publications

The International Response

Zimbabwe’s seven-year political crisis has divided the international community, with western and African governments taking different positions on how to address the crisis.  The European Union (EU) and other western governments such as the United States and Australia have consistently condemned the human rights abuses in Zimbabwe. In response to the human rights situation in Zimbabwe, the EU, United States, and Australia have frozen the foreign assets of senior members of the Zimbabwean government and the ruling party and imposed a travel ban preventing the officials from traveling to EU countries, the United States, and Australia. African governments have not publicly condemned the human rights violations occurring in Zimbabwe and pointed to quiet diplomacy as the way to solve the crisis.

The reasons for African governments’ reluctance to publicly condemn the abuses in Zimbabwe are many. Since Zimbabwe’s crisis began in 2000, there has been a strong perception among some African governments that western governments have paid excessive and selective attention to Zimbabwe while remaining silent on serious and similar human rights abuses taking place in other countries in the region.104 Some African countries also criticized assertions that the situation in Zimbabwe amounted to a threat to international peace and security, and have stated that the situation in Zimbabwe should not be addressed by the UN Security Council.105 In addition, the human rights abuses occurring in several African countries may be one reason why their governments do not openly condemn similar abuses taking place in Zimbabwe.  African governments have consistently argued that public condemnation of the abusive policies and acts of the government of Zimbabwe is counterproductive.

The quiet response of the African governments has brought widespread criticism from many western countries, Zimbabwean civil society groups and the opposition in Zimbabwe who argue that the silence of African governments emboldens the Zimbabwean government and encourages it to commit even further abuses.

So far, neither the “megaphone” diplomacy of western governments’ condemnation of abuses in Zimbabwe and sanctioning of the current government, nor the “quiet” diplomacy of African countries particularly within the SADC has produced any tangible solutions to dealing with the crisis in Zimbabwe or ending human rights violations.

The March 11 arrest and beating of the opposition leadership and civil society activists unsurprisingly drew widespread condemnation from western governments including the United States and the United Kingdom. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki- moon also criticized the government’s actions.106 African leaders were typically less vocal in their response although some such as President John Kufour of Ghana expressed concern at the mounting political unrest.107 A statement from the chairperson of the commission of the African Union (AU) Alpha Oumar Konare, also called for the respect for human rights in Zimbabwe.108

In view of the government of Zimbabwe’s poor relationship with western governments, their very limited ability to influence the Zimbabwean government and the reluctance of the AU to find a solution to the crisis, the onus has been placed on southern Africa’s regional leadership to address the crisis.

On March 28, member states of the SADC convened an extraordinary summit in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania to address the political crisis.109 The summit brought high hopes that a solution to the crisis would be found, and bring the ongoing human rights abuses in the country to an end. However, in the summit’s final communiqué, the SADC leaders made no mention of the arrests and beatings of opposition members and supporters, civil society activists and ordinary Zimbabweans. Instead the SADC mandated President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa to mediate talks between the ruling party and the opposition, called for an end to political sanctions against Zimbabwe from the EU, and US and Australian governments and for the British government to address the land issue.110 

Human Rights Watch believes that by refraining from mentioning the human rights abuses committed by the Zimbabwean government, the SADC missed an important opportunity to address Zimbabwe’s political crisis. Unless and until the SADC leaders start talking openly about the human rights violations being committed by the Zimbabwean government, and demand an end to them, it is highly unlikely that the current crisis can be resolved.

Despite the failure of the SADC to address the violence and appalling human rights situation in its communiqué, the mandate given to President Thabo Mbeki provides him with greater authority to deal with the crisis than in the past. The South African government has previously shown reluctance to unilaterally address the crisis in Zimbabwe. In an interview with the Financial Times on April 1, President Mbeki confirmed as much saying, “We have never had a mandate from anybody to intervene in Zimbabwe. It has entirely been a matter that we are a neighbor that we can’t stand aside when all these problems manifest themselves…. It is actually the first time that we have been mandated by anybody. This time we are acting for the region.”111 President Mbeki also indicated that senior South African government officials had met with the two secretaries general of the MDC factions.112

Other SADC governments likely to play a greater role in finding a solution to the crisis are Tanzania, Namibia and Angola as part of the Organ on Politics, Defence and Security troika of the SADC, as well as Botswana, Lesotho and Zambia, which form the executive decision-making committee of the SADC. President Kikwete of Tanzania as incumbent Chair of the SADC could also play a pivotal role in dealing with the crisis. Kikwete visited Zimbabwe to discuss the mounting political unrest soon after the March 11 incident.

The continued arrests, beatings and alleged torture of opposition members and civil society activists, and the failure by the government of Zimbabwe to curb these abuses, calls into question its commitment to ending the political crisis in the country, and create huge obstacles to a viable solution. It is important for the SADC leaders to publicly call for an immediate end to these abuses and for the perpetrators to be brought to account, so that they can effectively mediate meaningful political dialogue between the opposition and the ruling party. 

Human Rights Watch believes that meaningful engagement between the opposition and the ruling party can only take place if President Mbeki brings a robust human rights agenda to the mediation table, and calls on the Zimbabwean authorities to rebuild the institutions that ensure respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law, including an independent judiciary and a professional police force. In helping to set the stage for next year’s elections, President Mbeki should also press the Zimbabwean government to repeal all repressive legislation and to open up the democratic space for free and fair elections.




104 President Mugabe has on numerous occasions claimed that the criticism of Zimbabwe is due to racist western perceptions which stem from a breakdown in relations between the UK and the Zimbabwe governments over the issue of land reform and redistribution of white-owned farms and land to black persons.

105 On March 18, Britain urged the UN Security Council to condemn the abuses taking place in Zimbabwe but South Africa’s ambassador to the UN argued that Zimbabwe did not pose a threat to international peace and security. See “ Michelle Nichols, “Britain urges Security Council to act on Zimbabwe,” Reuters news, March 28, http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N28409986.htm (accessed April 17, 2007).  Article 24 of the UN Charter states: “In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.” Charter of the United Nations, signed at San Francisco on June 26, 1945, entry into force  October 24, 1945.

106 “Beckett condemns opposition treatment in Zimbabwe,” Foreign and Commonwealth Office Media update, March 14, 2007, http://www.fco.gov.uk (accessed March 15, 2007); “Call for Immediate Release of Zimbabwean Opposition Leaders,” Statement by Secretary Condoleeza Rice, U.S. Department of State, March 13, 2007, http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2007/mar/81670.htm (accessed March 15, 2007);  Statement by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, United Nations media release,  March 12, 2007, http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=21833&Cr=zimbabwe&Cr1 (accessed March 12, 2007).

107 “African Union ‘uncomfortable’ with situation in Zimbabwe –Kufour,” Pan African News Agency, March 15, 2007, http://www.africa-interactive.net/index.php?PageID=3670.

108 Statement on the situation in Zimbabwe from African Union Commission Chairperson Alpha Oumar Konare, March 16, 2007,  http://www.africa-union.org/root/au/index/index.htm (accessed April 14, 2007).

109 Communiqué from the 2007 Extra-Ordinary Summit of Heads of State and Government Held in Dar es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania 28th to 29th March 2007.

110 Ibid.

111 Lionel Barber and Alec Russell, “Interview with Thabo Mbeki,” Financial Times, April 3, 2007.

112 Ibid.