|
ZIMBABWE presented its national report on Monday at the United Nations Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in Geneva, Switzerland, claiming to be fundamentally protecting and promoting human rights in profound ways which are creditable and commendable.
The UPR is a process which involves a review of the human rights records of all 192 UN member states once every four years. So Zimbabwe had a perfect opportunity to give a candid assessment of its situation, pointing out areas of success and progress, while admitting problems and constraints.
Justice minister Patrick Chinamasa in his report painted a glowing picture of the situation, declaring Zimbabwe was upholding human rights. He said the only problem was sanctions and lack of resources.
Chinamasa presented his report with aggression and grit, as if to scare away critics and gloss over the situation.
His report contained a lot of “evidence” in the form of the normative and institutional framework, national policies on human rights, enforceability of human rights before the courts, national human rights institutions, regional and international human rights instruments and “protecting of human rights on the ground” to prove Zimbabwe was a civilised and democratic country safeguarding and upholding human rights.
The theoretical framework of his report sounded credible and convincing, but only if you are a stranger to Zimbabwe’s history and politics. Many self-protective and gullible diplomats, mainly those who are not familiar with Zimbabwe or who know the truth but are dishonest, bought into it and defended the government as if their very lives depended upon it. The sanctions mantra was wheeled out and condemnation from the West reverberated with equal intensity during the review.
Chinamasa doggedly defended Zimbabwe’s human rights record, while slamming targeted sanctions against the country which he argued had caused hardships and violated citizens’ human rights. He also claimed Zimbabwe had amended the constitution 19 times to improve the human rights situation, adding the ongoing constitution-making process would address human rights issues.
However, Chinamasa’s report was problematic. Although the minister is a jolly good fellow, his performance was unhelpful and left many convinced Zimbabwe is a rogue state. His delivery was unrefined and too war-like, betraying desperate efforts to frighten critics and airbrush the situation.
Instead of pointing out areas of progress and problems to paint a balanced picture of the situation, Chinamasa used sanctions as a pretext to exonerate government on human right abuses and went for the jugular against Western countries. That made constructive dialogue impossible and predictably the report was divisive. The session became divided mainly on ideological lines, reflecting the polarised trends in global politics and international relations.
That is why in the end Zimbabwe was mainly supported unshakably by the “outposts of tyranny” — including Iran, Cuba, North Korea and Burma. In scenes reminiscent of the Cold War politics, Zimbabwe also got support from parts of the former communist bloc although Russia was cautious. Syria, widely criticised for human rights abuses, and Venezuela, also supported Zimbabwe.
In Africa, Namibia was loyal, while other countries made measured and frank comments. South Africa was mild but demanded an investigation into the 2008 killings. It was supported by many countries. The United States and its allies slammed Zimbabwe for human rights abuses.
Although government appeared to have partly whitewashed its awful record through deception, the reality is Zimbabwe is a dungeon where people are harassed, intimidated, brutalised, and silenced for holding different views from Mugabe and his cronies.
 |
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
