|
|
What a shame, the AU defends
Mugabe
E.
Ablorh-Odjidja, Ghanadot
Well, it never changes when you least expect it to. Leaders of
the AU are out again in support of Mugabe, the octogenarian, in
his latest tiff with the EU. The appeal by EU to dissuade the
Zimbabwean president from attending the Lisbon summit has
failed. The unanimity of the decision and the reasons given for
the support are enough to make you pity Africa.
“The African Union wants all African countries to take part in
the summit in Lisbon in December, said an official from the AU.
"Zimbabwe, in spite of the crisis, is an African country and we
are defending principles here. We have asked Mugabe to talk to
his opposition, but the AU respects the principle of
non-interference. We resort to interference only in extreme
cases of violence or genocide.” The official continued.
It is exactly difficult to understand what principles this man
is talking about. Of course, the EU is not seeking to bar
Zimbabwe from the Lisbon summit. It is only seeking to block
Mugabe from attendance. Any high ranking official from Zimbabwe
can represent the country.
Clearly, the AU principles mentioned have to be about the
special rights given only to dictators on the continent - to the
detriment of the sensibilities of the rest of us. No wonder the
genocide in Darfur is at impasse and Sudan still remains a
member of the AU. When it comes to doing the right thing for
Africa, this organization, it seems, constantly remains
flummoxed. This fealty or sympathy for Mugabe is a perfect
example.
Mugabe has for long stirred up anger within the international
community on human rights issues. But most of the harm he has
caused to date, he has done to his own people and neighbors. His
land reform effort, a complete fiasco stemming from a bad
policy, has broken the back of the once healthy Zimbabwean
economy.
Zimbabwe now has the highest inflation rate in the world, said
to be about 1 million % and rising, and according to the United
Nations Economic Commission the worst economic performance in
Africa.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, continuing his country’s
policy on Zimbabwe, is eager to push Mugabe out of office. His
effort concerning the Lisbon summit is for this purpose. But it
may fail because of the unanimity of Africa’s support for
Mugabe.
Granted that Britain happens to be a former colonial master and
is to a great extent responsible for much of the land trouble in
Zimbabwe, it is still not a good reason for Africa to help
Zimbabwe cut its nose to spite its face. After all, who is
hurting now, the British or the Zimbabweans? It will take a lot
of callousness on the part of AU officials to defend Mugabe, but
they do.
"It (Zimbabwe) is not the only country not to respect democracy,
look at Togo, Niger... Zimbabwe's problem is mainly with London,
it's a bilateral issue and is none of our business,” said an
official of the AU in defense of Mugabe.
Funny the connection is made to Togo. The current regime there,
under Faure Gnassingbe, is barely three years old. The AU
declared as fair the election that brought Gnassigbe to power in
2005. Now this official is comparing “democracy” under
Gnassigbe’s baby regime to the 27 years old grandfather regime
of Mugabe. What a shame!
Mugabe has been running the government of Zimbabwe since
independence in 1980. Is there any question about the negative
impact of his tenure on development in his country and those
around Zimbabwe? Isn’t this reason enough for the AU to ask for
a change, knowing that the next ruler will be a Zimbabwean and
not a British?
The summit Mugabe and the AU are adamant about attending in
concert was originally planned for April 2003, but according to
the BBC, it has been postponed several times; all in attempt to
send a message.
In August 2007, Human Rights Watch wrote a paper called “A Call
to Action: The Crisis in Zimbabwe – SADC’s Human Rights
Credibility on the Line.” In it, the group reported that:
“The continuing use of arbitrary and excessive use of force by
the police and other agents of the government of Zimbabwe calls
into question its commitment to ending the political crisis in
the country, and creates a huge obstacle to finding a viable
solution to this crisis.”
The message was for SADC (Southern African Development
Community) meeting that month to act on the problems in
Zimbabwe. Regrettably, everything that concerned Zimbabwe was
mentioned in the Summit’s communiqué, including a call on
Britain to honor her land settlement promise. Missing was the
response to human rights abuses in Zimbabwe sought.
Thus human rights continue to be enigma in Africa: Is it human
rights abuse when the perpetrator is a black man or the person
at the receiving end has a black skin? The puzzle is yet to be
resolved.
E. Ablorh-Odjidja,Publsiher www.ghanadot.com, Washington, DC,
October 8, 2007
Permission to publish: Please feel free to publish or reproduce,
with credits, unedited. If posted at a website, email a copy of
the web page to publisher@ghanadot.com . Or don't publish at
all.
|
