|
|
|
|
|
The Responsibility to Protect
For almost all of the 20th Century, a basic dictum of international
diplomacy was 'non interference in the internal affairs of other
States'.
Even today, Mugabe angrily denounces all attempts to even discuss the
crisis
in Zimbabwe at international gatherings as 'interference in our
internal
affairs.' At the SADC summit last month he stormed out of that
gathering and
flew home 24 hours early when leaders insisted that the Zimbabwe
situation
be discussed in a closed session.
Today in Darfur the international community faces a fresh challenge -
the
Sudanese government is flatly refusing to allow more effective UN
surveillance of the situation in Darfur and is continuing to try to
subjugate the people of Darfur by means of armed force using both State
resources and informal armed forces. The international media is still
allowed into the Sudan and so we can see for ourselves the effects of
this
situation on the ordinary men and women of the western region of Sudan.
We
can see the refugee camps, the fresh graves; hear the stories of those
whose
lives and rights are being abused by a dictatorial Islamic regime.
In recent times the issue of non-interference in the internal affairs
of
sovereign States has come under scrutiny. People are questioning the
dictate
and saying that where a government is threatening the fundamental human
and
political rights of its people, the international community has the
responsibility to act in solidarity with the poor and defenseless. So
today
we are seeing really tough talk at the UN about Darfur and we are also
seeing more and more prominent people from all walks of life saying
that the
international community has the responsibility to interfere.
In southern Africa we have been there as well - both the Rhodesian and
South
African governments used the dictate to argue that outsiders had no
right to
interfere. But eventually, the gravity of the crisis and the threat to
the
stability of the region persuaded those with power to take action. In
both
cases the international community appointed a 'point man' to take
responsibility for coordinating and directing the resolution of the
crisis.
In both cases they were successful. Henry Kissenger was the point man
on
Rhodesia and Margaret Thatcher the point 'man' for South Africa.
What happened after their intervention was critical, but it was their
(often
unsung) actions that actually broke the logjam and made all else
possible.
If you had told me that South Africa would go through the process that
led
to the 1994 elections without serious violence and upheaval - I would
have
said you were nuts. But it happened and the key element was a carefully
planned and executed political action backed by the threat of the use
of
power. Such threats are only credible when they are real and can be
backed
up by action if needed.
Today it is 30 years since Henry Kissenger flew into South Africa and
held
talks with a team of Ministers led by Ian Smith at Union Buildings in
Pretoria. He came with a plan agreed by key African leaders and the
backing
of the global community at the time. He arrived when Rhodesia was in
the
throes of an armed struggle with the armies of Zanla and Zipra who were
demanding one-man one vote (democracy). 150 000 men were under arms and
the
ordinary population of the country was being brutalized by all sides.
The
economy was in dire straights and there was no end in sight for the
conflict. There were fears the conflict might spread into South Africa
itself. Smith was totally in charge and even the South Africans were
wary of
taking him on politically.
Kissenger persuaded the South Africans that there was no future for
Rhodesia
under Smith. That backing the Smith government was not only a waste of
South
African resources but was having a negative impact on the survival and
prosperity of South Africa itself. He was well prepared and the US had
used
its considerable intelligence capacity to ensure that he could argue
this
case with some force and conviction.
Kissenger sympathized with Smith - recognised his courage and
determination
and even his love of the country he led. But he also understood that he
was
never going to win and that if the final defeat came any way other than
through negotiation, it would be a disaster. He presented his plan to
the
Rhodesian team and after they had debated it amongst themselves for a
while,
they rejected it. At that point the President of South Africa came in
and
said to the Rhodesian delegation that if they walked out of that room
without an agreement, he would cut off their essential supplies and all
future support would cease. Smith went on to call it the 'Great
Betrayal'
but in fact what those two foreign leaders did that day was to rescue
the
country from itself and open the way to a new beginning.
The Rhodesians flew home and Smith went on television 30 years ago on
the
23rd September 1976 to say they had agreed to a transition to real
democracy. It took 3 more years but when Zimbabwe was born on the 18th
April
1980, Henry Kissenger was, in a very real sense, its father.
Today the international media are banned from Zimbabwe and unless
someone
has the courage and the equipment to film something clandestinely - the
world cannot see what is happening here. That does not excuse leaders.
They
should not require pictures to make decisions on situations like Darfur
and
Zimbabwe. Unfortunately very often that is the case - but it should not
be
so. They know what is happening - they have other resources, reports,
intelligence and their diplomats.
The crisis in Darfur is serious, but it does not compare to the
situation in
Zimbabwe where a criminal class is in power, is terrified of its past
and is
fighting to stay in control at any cost. The consequences are there for
all
to see - GDP down by half, exports by two thirds, life expectancy by
half in
a decade, elections a sham, the media totally controlled and all forms
of
opposition ruthlessly put down by armed force and violence. We are a
threat
to regional stability and prosperity; our economic and political
refugees
are drowning the social and economic systems of our neighbors. Our
leadership is unrepentant - even of genocide and the mass destruction
of
homes and livelihoods. They are guilty of the theft of national assets
and
income on a scale that has not been seen in recent years in the rest of
the
world.
Like Burma and North Korea they have built up a military State that is
able
and willing to maintain itself on what remains and can continue to do
so
indefinitely. The only recourse of its beleaguered and embattled
population
is flight or a form of national 'house arrest'.
The Zimbabwe situation is one that is wide open to international
intervention. The failure by African leaders, the South African
leadership
in particular, demands that the international community itself takes a
fresh
look at what is going on and what can be done to get things back on
track.
Unlike Darfur, Iraq, Burma and North Korea - Zimbabwe is vulnerable to
international action. It is a small country with limited resources -
none of
them really strategic, it is land locked and its neighbors hold the key
to
the survival of the regime.
This is a problem that can be fixed. For the sake of its people, the
international community has an obligation to interfere. It does not
require
military intervention of any sort, just coordinated and concerted
action by
the leaders of democracies in Africa and abroad.
Eddie Cross
Bulawayo, 2nd October 2006
|