The Zimbabwe Crisis and EU
This blog article will dwell on the Zimbabwe crisis, development aid and EU, and on human rights and EU policy. Each theme is written as a separate essay. In the end, I will make an effort to knot them togeather to some kind of conclusion.
AFRICAN UNION APPEASEMENT
When the African Union recently met in Egypt it did not reach any agreement on joint action to condemn or deal with Robert Mugabe’s theft of the election. The toothless outcome of the discussions was a call for a government of national unity without any condition that it may not be lead by Mr.Mugabe.
The AU reluctance to use its influence can be understood from how previous liberation movements have turned into ruling parties of their countries. Liberation heroes do not retire when they have done there commendable work. They continue as leaders of the new independent states, though being a liberation partisan and being a president in peace times call for very dfferent skills and talent. The ruling parties have used the strategy of combining patriotic affection for the country to loyality to the ruling party lead by the liberation heroes. Supporting or being a member or a voter for an opposition party has been inculcated in the minds of people as unpatriotic, sometimes as a reactionary inclination to neo-coloniialism and and renouncing of the value of the independence. The ruling parties do not have to compete for re-election in most African countries and they are, thus, not so scrutinized and criticized by the opposition as would be healthy for them. This is a sad situation as it does not boost development. The brotherhood between the leaders of these ruling parties in Africa explains to a large extent why AU is toothless in dealing with Mr. Mugabe. It explains to some extent also why many Africans in neigbouring countries support Mr. Mugabe.
A stronger force for the popular support that M. Mugabe has in other countries, not least the neighbouring Namibia, is that ZANU-PF has sucessfully managed to plant the disinformation that the Western critique aginst Mr. Mugabe is a critique aginst the land reform. It is not. It is a critique against human rights abuse and against some aspects of the land reform such as the use of thugs and the mismanagement of the expropriated land, leading to a food crisis.
THE SENSITIVE LAND ISSUE IN ZIMBABWE
People in Zimbabwe and in the neighbouring countries know that the Brittish colonisation of Zimbabwe was exceptionally cruel as regards the grabbing of land. In pre-colonial Zimbabwe there were agreements in place between tribes, clans and families on who was allowed to use which land. There was, thus, a regulated ownership. The Brittish surveyors did not care of existing ownership and handed out allready owned land to Brittons. The indegenous inhabitants were often brutally removed and many starved to death beceause of that. This is living history in Zimbabwe and it explains to a large extent that the anti Brittish and anti Western rethoric appeal to people.
But history cannot excuse the present human rights abuse and total mismanagement of the country.
WHO SHALL ACT AGAINST HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE?
Politcal leaders acused of human rights abuse usually respond by spinal reflex that the critique is an unacceptable interference in internal matters. That is of cause nonsense. If human rights abuse were an internal matter, it should be the goverment to act aginst it. Impossible of cause as the goverment is the perpetrator. The citizens cannot act either as they would become next victim if they did. Action must, thus, come from external sources, both governments and civil society organisations and by bodies like UN, EU, AU and so forth. Claiming that human rights abuse is an internal matter and not a mankind matter is to say that human rights abuse is OK.
RICH AND POOR COUNTRIES’RELATIONS
Development aid directed to poor countries through bilateral goverment agencies in rich countries began in the early nineteen sixties. An early doctrine was that aid should be given on the conditions of the receivers. In practice development aid was used as a battlefield of influence between the West, the East and the Non Alignment Movement. Later on, the doctrines have changed and development aid is after the tumbling down of the Berlin wall more coordinated between donors and it is connected to comprehensive sectorwise general plans. It is also more connected to conditions on the part of the donors. This could be critisised as unfair interference. But it is not unfair. A donor who is willing to support development in another country does this beceause there is a commitment to a goal that is shared between both parties such as for example quality improvements of primary education, improvement of mother and child health, access to clean water and so forth. Of cause, the donor has the right to set up conditions for the financing that the methods of work, the auditing etc. enhance the wanted results. And the receiving party has of cause the right to negociate the conditions and to reject them and say no thanks to the project if it finds the conditions unacceptable. It is normal in all kinds of business deals between two parties that both can give and take in conditions discussions and they can withdraw if they do not like the deal.
Within EU, there are a lot of bilateral governmenteal donor agencies: It would be a lot more practical to channel more of the aid through the European Commission. The coordination between donors and the connection to sectorwise general plans have gone far enough for a more coordinated EU aid.
Let us now ask the question what kind of conditions EU should set up for its development aid. Except for the common conditions on transparency, auditing, reporting etc. EU could create a certain profile which is to champion good governance.
A preliminary characteristic of good governance is:
Freedom of expression, broad participation in debate on public matters, active opposition parties, promoting broad civil society activity, respect for rule by law and democratic rules of the game, transparency, rational public adminstration that reponds to what people want from it ,and so forth.
Good governance is probably the factor that most enhances prosperity in a country and well being among its citizens. Pumping in money in devlopment projects (I am not talking about emergency aid) when the goverment is bad is in most cases a waste of money and it boosts corruption. In other words, connecting development projects in the various sectors to support for good governance would amplify the effects of the projects and enhance better life for many people . What can be done by aid agencies for supporting good governance? A lot such as various kinds of partnerships and twinning arrangements, study visits for bench marking and learning from best practice, exchange programmes, technically orientd projects to improve the judicial, home affairs and othe key sectors etc. All that lot implies that the donor agencies in the dialogue with the recipient country must have the possiility to openly discuss matters of good and bad governance. It must also dare to condition improvements for good governance for the financing of projects. Does this sound as interference in sovereignity?
WHO GAINS WHAT FROM WHAT SOVEREIGNITY
An interesting thing about soverignity is that it is very seldom referred to by leaders of states in other situations than when receiving critique for bad governance and human rights abuse. The good guys never need to refer to soverignity.
Official decisions are mainly taken on theree levels. The local level in municipalitis that to a large extent are service providing decisions such as building a new day care center, improving infrastructure, arrange care for the elderly etc. Next level is the national level where the most repressive decisions are taken. The third level is the supernational level suh as UN and EU where most of the provision of rights stem from. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights from the UN is one example and the rights within EU such as to move to another EU country without the need for a permit to live and work in that country are other examples. All the rights that stem from supernational bodies are in the same time restrictions of the national sovereignity. This said, taming and restricting national sovereinety is good for the rights of individuals. Freedom is something that belongs to individuals not to states. Therefore, we should not be so shy to critically scrutinise what happens in other countries, criticize bad governance in other countries and discuss good governance conditions in development aid dialogues between donors and receivers. Observe that all what I have written about restriction of national sovereignety is about mutual agreements between the supenational decision makers and the nations. The EU countries have deliberately signed the rights of other EU citizens to come to their country and live, work and do business there. The countries that have signed the Universsal Declaration of Human Rights have opted to so and they have, thus, given up part of its own sovereignety. Conditions of good governance in development aid dialogue is also mutual as it is a question of give and take dialogue where both parties may pull out if they do not like it (like in other business deals).
But how to handle interference in other countries’ affairs when there is no mutality? How should other countries handle the Zimbabwe crisis? The ZANU-PF attitude is that Western critics “can go hang a thousand times”. As said before, human rights abuse by goverments can logically not be regarded as internal matters but as mankind mattes. Therefore, EU do not have to hesitate to act to get Mugabe out in order to give people the right to express themselves and to give them a chance to rebuild their lives.
AU AND EU
The African Union is a club of states in one continent. So is EU. These two clubs could be dialogue partners. As AU appeasement removed the chance of helping the Zimbabwean people to get rid of the dictator, EU as a fellow club could act and EU culd start a discussion on Europe- Africa relations. EU could present a programme for rebuilding of ZImbabwe. It could also discuss how to relate to governments in Africa that actively support Mr. Mugabe such as Gabon, Mozambique and Namibia. Shall European goverments pump in money to support devlopment in African countries whose goverments back up a dictatorship that ruins another African country? Sould EU finance projects in Gabon, Mozambique and Namibia as long as the goverments back up Mr. Mugabe. It is an open question.
To summarize my conclusions:
Human rights abuse must be dealt with from external bodies such as other goverments and various organiations. EU could play a great role as it must anyway formulate a joint forreign policy and what would be better than taking the role as the musceteur of human rights. EU could by its strength acheive results (UN has allways been powerless when it comes to human rights abuse. Abusive member states have their say). EU should enter a dialogue with AU and put a stong preassure on AU to act in the Zimbabwe crisis. This preassure may include conditions on support for development aid projects in African countries that back up the dictatorship. The reason for EU to act is to free individuals who suffer under dicatorship and give them a chance to a better life. Freedom is for individuals, not for goverments.
Do you think I propose too much interference in other countiries’ affairs. I do not propose more interference than what the global community did against the apartheid regime before it gave in. The global community won the match.
Best regards
Göran Linde
