A glimmer of hope in Zimbabwe

Yesterday the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission announced the final results of Parliamentary elections, giving the opposition Movement for Democratic Change a plurality over ZANU-PF for the first time in Zimbabwe's history. Even given the legislature's subordination to an executive presidency, it's a hopeful sign that change may be coming to Zimbabwe. But more hopeful is the government's admission that a run-off may be necessary in the Presidential election. While the independent counts disagree about whether this is the case (it's tight - MDC claims they have 50.3% of the presidential vote based on the popular parliamentary vote, while the Zimbabwe Electoral Support Network gives them 49%; the official results have been fixed to inflate the ZANU-PF popular vote to around 46% to the MDC's 43%), it's still the closest Mugabe has come to admitting that he is not the automatic choice of the people.

If it goes to a runoff, Mugabe will probably try to fix the results. But like many, I think it is interesting that it is taking so long for results to be announced. If Mugabe was that certain he could steal the election, he would just do it. The fact that he hasn't suggests that top members in his party are unsure that they can put one over on the Zimbabwean people one more time.

And OTOH, now that the police are back to raiding the MDC's offices, maybe the regime isn't so afraid after all.

Update: The Guardian reports that Mugabe is (through proxies) offering to quit if he does not face prosecution. While I'd rather see him in jail, what's important at the moment is getting him off the political stage and allowing a democratic system to reassert itself. Besides, the government or courts can always reverse the amnesty later, as happened in Argentina.

Enforcing the Refugee Convention

There's been a spat in the UK over the last few months over the issue of deportations to Zimbabwe. Despite accusing the Mugabe regime of serious human rights abuses, the British government insists that Zimbabwe is safe enough for failed asylum seekers to be deported there. One of them took them to court over this, seeking an order enforcing the Refugee Convention's bar on refoulement. Today, they won, with the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal ruling that even though the applicant had made a false claim, and been "fraudulent" and "deliberately dishonest", their presence in the UK had given rise to a well-founded fear of persecution if they were returned, and thus they should be allowed to stay. The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal also castigated the government in its ruling for showing an alarming lack of interest in how deportees were treated on their return:

Evidence from the Home Secretary suggested deportees were escorted onto planes and their papers handed over by UK officials to the air crew.

"At that point, it appeared to us that the respondent (the Home Secretary) ceased to have any very clear interest in what happened.

"We find the respondent's lack of interest in the process by which individuals that he returns to Zimbabwe are received by the Zimbabwean authorities rather alarming."

While the government had subsequently sent a "fact-finding" mission to Zimbabwe, the court stopped just short of calling it a whitewash:

"The way in which the investigation was conducted, and the way in which the results were presented to us, gives rise to the possibility - we say no more than that - that the investigators may have had existing policy in mind rather more than the discovery of new facts.

"Despite the facilities available to the investigation and the level at which it was conducted, it reveals nothing of the actual process which returned asylum seekers go through on their arrival at Harare airport."

(What actually happens is that returnees are treated as traitors by the Mugabe regime, and tend to be turned over immediately to the secret police. I'd call that "persecution"...)

The decision may influence a current judicial review of the entire policy of deportations to Zimbabwe, but it also spells trouble for Blair's proposed anti-terrorism legislation. The courts have signalled firmly that they will not relax the ban on refoulement and allow people to be deported to persecution, torture and death. I guess that the rules haven't changed after all...

Sporting tours and human rights

The chief reason given by the government for its refusal to support the Zimbabwe Sporting Sanctions Bill (which would impose sporting sanctions on Zimbabwe and thus give the Black Caps an out from their contract with the ICC) is that such action would violate the human rights of New Zealanders. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 affirms the right of freedom of movement - including the right of everyone, regardless of citizenship, to leave New Zealand. The Greens have responded with a legal opinion from one of New Zealand's top law firms, arguing that the bill does not violate those rights.

I've finally got round to reading the opinion, and I agree. The argument really boils down to two questions: whether the right of freedom of movement applies to legal persons such as companies and sports teams, and (if it does) whether the restrictions proposed in the bill is a "reasonable limit" as allowed under s. 5. Their response is "no" and "yes" respectively. While it has never been tested in court, it is generally held that the right to leave New Zealand is the sort of right only applicable to individuals, not to legal entities. People have freedom of movement; companies don't, and the bill only limits the latter. But even if this is wrong, and companies do (somehow) enjoy freedom of movement, they argue that it falls well within the "reasonable limits" clause. Travel bans can be a legitimate means of applying pressure to states which refuse to uphold human rights, and in this case the restriction is very narrow; "it is only travel for certain limited, but high-profile, sporting purposes that is prohibited". No individual is prevented from travelling to Zimbabwe, or even from playing cricket there.

If people still have concerns, then the bill can easily be modifed. One obvious amendment would be to remove all references to "travel" entirely, and redefine "Sporting tours of Zimbabwe" to mean the playing of sport in Zimbabwe by any New Zealand national sporting team. Again, this would not criminalise behaviour by individuals, or prevent a "cavaliers"-style "independent" tour, but instead would make it clear that this is about whether a national team should be "doing business" with Mugabe - something the government has every right to prevent.

"Selective morality"

The Greens' Rod Donald was on Agenda this morning, talking mainly about the government's piss-poor response to the Black Caps tour of Zimbabwe. In the post-interview discussion among the panel, he was accused of "selective morality" for supposedly singling Zimbabwe out. But I think this is more an example of selective memory among the panel than selective morality from the Greens.

The Greens have taken a consistent line on international human rights abuses, and have stood up and spoken out about it. They protested at the visit of Wu Bangguo, and oppose free trade with that nation. They spoke out against the Musharraf visit, when no other political party would. And they've been constant critics of the government's pursuit of closer relations with the Burmese junta. Rather than being "selective", their stance on Zimbabwe is simply another example of their principled foreign policy stance.

There's another question here of whether it would be "selective" for the government to take a hard line on human rights abuses in Zimbabwe while not taking a similar line on China. The short answer to this is "yes - but it would also be right". I would rather that the government did the right thing at least some of the time than be consistent by not doing it at all.

As for the broader issue of how best to advance our principles, while our government should always speak up for human rights (and is generally pretty good at this, even if they have to be kicked into it on occasion), whether we should do more will in part be dictated by tactical considerations. In the case of China, I think that those considerations favour engagement rather than a snub; we will do more real good for people in China by using trade negotiations to press hard for change and to establish a pattern of linking trade to human rights than we will by refusing to sully ourselves (obviously, the Greens differ on this score). In the case of Zimbabwe, I simply don't see any reason not to take a principled stand. Mugabe's intransigence in the face of international pressure means that there is effectively no other avenue open to us - and it certainly won't do any harm to do so. It's an easy choice compared to China, but that doesn't mean its also not the right one.

Motions

Via Frogblog: Parliament has just passed its motion on Zimbabwe:

That this House, noting with grave concern the oppression by the Government of Zimbabwe of its own people and its gross violation of human rights, calls upon New Zealand Cricket to abandon the proposed Black Caps tour to Zimbabwe, and urges the International Cricket Council to exclude Zimbabwe from international tours while gross human rights abuses continue in that country.

This is good, but they need to go further. If the Black Caps continue their tour, Parliament should pass a second motion disowning them. If they can not or will not take legislative action, then they can at least make it absolutely clear that the New Zealand public opposes the tour and contact with the Mugabe regime, and that the Black Caps do not represent us in this.

National gets on board

Having shamefully hedged, National has finally gotten on board the anti-tour bus, declaring that they are willing to pay the ICC's fine to stop the tour from going ahead. Now, there are problems with this - the money effectively going to Mugabe being one of them - but the public seem more than willing to ignore this and buy off the ICC simply in order to feel clean. I expect they're rather less willing if the cost is $50 million rather than $3 million, but that figure hasn't really sunk into public consciousness yet.

In any case, the government's reaction - hysterically rounding on the Opposition - seems inexplicable. They're willing to help find a way out of this mess; shouldn't their help be welcomed? You'd almost think the government had been moving gradually and grudgingly towards paying the fine, but now feel they can't because National offered first. Pillocks.

As for the $50 million, Frogblog points out that this is for lost revenue and is money the Zimbabwe Cricket Union will be getting anyway.

If the tour goes ahead, the Zimbabwe Cricket Union will make a profit. If the tour doesn’t go ahead and NZ Cricket is fined, then the Zimbabwe Cricket Union will be reimbursed for the profit they would have made. So, Goff can bleat all he likes about New Zealand money going to Robert Mugabe, but the money would go to him either way. The only difference between the two scenarios is whether the money comes as a result of the tour or as a result of the tour’s cancellation.

The question then is not whether Mugabe is going to get any money - its whether we're happier for him to get it through the Black Caps' touring (with its attendant media coverage) or through a fine. I'd prefer the latter, but only as an absolute last resort, and I don't think its necessary. There is another option, one which the government has steadfastly refused to consider, and that is to impose full economic sanctions against Zimbabwe, covering both trade in goods and trade in services (including professional sports). This doesn't involve stopping people from leaving the country, but it does involve them not being allowed to help the Mugabe regime profit to the tune of $50 million. The government has an unquestionable right to do this. It would clearly be covered by the "Force Majeure" clause in the ICC contract, so NZC wouldn't have to pay a cent. And it would be showing the world how we think thuggish regimes should be treated. The only question is why we didn't do it a long time ago.

Mugabe has won

So, it's over - and Mugabe has won. Zimbabwe's dream of a peaceful democratic revolution has been crushed by torture and murder. For a while there was some hope that Mugabe's brutal dictatorship could be overthrown at the ballot box, but with opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai withdrawing from Friday's run-off to prevent further bloodshed, that hope is dead.

It is unclear whether the withdrawal will have any legal effect (it wouldn't in New Zealand - you can only withdraw before nomination day - but Zimbabwe's electoral law may be different), whether Mugabe will be declared the winner by default, or if the elections will go ahead anyway. But if they do, they will not confer legitimacy - there is none to be gained from an "election" with only one candidate.

As for Zimbabwe, it's clear now that their only hope of freedom is to wait for Mugabe to die. Given that he's 84, that could happen quite soon (OTOH, look at how long Castro has held on for). But even then, the transition might not be smooth.

Zimbabwe: the waiting

On Saturday, the people of Zimbabwe went to the polls to elect a Parliament and President. And today, three days later, they're still waiting for results. In previous elections, these have generally been available within a few hours of the polls closing. This time, it has taken days. The reason? With local, Parliamentary, and Presidential elections all happening at once, Robert Mugabe's thugs can't just make up the results like they have in the past; it would look suspicious (to say the least) if the opposition won a landslide in Parliament and the local bodies, but this wasn't reflected in the Presidential result. So they have to work at it, inflating the vote count here, disappearing votes there, to produce a consistent set of lies. Trickling the Parliamentary results out is a part of this strategy, to create a false impression of a close race.

How do we know its a false impression? Because this time round, polling places have been posting local results. Zimbabwean NGOs have been going round photographing these, and can thus get their own picture of the election. The independent count, and estimates the Movement for Democratic Change winning 102 of the 176 seats they have data on, with MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai winning 51% of the presidential vote (it is unclear how this figure is computed, but the Zimbabwe Electoral Support Network [slow] gives a similar but slightly lower figure based on a random sample of 5% of polling places). In addition, international media are reporting that Zanu PF officials have privately admitted that the results are known and that they have lost. Unfortunately, they are refusing to accept the people's will, and are instead going to rig the results again.

It'll probably take a few more days for this parody of democracy to finally play out. The question at the end of it is what should the opposition do? Accept yet another fraudulent denial of the people's will, or risk bloodshed and take to the streets? While I think everyone would welcome seeing Mugabe unseated by a "people power" revolution, the sad truth is that they only work against governments with a sufficient sense of shame to not just massacre their opponents. Mugabe has already shown he has no shame, and so the result of such a protest is likely to be a bloodbath.

Zimbabwe: back to thuggery

With Zimbabwe looking likely to go to a runoff in its Presidential election (despite no official results having been released), Mugabe and Zanu PF are goign back to thuggery, and trying to intimidate people into voting for them:

The patients at Louisa Guidotti hospital said there were eight men, one carrying a shotgun, another with an AK-47, others with pistols, and they went from bed to bed forcing out anyone who could walk.

Nurses were dragged away from the sick. Motorists driving by the hospital, 87 miles north-east of Harare, were stopped and taken from their cars.

About 70 people were gathered in the grounds. Then the lecture began. "This is your last chance," said one of the armed men. "You messed up when you voted. Next time you vote you must get it right or you will die."

One of the men selected people to stand and shout slogans of Zimbabwe's ruling Zanu-PF party and to sing songs from the liberation war . Those who did not do so enthusiastically were beaten. Another cocked his gun and told the crowd to point out opposition supporters.

Meanwhile, the leaders of Africa's democratic states remain silent. I know that Mugabe has a lot of mana from being a revolutionary fighter against colonialism a couple of decades ago, but that shouldn't be a blank cheque, and it shouldn't give him immunity from criticism when he behaves in a blatantly undemocratic manner.

Stopping the tour

Via Frogblog: Rod Donald has released his Zimbabwe Sporting Sanction Bill aimed at stopping the Black Caps' tour of Zimbabwe and giving them an out under the "force majeure" clause. If passed, the bill would prohibit any sporting tour of Zimbabwe by any nationally recognised sporting body (such as NZ Cricket). Breaking the ban would result in a $50,000 fine, the revocation of recognition by SPARC, and the withdrawl of any government funding. The right of sportsmen to leave the country, whether to play sport or otherwise, would not be affected.

This does not violate the BORA. It does not affect the right of any person - natural or legal - to leave the country. It does limit freedom of association, but this limitation is a reasonable one which can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. The government has an unquestionable right to impose economic sanctions on another country as part of its foreign policy. This is simply a subset of that.

I don't like having to do this. I would much rather NZ Cricket did the decent thing and decided to stay home. The New Zealand public have shown a clear willingness to cover the fine and any costs imposed, and if the ICC imposed an international ban, I think that that would only support our position. This bill would give NZ Cricket an out, a way to stay home gracefully. The real question is whether they take that out. It's entirely possible that NZC will look at the money they stand to earn from the tour, and decide to wear the fine and go anyway. But then it will be quite clear where they stand, and the public will react accordingly.

Their own stupid fault

The Guardian reports on a study by the European Council on Foreign Relations on the EU's declining influence at the UN on human rights issues, and bemoans the loss of European leadership:

The west's efforts to use the United Nations to promote its values and shape the global agenda are failing, according to a detailed study published yesterday.

A sea change in the balance of power in favour of China, India, Russia and other emerging states is wrecking European and US efforts to entrench human rights, liberties and multilateralism. Western policies in crisis regions as diverse as Georgia, Zimbabwe, Burma or the Balkans are suffering serial defeats in what the study identifies as a protracted trend.

[...]

"The EU is suffering a slow-motion crisis at the UN," says the report, noting that the west is now being regularly outwitted in global diplomatic poker by the Chinese and Russians. "The problem is fading power to set the rules. The UN is increasingly being shaped by China, Russia and their allies ... The west is in disarray. The EU's rifts with the US on many human rights issues at the UN in the Bush era have weakened both."

I've just spent the last hour reading the full report [PDF], and the issue is a bit more complicated than it first appears. The ECFR analyses votes across the General Assembly, Human Rights Council, and Security Council, and there are slightly different stories for each of them. But there are two big themes which stand out.

The first is that its their own damn fault. Democracy, even amongst nations, is a participation sport, but the EU has taken its eyes off the ball and neglected to work at building support for its positions. Instead, they've arrogantly assumed that other countries would follow their lead because that is what they've always done, while ignoring some of the structural reasons for their past victories. Throw in a China which does play the game and is reportedly "a better listener than the EU", and it is no wonder that European influence is declining.

The second is blowback from the US's invasion of Iraq. Why won't other countries back motions condemning human rights abuses in places like Iran, Zimbabwe, Burma and Sudan? Because of the games the US played in the leadup to Iraq, and their misuse of UN resolutions to provide a pretext for their aggression. As a result, such motions are seen rightly or wrongly as a leadup to bombing or other military. And there are plenty of countries generally supportive of human rights who won't want to back that.

So, if they want to regain their influence, the EU has to wake up and actually play the diplomatic game. It also needs to distance itself from the US, and adopt a less hypocritical stance on human rights (e.g. the human rights of migrants, which it consistently opposes for basically racist reasons). When it has done this, it has succeeded - the Disappearance Convention and the 2007 death penalty moratorium resolution show that. But both of these were core human rights issues, rather than something which could be used later as a pretext for a unilateral bombing campaign.

Highlighting the hypocrisy

While torture and human rights abuses aren't on Helen Clark's agenda when she goes to Washington, they are very much on Winston Peters' agenda in the case of Zimbabwe. Peters has strongly criticised the Mugabe regime's violent crackdown on protestors, and is promising that New Zealand 'will do what it can' to push for change in Zimbabwe. The double standard couldn't be any clearer: we will criticise our enemies, but not our friends.

Not only is this hypocritical, it also undermines our stance. Regimes with poor human rights records can point to our silence on US abuses and use it to undermine our criticism. Mugabe will allege that he is being singled out because he is poor and black, while the US is white, rich and powerful - and he'd be at least partly right. If we want to be taken seriously, we must be impartial, and reject torture and human rights abuses, no matter who they are committed by, and regardless of whether we hope to gain a free trade agreement from them. Otherwise we're not supporting universal human rights, but instead using them as a selective weapon.

A solution in Zimbabwe?

The Independent reports that the ruling ZANU-PF party and the Movement For Democratic Change have a draft agreement for a solution in Zimbabwe. Mugabe would receive an amnesty, and be ceremonial "founding president" for the rest of his life. But Morgan Tsvangirai would become Prime Minister with greater executive powers, and there would be fresh elections.

Letting Mugabe off the hook leaves a bad taste in my mouth - I want to see him prosecuted for his crimes against his people. But if his victims can stomach it, then so should we. At this stage it is more important to stop the torture and oppression than hold out for justice. Besides, as we've seen in South America, such amnesties tend not to last once the regime is gone. But Mugabe is old, and will probably die before the consensus shifts towards prosecution.

No tour

The New Zealand and Zimbabwean cricket authorities have decided to delay the Black Caps' tour of Zimbabwe for a year to allow the situation in Zimbabwe to stabilise. Good. While Mugabe has recently signed a power-sharing deal with the opposition, we have yet to see whether it will work, or whether the country will continue to be a shitty, torturing despotism. A voluntary delay gives us time to assess the situation, and spares us the hassle of trying to find a legal way to stop it. It also shows a marked change in attitude from New Zealand Cricket, who last time were reciting the old apartheid mantra, "sport and politics don't mix". I guess the public revulsion - and the threat of undermining their sponsor's brands - was just too much for them.

No tears for Mugabe

So, Robert Mugabe has finally resigned as president of Zimbabwe. Good riddance. He was an authoritarian dictator who fixed elections, looted his country, and tortured and murdered his opponents, so I'm glad to see him go. At the same time, its a shame that it was the army, rather than the people, who removed him. At least nobody was killed, but it looks more like an internal power struggle in an authoritarian government than the transition to democracy Zimbabwe desperately needs. One dictator replacing another is hardly progress, and the new boss may simply turn out to be the same as the old boss. All we can do is hope that its not going to be like that, and that the new regime will actually respect democracy and human rights, rather than just changing the names of the abusers.

The government does nothing

The government has ruled out legislative action to stop the Black Caps' tour of Zimbabwe. This means that the only way the tour can be stopped is if the ICC relents and allows teams not to tour on human rights grounds, or Sneddon changes his mind. The former is highly unlikely - they are a morally blind organisation which cares about nothing other than money and cricket - and even if they did, Sneddon would likely still chase the money and go regardless. Which means we have to focus on the latter. And the only way to produce change is to target the sponsors so they will apply pressure to NZ Cricket. Global Peace and Justice Auckland will be holding a march on July 16th to protest the tour and The National Bank's sponsorship of the Black Caps; hopefully they'll have some flyers up soon if you want to stage something outside your local National Bank branch.

The government is also reportedly considering compensating NZ Cricket for the income lost by the cancellation of Zimbabwe's tour here. Frankly, I don't see why we should give them a cent when they're pissing in our faces by going in the first place. Perhaps if they'd shown some backbone and stood up to the ICC themselves, but compensating them for phantom revenue when they are doing something we fundamentally disagree with is simply encouraging a repeat performance. They're independent (their supporters keep telling us that), they have sponsors, let them carry the can.

Working together

It's good to see our Parliamentarians working together to try and find a solution to the Black Caps' tour of Zimbabwe, and better to hear that they've made some progress on the general issue of brining international pressure to bear on the Mugabe regime. This is something New Zealanders are fairly united on (well, except those who, as in 1981, believe that sport and morality don't mix - but there are fewer of them now), and it is good to see that Parliament is reflecting that. It is disappointing however that they have not yet been able to craft a legislative solution to stop the tour. The most they have been able to agree on is a motion condemning the Mugabe regime.

Parliament must do more. They must work to find agreement on legislation imposing economic sanctions on Zimbabwe. If they cannot do so, and if the tour goes ahead, then it isn't just Mugabe they should be condemning. If the Black Caps will not or can not do the right thing, and embark on a tour which will be seen as an endorsement of the Mugabe regime by New Zealand, Parliament should voice the public's overwhelming opposition, and make it absolutely clear that "these people do not represent us".

Escalation

With Martin Sneddon declaring that the tour must go on for financial reasons, it's time to escalate. Former Springbok tour protest leader John Minto has called for a boycott of The National Bank, the Black Caps' major sponsor - and I agree. Despite their claims that they have no control over whether the tour goes ahead or not, the threat to withdraw from their seven-year sponsorship deal would be a powerful lever. So far, they have refused to use that lever. We must change their mind.

The government is also escalating, working jointly with Australia to lobby the G8 to have Zimbabwe expelled from the IMF. They will also be lobbying the UN Security Council to refer Robert Mugabe's human rights abuses to the International Criminal Court. Both these actions are long overdue, but better late than never. So far, though, they've shown no sign of introducing economic sanctions against Zimbabwe. Shouldn't they front up and explain why?

Doing the right thing

Well, the government might not be doing the right thing over the Black Caps' tour of Zimbabwe, but it is at least doing it over Zimbabwe's tour of New Zealand. Phil Goff has just noticed that this is scheduled for December, and has declared that the Zimbabwean team is unwelcome. Good. And if we're lucky, it will provoke a tit-for-tat response from the Zimbabwean regime.

No tour!

The government is trying to defend its position on the Black Cap's tour of Zimbabwe, claiming that they can't stop it. But while Phil Goff is right to point out that under the Bill of Rights, everyone has the right to leave New Zealand, that doesn't mean that the government is helpless. As Frogblog points out,

[t]he ICC has recognised the right of all governments to cut bilateral cricketing ties if they deem it to be in their national interest. The Indian Government has already exercised this right, at no financial penalty to anyone. The New Zealand Government could do exactly the same thing.

Unfortunately, they haven't even investigated the option. A government led by politicians who marched against the Springbok Tour in '81 and who opposed sporting links with South Africa on the basis that it would lend moral support to the apartheid regime seems perfectly happy to see New Zealand sportsmen dragging our international reputation through the mud by playing with a regime that tortures people and bulldozes their homes for the "crime" of not supporting the government.

It is within the government's power to stop this, and without violating people's human rights. All they have to do is say "no". If they stand up and declare that, as a matter of foreign policy, the New Zealand government does not believe sporting links with a regime like Zimbabwe's are appropriate, and formally ask the Black Caps to stay home, NZ Cricket is off the hook. So why won't they do it?

From here, it looks like nothing less than cowardice...