Sovereignty has been abused in Zimbabwe

As a Zimbabwean, I have read on numerous occasions our ministers and head of state pontificating that Zimbabwe is a sovereign state, that sovereign matters are beyond the reach or capacity of other states.  To me, it appears that the noble principle of state sovereignty has been abused, if not obfuscated, by many states for the purpose of preventing other community of states from scrutinising what happens in their internal affairs, especially on issues relating to violations of human rights.

The principle of state sovereignty goes back to the 1648 treaty of Westphalia that set boundaries of many European countries.  It is sad that the national boundaries of most African states are a result of the fateful 1884 partition of Africa.  Be that as it may, the principle of state sovereignty, which simply means independence and non-interference from matters that are essentially in the domestic jurisdiction of another state, is enshrined in article 2(7) of the United Nations charter:

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter V11.

The last sentence is a caveat in that it gives an indication that sovereignty is not absolute.  State sovereignty shall not be prejudicial to matters that come under enforcement of Chapter Vll, which deals with ‘action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression’.  I shall not delve into discussing this aspect of maintaining international peace and security but shall limit it to the state responsibility to uphold human rights.  Article 1(3) of the United Nations charter states one of the four purposes of the United Nations as:

To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect of human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

It is therefore pertinent to note that the respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms are at the heart of the reason for the existence of the United Nations.  Because of the universality of human rights, it follows that states that respect them also achieve international peace and security.  

Reports from international organisations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and local Zimbabwean organisations like Zimrights, Lawyers for Human Rights, Doctors for Human Rights and many civic organisations are replete with cases of allegations of human rights abuses by state authorities.

In such a scenario, can the state justifiably claim sovereignty where there are allegations of flagrant and systematic violations of human rights?  The March 11 incident where Grace Kwinjeh, Morgan Tsvangirai, Lovemore Madhuku, Sekai Holland and others were subjected to physical and mental torture are a stark reminder and evidence to the international community of the extend to which human rights are violated in Zimbabwe.

As far as human rights activists are concerned, this incident demonstrated for all to see that human rights violations in Zimbabwe can no longer be viewed as matters ‘essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the state’.  If anything, there is a galvanised determination of purpose within the international community to intervene.  I do not know what the nature of intervention shall be (diplomatic, economic, political etc.), but the Zimbabwean human rights agenda is gaining a lot of momentum within the international community.

If state sovereignty is sacrosanct, is there any hope of changing the human rights situation in Zimbabwe by the international community?  What would be their legal justification?  I recently attended a public lecture at Trinity College Dublin given by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour. She stated unequivocally stated that there is an emerging norm that sovereignty carries with it the responsibility to protect its citizens.  Several authoritative United Nations documents and Security Council resolutions were cited as giving justification for the international community to intervene where there are ‘systematic violations of human rights’.

The Charter of the United Nations has it in black and white.  If states fail to protect its citizens from flagrant, widespread and systematic violations of human rights, the wider international community has a responsibility to protect.  Put in another way, the international community is accountable to protect systematic human rights violations.  From a legal point of view, decisions of the International Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda provide armoury of legal interpretation.  For now, suffice it to say that sovereignty carries with it the responsibility to protect citizens, it is not an absolute principle. – Contact: rbchasamhuka@yahoo.com