While addressing an international press conference in Nairobi at the
weekend, Prime Minister Raila Odinga called on the African Union to
oust Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe and end the oppression the
Zimbabwean people are being subjected to.
Mr Odinga specifically called on the current AU chair Tanzanian
President Jakaya Kikwete to take the lead in formulating an urgent
solution to save Zimbabwe that is faced by an economic meltdown with a
record inflation rate, food shortages, an outbreak of cholera and a
political stalemate due to the failure to implement a power sharing
deal reached in September.
Zimbabwe is going through what is termed as a complex emergency.
According to the United Nations agency OCHA, a complex emergency is a
humanitarian crisis in a country, region or society where there is
total or considerable breakdown of authority resulting from internal or
external conflict and which requires an international response.
The humanitarian and economic crises in Zimbabwe are linked to the
disastrous politics and erratic governance of its leader. Mugabe's
politics have led to extensive violence and loss of life, massive
displacements of people, widespread damages to social and economic
systems, acute food shortages, and overall calamitous threats to the
livelihoods of the Zimbabwean people.
Since Zimbabwe is not an isolated island, the consequences of Mr
Mugabe's reign of error and terror are reverberating in the Southern
Africa region and the African continent.
When the AU was launched in 2002 to replace the ineffectual
Organisation of African Unity (OAU), it was wildly acclaimed for
adopting a radical principle of non-indifference, as opposed to the
principle of non-interference that had characterised its predecessor.
The OAU had been generally despised for turning a blind eye to
egregious human rights violation by despicable dictators such as
Uganda's Idi Amin, Zaire's Mobutu Sese Seko, Central Africa Republic's
Jean-Bedel Bokassa, and Equatorial Guinea's Marcias Nguema on pretext
that it was barred by the principle of non-interference in the
internal affairs of member states. Mordantly, it condemned President
Julius Nyerere when he stood up against Amin's aggressive and brutal
regime.
The AU was the only organisation, until September 2005, with the
mandate to intervene in member-states where grave circumstances are
taking place. The AU Constitutive Act defines grave circumstances as
war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.
The AU can intervene on two grounds: when a state has collapsed and its
citizens' livelihoods are gravely threatened or when invited by a state
that is too weak to protect the livelihoods of its people.
There are grey areas in invoking this audacious principle of
non-indifference. Although one of the motivations that influenced the
AU founding fathers was what happened in Rwanda in 1994 and never to
let it happen again, the nascent organisation seems to have been caught
off guard when the crisis in Darfur happened. Its reaction could
provide us with pointers to how it will handle Zimbabwe.
When the AU was called upon to invoke Article 4(h) in September 2004 to
stem genocide in Darfur, it hesitated to act on the grounds that it had
yet to carry out research to determine that genocide was taking, or had
taken, place. This was a clever way avoiding taking action as the AU
lacked the capability and capacity to undertake such a highly technical
process.
If the AU had undertaken research and concluded that indeed there were
grave circumstances in Darfur, the matter would have been brought
before its supreme decision-making body, the Assembly of the Heads of
State and Government, to invoke Article 4(h) of the Constitutive Act.
Likewise, it could have invoked Article 4(j) had Sudan invited it to
intervene. This would have been awkward, as the AU would have actually
gone to Darfur to boost the capacity of the Sudanese government to
undermine the livelihoods of its civilians!
Furthermore, the AU would also have faced a tough time to intervene in
one of the powerful member states that adamantly insisted that as far
it was concerned, it was capable of protecting its own citizens and the
AU could only come in to support it and on its terms. This is the
argument that Khartoum has consistently and persistently used for the
past six years since the Darfur atrocities came to the attention of the
international community.
To complicate matters, the AU not only lacked the political will to
make far-reaching decisions that would protect the civilian population
in Darfur but also lacked the resources, both human and financial, to
implement its feeble decisions.
In view of the stark realities facing the AU – particularly its
convoluted decision-making process, lack of resources, and lack of
political will – it is not likely that it will intervene to protect the
livelihoods of Zimbabweans.
To further compound the problem of lack of resources, the capacity of
the AU is currently exhausted due to its involvements in Darfur and
Somalia. It will be unrealistic to expect it to add on its plate
another complex political emergency.
What are the other options for external intervention? An intervention
could come from the SADC region, similar to the 1998 intervene in
Lesotho. However, going by that experience, countries of the region
would not be keen, particularly if the Zimbabwean armed forces stand up
to external aggression and fight back to defend their privileges.
Another intervention could be made under the UN mandate by invoking
Chapter VII and the principle of responsibility to protect. All the
criteria for such an intervention exists vis-à-vis Zimbabwe – it has
lost its sovereignty by failing to protect its civilians from loss of
lives and livelihoods; the calamity is rising; and all peaceful efforts
to end the suffering of the Zimbabwean people seem to have been
exhausted. Force will have to be used as a last resort, as long as it
is proportional, and would lead to a restoration of human security in
the country.
Nevertheless, SADC and the AU must legitimise such an intervention.
However, both these organisations would be reluctant to set such a
precedent and could insist on applying the cliché of African solutions
to African problems. This would unnecessarily postpone the suffering
of Zimbabwean people and would by default prolong Mugabe's misrule.
Alternatively, either intervention could be pre-empted by Zimbabwean
security forces that could take matters in their own hands and end a
disastrous situation. But there is a complication in this solution –
the AU ban on coups d'état on the continent. At the moment the AU is in
a standoff with the Mauritanian military that in August took over from
a democratically elected government.
The question to ask is: if the AU allows a military take-over in
Zimbabwe, would that set a precedent and contradict its policy against
such means of changing governments?
All things considered, and as the international community fudges and
gets mired in indecision paralysis, it is upon the people of Zimbabwe
to take to the streets, and to use other means, to end the nightmare
they are experiencing. It is only the Zimbabwean people who can
liberate themselves from their liberator.
Dr Okumu is a Senior Research Fellow, African Security Analysis
Programme, Institute of Security Studies, Tshwane (Pretoria)
wokumu@issafrica.org
By WAFULA OKUMU6
Post published in: Uncategorized