Peter Tatchell says President Mugabe has already reneged on his deal with Jack Straw. Why did the British Foreign Secretary agree to help save the Zimbabwean leader’s crumbling regime?
Much to everyone’s surprise, in September 2001 the British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, backed by his Commonwealth colleagues, brokered a deal with the government of President Robert Mugabe. Under this deal, signed in the Nigerian city of Abuja, Britain and other western countries agreed to fund land reform in Zimbabwe. In exchange, Mugabe promised the restoration of democracy, and respect for the rule of law and human rights.
But the Zimbabwean President very quickly failed to keep his side of the bargain. Within a month of the agreement, there were 21 new farm seizures, and continuing violence and intimidation halted work on a further 900 farms. Members of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change suffered on-going beatings and torture by supporters of Mugabe’s ruling ZANU-PF party.
The postponement of the of the Commonwealth summit until early 2002 means that the threat of sanctions is deferred and Mugabe is off the hook. His crumblimg regime has been given a life-line by the Abuja deal.
Despite Mugabe’s long history of broken pledges, Jack Straw agreed that Britain will donate £36 million to finance the buy-out of white-owned farms. Other western countries will offer a further £30million-plus. Through this funding, hundreds of thousands of impoverished black Zimbabweans will receive plots of land. A good thing too. It cannot be right that 70 per cent of the best land is owned by the white minority, who comprise less than 0.5 per cent of the population.
There is, however, a grave danger that the British-sponsored land redistribution programme will enable Mugabe to parade himself as a nationalist hero and a saviour of the landless poor. His popularity will soar.
By agreeing this deal, Britain and other donor countries are, in effect, funding Mugabe’s re-election campaign. In the run-up to the 2002 presidential poll, he’ll barnstorm the country, handing out promises of land titles. On a wave of popular acclaim from the black rural population, he may well snatch victory.
The wily dictator of Zimbabwe has set a trap, and Britain and the rest of the Commonwealth has walked straight into it. Jack Straw might like to present the land deal as paving the way for a return to the rule of law, but is it more likely to prove the means by which Mugabe hangs on to power.
The Abuja deal to resolve the crisis in Zimbabwe hinges on whether Mugabe can be trusted to honour his side of the agreement. His on-going post-deal tyrannies suggest not. This is nothing new. Mugabe has been abusing democracy and human rights for 20 years. Why did the British government ever entertain the idea that he is capable of suddenly changing his dictatorial ways?
Mugabe’s past record of broken promises is alarming. Three years ago, he made a similar agreement with international donors, whereby they would fund land reform in exchange for his adherence to the rule of law. But Mugabe reneged on the deal, and soon afterwards he gave the go ahead for the farm occupations.
The same thing happened with his pledge of free and fair elections in 2000. The reality was massive electoral intimidation and fraud, which robbed the democratic opposition of victory.
Why is the British government willing to trust a tyrant who has proven many times in the past that he cannot be trusted? Every previous attempt to negotiate with the Zimbabwe regime has resulted in human rights abuses getting worse, not better. What makes Jack Straw think it will be any different this time?
Repression is the only way Mugabe can stay in power. His over-riding ambition is to cling to office, at all costs. He won’t do anything that might jeopardise his rule. That is why, until the Abuja deal, Mugabe rejected all attempts to negotiate a settlement to the Zimbabwe crisis. Negotiation involves compromise and any concession on democracy that might allow the opposition to win the forthcoming presidential poll is anathema.
Why, then, did Mugabe do an apparent volte-face and agree to the Abuja deal? Cynics saw it as a tactical ploy to avoid the threat of sanctions by neighbouring African states, the European Union and the Commonwealth. They were right.
Zimbabwe signed up to the Abuja agreement just days before southern African leaders were due in Harare to read Mugabe the riot act. These neighbouring leaders, particularly the South Africans, are concerned that land grabs and mob violence are destroying the Zimbabwe economy, threatening mass starvation and rocketing unemployment. This will, it is feared, cause millions of refugees to flood into neighbouring countries, destabilising the whole region.
By agreeing this deal, Zimbabwe forced the southern African leaders to tone down their planned ultimatum. Mugabe instead engineered a situation where they feel beholden to him for restoring an element of stability to the region. This is an international diplomacy version of the scenario where the victims of a playground bully are made to feel grateful for not being beaten up. Instead of rebuking Mugabe, as they intended last September, the heads of neighbouring governments gave him a breathing space that may yet shore up his faltering rule.
Likewise, Mugabe has cunningly thwarted the threat of imminent European Union and Commonwealth sanctions. By agreeing the Abuja deal, the Zimbabwe regime has stymied the threat of sanctions and won itself a new lease of life.
Will Mugabe honour the human rights pledges in the Abuja deal? It seems improbable, either now or in the future. He is, after all, the key figure behind the current terror campaign in Zimbabwe. If he is not actually orchestrating the mob violence, his hateful rhetoric certainly helps legitimate it. Moreover, he refuses to publicly condemn the beatings and murders carried out by his ZANU-PF party members, and he has likewise failed to order the police to arrest the assailants. Mugabe’s silence and inaction give a green light to attacks on black farm workers, white farmers and supporters of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC).
The current human rights abuses are nothing new. Mugabe is implicated in the massacre of 20,000 political opponents in the region of Matabeleland during the 1980s. Detention without trial, torture and assassination have been happening for years; as have threats against journalists, students, priests, judges, and trade unionists. Peaceful protesters have been beaten to death by police, and the independent newspaper, The Daily News, had its offices fire-bombed.
During the last 18 months, nine white farmers and 60 black farm workers and political dissidents have been killed. Hundreds of supporters of the MDC have suffered beatings and arson attacks. Thousands of rural whites and blacks have been forced to flee the violence orchestrated by pro-Mugabe war veterans and thugs from ZANU-PF.
In one typical month, July 2001, the Amani Trust in Harare, which monitors human
rights abuses, recorded 11 politically-motivated murders, 61 disappearances, 104 cases of unlawful detention, and 288 incidents of torture. Nearly all the victims were black opponents of the Mugabe regime, mostly supporters of the MDC.
Can a President who condones these human rights abuses be trusted to honour the deal worked out in Abuja? Not likely. Jack Straw is naïve to take Mugabe at his word, given his record of broken promises and human rights violations. Tyrants need to be resisted, not appeased. Mugabe must be put on notice.
The urgent priority is to send a Commonwealth or United Nations task force of 1,000 human rights monitors to all regions of Zimbabwe. Their presence could help deter human rights abuses and, if abuses do occur, expose and shame the Mugabe regime. This is absolutely vital in the run up to the presidential ballot. Without these monitors, there is no chance of free and fair elections.
In the longer term, when the Commonwealth summit is reconvened in Brisbane in 2002, the assembled Prime Ministers and Presidents should agree immediate sanctions against Zimbabwe.
These sanctions must include suspending Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth,
and freezing the overseas bank accounts of President Mugabe, his Ministers and ZANU-PF officials. There should be also a ban on the export to Zimbabwe of weapons and spare parts, and of luxury items that benefit the ruling elite.
Most importantly of all, Mugabe and his senior government and party leaders should be indicted under international law on charges of torture and crimes against humanity. If Slobodan Milosevic can stand trial in The Hague, why not Mugabe?
* In September 2001, the Australian government declined to give Peter Tatchell a visa to attend the Commonwealth summit in Brisbane, after he announced he would seek the arrest of President Mugabe on charges of torture under the UN Convention Against Torture 1984.
Copyright Peter Tatchell 2001. All rights reserved.