adminWestern judiciaries are themselves on trial: The world is watching to see how meaningfully and how expeditiously the courts of Europe handle these matters . . .
However, a number of general substantive points can be made concerning the Georgias cases.
The litigant, a Zimbabwean industrialist now serving as a Deputy Minister in the Government of President Robert G. Mugabe, was accused by the British immigration authorities of being “among persons who were engaged in activities that seriously undermine democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe”.
No evidence was cited to support this allegation.
Indeed, the British authorities conceded later on that there was no evidence whatsoever that Georgias was engaged personally in such activities.
The main charge against him would appear to have been merely that he was a member of President Mugabe’s Government.
This was seen to be adequate reason for Georgias, an elderly man with major health challenges, to be harassed, harangued and abused at Heathrow airport.
So far, the British justice system has tragically refused to deal with the fundamental injustice meted out at Heathrow airport: all this in the name presumably of “democracy, human rights and the rule of law”!
Whenever Western governments purport to invoke the high rhetoric of human rights to justify otherwise unsupported foreign policy actions, one is reminded how in the past Christianity was cited by Westerners as the rationale for murdering, enslaving and dispossessing the benighted black, brown and yellow masses of the developing world.
There appears to exist a troubling symbiosis between Western governments and the human rights movement.
The United States is a case in point.
The United States is often hailed as a potent force for human rights in the world, and African campaigners for democracy and justice often look up to Washington DC for support to resist impunity in their own countries.
It would indeed be difficult meaningfully to discuss human rights, democracy and the rule of law without making some reference to American precedents, writings or practices.
Yet several historians and foreign policy analysts in the US itself have been voicing cogent critiques of the US government in this regard.
Drawing on thousands of declassified documents from the CIA, the National Security Council, the Pentagon, and development agencies, these scholars are showing in blunt detail how Washington’s “security managers” have fashioned human rights into a potent propaganda tool for purposes having little to do with human rights – and everything to do with advancing America’s global reach.
During the Cold War, human rights were dismissed by Washington as “fuzzy minded”.
After the Vietnam war, human rights were cynically adopted in a calculated way as a rationale for US foreign policy engagement.
If one considers such milestones as the fight for Soviet dissidents, Tianianmen Square, and today’s “War on Terror”, one can see exposed how the human rights movement has all too often failed to challenge Washington’s strategies and has instead been exploited for political advantage.
The mantra of “rule of law” has likewise been exploited to promote geo-political objectives having nothing to do with justice.
For example, when Britain was forced to acknowledge the political independence of erstwhile colonial possessions in Africa, such as Zimbabwe, Kenya etc, independence constitutions were cunningly crafted in Whitehall to make it possible for political control to continue to be exercised by London in the guise of judicial independence.
The worthwhile doctrine of judicial independence was cynically co-opted and subverted by Whitehall so as to do the unfinished business of Empire, and in a bid to defeat African independence.
The people of Africa still endure many human rights abuses such as poverty, political impunity, corruption, war etc.
Those people in Africa who desire to fight these abuses should mobilise support primarily from the victims themselves.
Outside the borders of Africa, there are many well-meaning individuals, including some in the West, who may be able to assist the people of Africa in this regard.
The major pitfall to be avoided however is placing exclusive reliance on the support of Western governments or on their formal institutions.
In this regard, one gains the sense that Georgias would have fared better in the courts of Europe had he somehow found a way to enlist the mass support of the people of Zimbabwe, and had he found ways to appeal directly to the conscience of the people of Europe in general and Britain in particular.
As it is, the Georgias cases are too confined to official or professional corridors.
As such, they are vulnerable to manipulation by the hidden hands of the ghosts of the British empire.
Online Reporter