Human rights reports biased, unscientific

Tendai Moyo
The discourse on human rights in Zimbabwe is largely contentious and most of the time misrepresented by a coterie of domineering and vocal forces in the mould of civil society networks, non-governmental organisations, churches and other advocacy groups.Last week, the United Nations together with the Zimbabwe United Nations Association commemorated International Human Rights Day at Ellis Robins High School in Harare.
The objective of the event was to promote human rights among young people through sports and discussions. The gesture was noble and commendable.

Nevertheless, the discourse on human rights in Zimbabwe is largely contentious and most of the time misrepresented by a coterie of domineering and vocal forces in the mould of civil society networks, non-governmental organisations, churches and other advocacy groups. The way the discourse is handled betrays a partisan, unscientific and spiteful crusade to smear and subvert the existing political order.

Instead of interrogating ways of promoting human rights in Zimbabwe, these organisations are engrossed in exposing concocted and unsubstantiated claims of human rights abuses by the ZANU PF Government. The so-called human rights organisations have become rabid armchair critics of Government, and, due to their jaundiced and hired-gun approach, piously regurgitate the tired mantra of “human rights abuses and absence of democracy in Zimbabwe”.

The “human rights defenders” are so obsessed about exposing supposed human rights abuses by that they are blind to initiatives by Government to improve the human rights environment in the country. This obsession was exposed in a recent report by Amnesty International titled: Zimbabwe: Human Rights Agenda for the Government, 2013 – 2018. The report is typically full of doom and gloom and laden with superlatives denouncing the supposed human rights situation in Zimbabwe.

Snippets from this report reveal the over-use of regime-change clichés reminiscent of the misguided Mugabe-must-go template. The report contained incredible claims that in the first 100 days of the new Government there was suppression of political rights, arbitrary detentions and restrictions of freedoms of expression, association and assembly. It also claimed that human rights defenders were facing a restrictive environment in Zimbabwe.

Who can believe this mumbo jumbo? Which Zimbabwe is Amnesty International talking about? In fact, after the inauguration of the new ZANU PF government, there has been no political activity to talk about, only peace and tranquillity.

How can there be political activity when all opposition parties have imploded? Even the disgraced MDC-T has foundered and receded into political oblivion.

Yet, in their political decay, opposition party officials and supporters have continued to enjoy the unfettered freedoms of expression, assembly and association. Such freedoms have ironically contributed to intra-party scuffles and contestations that accelerated their descent into musky political graves.

Other “human rights groups” such as Transparency International, Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition and the Mo Ibrahim Foundation also released reports with scathing but uncorroborated details of human rights abuses in Zimbabwe. Not to be outdone, the Zimbabwe Catholic Bishops’ Conference (ZCBC) waded in with a December 3, 2013 pastoral letter claiming that the new Government would bring more political polarisation into Zimbabwe.

The Catholic bishops said, “We note with apprehension that…there are no visible prospects for improvement in the spheres of life in Zimbabwe that cry for restoration to give people hope for a better life.” They went on, “Daily water and power cuts, shortage of medicines, equipment and professional personnel in our hospitals, chaos and carnage on our roads, raw sewage flowing in the streets of our towns and cities – the list of what reduces us as a people, our dignity and or hope for a better life is long.”

Besides reporting on non-existent political shortcomings and making political incantations, the ZCBC did not report on efforts by Government to address these challenges through the Zimbabwe Agenda for Sustainable Socio-Economic Transformation (Zim Asset) and other interventions. Their pastoral letter, like other reports, was deliberately silent on Government programmes designed to ameliorate infrastructure degradation, hunger and other maladies affecting the people.

It merely portrayed Government as lethargic and complicit. Government is projected as standing akimbo while people are suffering.
Such kind of unbalanced reportage is unfair and misleading. It is such partisan conduct that compelled ZANU PF National Chairman and Senior Minister Simon Khaya Moyo to lambast the habitual failure by civil society groups and NGOs to consider Government policies in their deliberations. Addressing a three-day civil society and NGO conference held in Bulawayo a fortnight ago titled; “Zimbabwe: Present Realities and Future Prospects”, Senior Minister Moyo said, “I am failing to understand how organisers of this event invited me to officiate at this event and set a concept paper which did not reflect any of the issues outlined in the ZANU PF economic blueprint.” He said civil society organisations and NGOs should recognise Government policies and partner it in their implementation.

Why do civil society groups and other organisations critical of Government only report negatively? Could the challenges facing people signify only Government failure or are they symptoms of other hidden political forces such as sanctions? Could Government be blamed for the critical shortages of water, medicines, electricity and basic supplies?

A review of the situation in Iraq when the country was under UN sanctions would show that the challenges being reported as indicators of human rights abuses in Zimbabwe are actually effects of sanctions that are encroaching on ordinary peoples’ rights.

In July 2000, GR Popal reported in the Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal that sanctions in Iraq caused high rates of malnutrition, lack of medical supplies, diseases from lack of clean water and power blackouts.

In May 2000, a United Nations Children’s Fund survey noted that almost half the children under five years suffered from diarrhoea. Over half a million children died of sanctions-related diseases. Denis Halliday, who was appointed United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Baghdad on September 1, 1997 resigned in October 1998 saying; “I don’t want to administer a programme (sanctions) that satisfies the definition of genocide.”

Civil society groups, NGOs, the ZCBC and other neo-liberal advocacy groups should not portray challenges facing Zimbabweans as signs of human rights abuses by Government only but also consider the effects of illegal sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe. If these organisations are truly human rights defenders, they should cease to criticise Government for non-existent suppression of political rights but seek to partner it in fighting challenges facing the people.

In their reports, these organisations should review Government programmes and interrogate alternative ways of ameliorating people’s lives.

Genuine reports on Zimbabwe should acknowledge that despite being pinned down by sanctions, Government is determined to improve peoples’ lives through a plethora of interventions. The reports should note that the ZANU PF Government is importing 150 000 metric tonnes from Zambia for food aid to combat severe food shortages caused by recurrent droughts.

The reports must also acknowledge that Government timeously introduced a US$161 million 2013/14 agricultural input scheme that will see the distribution of 51 218 tonnes of compound D fertiliser, 30 020 tonnes of Ammonium Nitrate fertiliser, 9 967 tonnes of lime and 16 668 tonnes of maize and small grains to capacitate farmers countrywide.

The reports must also admit that Government has entered into multi-million partnerships with the Chinese and other investors to improve electricity and water supplies. Government’s efforts in fighting HIV/Aids should also be recognised as 600 000 people are currently on the antiretroviral (ARV) treatment programme. Strides by Government to support education through the Basic Education Assistance Module, loans, grants and scholarships should be saluted. The civic society groups and their acolytes should acknowledge that these interventions are meant to promote human rights.

Reports on Zimbabwe should not pretend that Government is doing nothing to promote human rights. Objective reports should instead seek to identify ways in which other local and international parties could assist Government in improving people’s living conditions.
The reports must not hide the fact that sanctions, as recorded in Iraq and other places, are infringing on human rights in Zimbabwe, resulting in shortages of food, medical supplies and closure of industries among a plethora of other ills thus reducing the dignity of people.

True human rights advocates must call for the scrapping of sanctions.