Thu 20 Sep 2007
Amnesty for Bob Mugabe?
Posted by Sean under Africa, Civil and Political Rights, Economic and Social Rights
1 Comment
According to the Washington Post, the International Crisis Group is backing a new plan to “save” Zimbabwe. Just what is this silver bullet, you ask? The plan calls for Robert Mugabe to live out his golden years in peace, with all the silver and gold he has allegedly plundered from international donors while his “liberated” country has sunk deeper and deeper into despair. In addition to keeping his booty, the plan calls for the originator of “the right to bash” to receive full amnesty.
Is this the best that the human rights community can offer the people of Zimbabwe? Do Zimbabwe’s neighbors — who admittedly are paying a price for Mugabe’s deeds by taking in hundreds of thousands of refugees — have the right to hide Mugabe from prosecution?
One Response to “ Amnesty for Bob Mugabe? ”
Comments:
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
It appears the ICG’s plan is premised on a wrong assumption that Mugabe is already guilty of violations of human rights before being heard, that sounds like overturning the presumption of innocence. When one starts talking of Amnesty definately there is an assumption of wrong doing and then that will lead to a legal question, which is the wrong because this is now a question of proof? what will be the scope of the amnesty? Unless everyone wants to go by what we read in the press then yes that may sound easy but proof in these situations is always difficult. In my view Zimbabwe needs both a diplomatic and political solution if indeed the ills not only of the country’s economy is to be changed for the better but also their political situation.
I contend that the Zim problem requires UN intenvetion more than SADC intervention because it appears SADC has failed. It has been high time that SADC has been called upon to do something on theses issues but still doing nothing. SADC has over emphasized the Mbeki intervention without the benefit of intellect. SADC itself in my contention is overpolitical in a sense that it does not want to interfere in the political problems of their members after all most of these problems are universal within SADC. Sometimes i am able to recall political violence in countries like Malawi, Zambia, to say a few, but they have not been publicised like the Zimbabwe situation. Of course the Zimbabwe situation has gone too far but it appears SADC leaders feel that political violence is part of the game thereby seeing no need to intervene. It may seem a lame idea but thats how the majority feel, that ‘its part of the game syndrome’. That why the UN or other independent big outside body becomes important. The intervention need not be in a form of, for example, the chapter 7 mandate, because that would be complicating matters. The problem here is more political than otherwise. Again, Zimbabwe’s situation as we can see does not need sanctions because Mugabe remains defiant that he can still survive without outside help after all he can print money if he wants on a lighter note. Am a fan of old adage that when diplomacy fails then savagery may work otherwise this guy will never move out of power. Questions of Amnesty can arise with time because it will now be an internal issue when real democracy has been restored.
All am saying is that because the alleged violations of Mugabe, in my contention, have not reached such stage that may be categorised as ‘gross’ we should be talking about political or diplomatic solutions other than criminal solutions. If the worse come to worst e.g that everyone fails to get rid of this guy then everyone knows the answer, comon sense should prevail which to me is getting rid of him in whatever way we want. The UN, US (may be UK) can do the Charles Taylor way, fo3e example, if indeed what we read is anything to go by