declaration on Democracy, Political, Economic and Corporate Governance also committed participating states to establish an African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) to promote adherence to and fulfilment of its commitments. The Durban summit adopted a document setting out the stages of peer review and the principles by which the APRM should operate. The APRM should increase accountability among aid recipients and offer "practical advice to countries struggling with governance shortcomings".

In view of this ambitious programme for Africa's economic development, African leaders should take a more robust stance against politically motivated violence and torture in Zimbabwe. The policy of "quiet diplomacy" as espoused by the South African President, Thabo Mbeki, has so far not yielded positive results.

Mugabe's ZANU (PF) regime has committed human rights abuses since the well-documented Gukurahundi atrocities of the 1980s where nearly 20,000 innocent civilians were massacred by the North Korean trained Fifth Brigade in Matebeleland and parts of the Midlands and then Operation Murambatsvina of 2005. The Government of Zimbabwe embarked on a programme of mass forced evictions and demolition of homes and informal livelihoods. The Operation, which was carried out in winter and against a backdrop of severe food shortages, targeted urban areas countrywide. The evictions and demolitions were carried out without due process, and during the operation police used excessive force: property was destroyed and people were beaten.

In a report released on July 22 2005, the United Nations (UN) Special Envoy on Human Settlement Issues in Zimbabwe, Mrs. Anna Tibaijuka, estimated that some 700,000 people had lost their homes, their livelihoods, or both and affected a further 2.4 million. People were forcibly put on police and government trucks and taken to rural areas. In numerous such cases the authorities simply abandoned groups of people at rural bus stops or local authority offices, without shelter, food, water or sanitation. The operation resulted in enormous internal displacement of people and, as the UN has stated, a "humanitarian crisis of immense proportions".

However, despite overwhelming evidence of humanitarian need, the Zimbabwean government has denied that a humanitarian crisis exists, refused to release a UN appeal for aid and repeatedly obstructed the humanitarian efforts of the UN and civil society groups. In October of that year, the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, publicly expressed great concern about the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe.

These broader human rights problems in Zimbabwe have been well documented, including by the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights' report of its 2002 fact-finding mission to Zimbabwe. Key recommendations contained in the African Commission's report have not been addressed by Zimbabwe. One of the Commission's key recommendations was the amendment or repeal of repressive laws, such as the Public Order and Security Act and the Private Voluntary Organisations Act. However, the Government of Zimbabwe has failed to implement these recommendations, continues to use and defend repressive legislation and has proceeded to propose and enact new legislation which violates internationally recognised human rights.

On August 30 2005, the Parliament of Zimbabwe passed a Constitutional Amendment Act (Number 17) which was subsequently signed into law by President Mugabe. The Act violates internationally recognised rights, including the right to equal protection of the law and the right to freedom of movement. Under the Constitutional Amendment the right to freedom of movement can now be limited in "the public interest" and in "the economic interests of the State". The new grounds for limiting of the right to freedom of movement do not conform to relevant international standards, such as Article 12 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.

Both internal and international observers believe that the EU-Africa Summit has a crucial role to play to address the prolonged human rights crisis in Zimbabwe. In view of the government of Zimbabwe's failure to address the recommendations contained in the report of the African Commission's 2002 fact-finding visit as well as the recommendations contained in the report of the UN Special Envoy, it is expedient to adopt a resolution condemning the human rights violations in Zimbabwe.

Poverty and issues around development aid are still dominant, but at the same time many countries in Africa are now democracies with growing economies and growing self-confidence. Thus, those African countries like Ghana, Senegal, South Africa, Mauritius and Botswana - where democracy thrives - must use their influence to uphold international standards against human rights violations that include torture and political violence. There is a critical need to promote, not only free and fair elections, but a fair and impartial judiciary and rights of political detainees in Zimbabwe.

It is expedient for SADC, the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, the United Nations Security Council, and the United Nations Commissioner on Human Rights to hold the Harare administration accountable for its obligations under international law regarding prohibition of torture and political violence.

The authorities in Harare have always dismissed reports criticising its human rights record as "lies and propaganda sponsored by Western enemies" and meant to tarnish Zimbabwe's image. However, another report released by The Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA), The Open Society Institute and The Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture says, "....State-sanctioned violence targets low-level political organizers and ordinary citizens, in addition to the prominent members of the political opposition."

The report titled "We Have Degrees in Violence: A Report on Torture and Human Rights Abuses in Zimbabwe December 2007" raises profound concerns and questions on whether an election in Zimbabwe under ZANU (PF) could possibly be free and fair.

"The victims of torture and political violence whom we spoke with and examined in Zimbabwe were not only prominent members of the political opposition but also low-level political organisers and ordinary citizens," noted Dr Allen Keller, director of the Bellevue/NYU programme for survivors of torture and co-author of the report.

The report notes that, "Doctors and lawyers assisting victims of torture and political violence described being threatened and harassed by police and other government authorities. For example, medical and legal professionals we interviewed received threatening phone calls both at their homes and at work warning them not to interfere with state sponsored violence."

The report is the result of investigations and research by a group of foreign doctors and researchers who secretly travelled to Zimbabwe to probe torture and human rights violations in the southern African nation. It is based on the detailed testimony and medical examination of 24 individuals who were subjected to torture or political violence during March and April 2007. In addition, interviews were conducted with more than 30 health professionals, human rights advocates and representatives of non-governmental organizations in Zimbabwe and South Africa.

One provision in NEPAD promotes the idea of peer review of African governments and leaders by other leaders. This is an acceptance that the domestic governance performance of one African government can properly be evaluated, and criticized, by other African governments. Peer review signals a major change on a continent where non-intervention and the rights of sovereignty have been zealously defended values. It means that African governments will now hold themselves responsible to observe and enforce rigorous standards of democratic governance.

Africa today stands at the crossroads. Behind it lies a sorry record of poverty, poor governance, and exclusion from the global economy. Ahead is the promise of a better future offered it by the NEPAD, a radical plan that offers African solutions to African problems. NEPAD is truly an immense undertaking. It touches not only on aid and trade, but even more fundamentally it relates to the ways in which Africans plan to govern themselves - and decide their future. In fact, it constitutes an unprecedented declaration of African responsibility for Africa's future. This affirmation of African leadership marks a dramatic and important departure from the old rhetoric of justifications, and the old platitudes of blame. Africans are increasingly assuming responsibility for their own destiny, acknowledging at last that no one else will construct their future for them.

At the same time, the reality is that Africa inherited a set of international economic and political relations that still, and in all probability will continue to heavily influence its future. Political relations are defined by intergovernmental links and are easy to refashion to suit the political agenda of a regime in power. However, economic relations are forged by a combination of a complex history and network of external factors such as financial and commercial links, international markets, commodity regimes, trade treaties, lines of communication, and intricate internal factors such as public and private sector arrangements, production patterns, import necessities and export opportunities.

Up to 2006, 800 Chinese companies invested US$1 billion in Africa, establishing 480 joint ventures and employing 78,000 workers from China, according to the European Commission. Beijing imports 32% of its oil from Africa, and oil-related investment in recent years amount to US$16 billion. Despite their historical ties to Africa, Europe has found it difficult to compete with China, which offers investment without strings and which finances big, subsidised infrastructure projects.

Nevertheless, the reality of Africa's economies is that they are dominated by European and US companies which hold sway across a vast swathe in nearly all key sectors. It is not helpful to try to deny this on the basis of political calculations that will not bring any meaningful economic benefits to the continent. Both China and Europe recognise the reality that Africa is a huge and diverse continent of immense wealth as well as serious poverty.

International economic relations, compared with political ties, are far less responsive to government intervention short of diktat and will almost inevitably remain at variance with the pattern of political relations and alliances of given political regimes. There is the risk of a failure in political will. A small group of prominent African leaders presume to speak for a continent of 53 countries at G8 meetings and the UN Security Council, for example.

It may also come to pass that African leaders are not able to deliver on their promises - that they find themselves incapable of carrying out their own NEPAD commitments, especially the peer review mechanism. Fortunately, African populations are no longer dormant and gullible but are vociferously demanding free and fair elections, freer public debate, and governments that are more accountable and more lawful.