Gordon Brown’s boycott of Robert Mugabe is a good gesture, but it’s not enough to free Zimbabwe from tyranny.
The Guardian – Comment Is Free – 20 September 2007
Whatever you think of Gordon Brown and New Labour, it was in many ways a bold, brave move for the Prime Minister to declare that he will unilaterally boycott December’s EU – African Union summit in Lisbon if President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe is allowed to attend.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article2979887.ece
At last, some moral leadership from a government that has been rather short on principles in recent years. Is this the first sign of a welcome revival of the long discarded ethical dimension to Labour’s foreign policy? We live in hope, but my advice is: don’t hold your breath.
To be fair, Brown’s boycott is a positive move. It is better than anything we got on Zimbabwe from his predecessor, Mr T Blair. So, well done Gordon.
But unless Brown is planning a one-leader boycott, which seems unlikely, he has to get other EU and AU leaders to join him in making the same commitment: if Mugabe goes or we don’t go.
Which other EU leaders will, pray tell, have the guts to take such a stand? No big hitter immediately comes to mind. Likewise, there are no AU heads of state who have taken a serious stand against Muagbe in the past, so there is no reason to suppose that any of them will take such a stand now.
Numbers is the crunch issue. To make his gesture effective, Brown has to persuade other Presidents and Prime Ministers to also threaten to boycott the summit, which is quite a tall order. He’s taking a big gamble. This gesture could end up as a boycott of one. Just Mr Brown. Oh dear.
Sadly, I cannot think of a single African leader who is likely to stay away if Mugabe decides to turn up in Lisbon. They recently gave the old tyrant praise and applause at the AU meeting. Their misty eyed nostalgia sees him first and foremost as an African liberation leader, regardless of his subsequent appalling human rights abuses, such as the Matabeleland and Midland massacre of 20,000 people in the 1980s – the equivalent of a Sharpeville massacre every day for over nine months.
The bottom line is this: Mugabe isn’t going to be deterred from making an appearance in Lisbon by the threatened absence of the British Prime Minister. In fact, Mugabe will rather relish the prospect that his presence will ensure Gordon’s absence.
Moreover, Mugabe will not pass up this chance to stride the world stage, glad-hand other statesman and deliver colourful anti-British tirades to the assembled international media. He is bound to try once again, with some success among certain Africanist and Third Worldists, to portray Brown’s boycott threat as another perfidious British imperialist plot to ruin his valiant, shining socialist paradise.
Besides, going to Lisbon is a nice personal perk. It will enable Mugabe and his rather extravagant wife to get around the EU travel ban so they can indulge their penchant for the high life of gold-plated shopping and haute cuisine.
All-in-all, this boycott threat is Brown’s red rag to Mugabe’s raging bull. It is likely to be entirely counter-productive – unless Brown can marshal some major leaders to join his boycott threat and force Portugal, the summit host, to cross Mugabe’s name off the guest list.
On current form, Portugal isn’t likely to disinvite Mugabe. The Lisbon government would prefer the summit to be an inclusive gathering. It knows that shutting the door on Mugabe could well prompt a stay-away by some African leaders, or at least get Portugal bad-mouthed and black-balled in international fora as a lackey of the British imperialists.
If several key EU leaders follow Brown’s lead, Portugal could find itself between the competing demands of African and European leaders – respectively for and against Mugabe’s attendance. The whole summit could degenerate into chaos and acrimony before it even starts. Then, who would everyone blame? Yes, poor Gordon. Very unfair. But that’s the sleazy way politics works.
Perhaps Mr Brown should, in fact, be looking beyond summit gestures, at more practical, effective things that could be done to weaken the dictatorship and help hasten change from within. Zimbabweans don’t have much time. Mugabe’s policies are leading to mass starvation in ways that echo Pol Pot’s hunger regime in Cambodia.
For a start, Britain, acting together with other countries, could use international human rights law to bring Mugabe and his henchmen to justice. They can, and should, be arrested and put on trial.
Of course, Mugabe is not the only leader who should be behind bars. There are plenty of other tyrants, war criminals and human rights abusers who merit the same fate. Henry Kissinger and George Bush come to mind. But the unpunished crimes of others are no excuse to let Mugabe off the hook.
Almost every nation in the world has signed the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) 1984.
They have incorporated it into their domestic law. In Britain, this incorporation is under Section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
UNCAT empowers signatory states to arrest and prosecute anyone who commits, authorises or condones torture anywhere in the world. It has a universal jurisdiction.
President Mugabe and his police and military torturers are obvious candidates for arrest under UNCAT. But not a single country is making any effort to put Mugabe on trial. Why not? If Slobodan Milosevic could be arraigned in The Hague, what is stopping the international community from also putting Robert Mugabe in the dock?
Gordon Brown’s government has the power to organise warrants for Mugabe’s arrest and extradition, but it has failed to do so. Why?
Mugabe is deeply implicated in the torture of thousands of critics and political opponents. Journalists are among his victims. I knew the reporters Ray Choto and Mark Chavunduka. They worked for The Standard newspaper in Harare. Tortured in 1999, they say their interrogators told them they were being tortured on Mugabe’s personal orders. The President refused publicly to condemn their torture and has appeared to endorse it, implying that the two men got what they deserved.
I have sworn affidavits from Choto and Chavunduka, attesting to their torture. Their affidavits are backed by Amnesty International and corroborated by evidence given to the Zimbabwe High Court. According to Amnesty International:
“Military interrogators beat both men all over their bodies with fists, wooden planks and rubber sticks, particularly on the soles of their feet, and gave them electric shocks all over the body, including the genitals”.
These affidavits – and those of thousands of other torture victims – provide the legal basis for Britain, and other countries, to issue international warrants for the Zimbabwean leader’s arrest. Unlike the EU’s tokenistic sanctions and summit boycotts, arrest warrants would have a dramatic psychological impact, even though they would be difficult to enforce. They would put real fear into the heart of Mugabe and his torturing sidekicks; as they would suffer the constant anxiety that one day they could end up on trial like Milosevic. This might act as a partial deterrent; encouraging some state agents to reduce the incidence and severity of torture on the grounds that it could leave them open to additional charges and potentially longer jail terms.
Once an international arrest warrant has been issued, Mugabe’s extradition could be sought from any of the countries he still regularly visits. Not long ago he enjoyed a junket in Malaysia. The only way he could be sure of avoiding arrest is by limiting his foreign forays to the handful of rather unattractive countries without extradition treaties, like North Korea. Effectively, Mugabe would become a prisoner in his own country; living in permanent fear of arrest. A just punishment in itself.
Another more radical option would be for the air force of an UNCAT signatory state to intercept his plane in international airspace and force it down into a country where he could be arrested and put on trial. This would be a dramatic innovation in international law enforcement, but arguably a legal and justified one.
To excuse their inaction, some governments, including the UK, often claim that President Mugabe has immunity from prosecution because he is a serving Head of State. But according to UNCAT, there are no exemptions. No one is immune, not even current Heads of State.
Over 60 years ago, following the Nazi atrocities, the Nuremberg Tribunal verdicts established the international human rights principle that in cases of crimes against humanity, such as torture, nobody is above the law. This Nuremberg principle still applies.
It has been since reiterated in the case of Slobodan Milosevic, who was tried in The Hague. He was initially indicted for crimes against humanity in 1999, while he was Head of State of Yugoslavia.
It was recognised by the international tribunal in The Hague that a Head of State does not have immunity from prosecution for grave human rights abuses.
Moreover, under Article 27 of the UN Rome Statute 1998, which established the International Criminal Court, Heads of State are explicitly denied immunity from criminal responsibility for acts of torture.
Why isn’t Gordon Brown and the EU pressing and assisting the International Criminal Court to draw up charges against Mugabe and his top government, police, military and intelligence officials?
The indictment, arrest and prosecution of Milosevic set a contemporary precedent for the arrest and trial of the Zimbabwean President.
If Slobodan Milosevic could stand trial in The Hague, why can’t Robert Mugabe?