Between a Rock and a Hard Place in Zimbabwe: Weighing the Military Option

by Michelle

category: War Crimes & Crimes Against Humanity

Published January 15, 2009 @ 09:53PM PT

The International Association of Genocide Scholars issued a statement of concern over "signs of genocide and political murder in Zimbabwe," accusing Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe of "committing genocide by attrition" by deliberately inflicting conditions meant to bring the destruction of his "political and ethnic enemies."

While I'm not sure that the situation in Zimbabwe constitutes genocide --- see my recent post "What Genocide Is, and What it Isn't" for more on my take on the importance of definitions --- one thing is clear: Robert Mugabe and his ZANU-PF party are engaged in a multi-layered, systematic brutalization of the Zimbabwean population, all with the aim of maintaining their iron grip on power.

Systematic Brutalization, at Every Turn

A devastating report issued earlier this week by Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) weaves together, in painstakingly documented detail, Mugabe's 28-year history of egregious human rights violations with the collapse of the country's health systems:

"The health crisis in Zimbabwe is a direct outcome of the violation of a number of human rights, including the right to participate in government and in free elections and the right to a standard of living adequate for one's health and well being, including food, medical care, and necessary social services. Robert Mugabe's ZANUPF regime continues to violate Zimbabweans' civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights."

Mugabe's veritable smorgasbord of human rights violations truly runs the gamut, from abduction, torture, rape, and murder to the politicization of health services and the denial of food to political opponents. As recently as December 31, 2008, according to PHR, a World Food Program donation was diverted from its intended recipients to ZANU supporters. These violations do not occur in isolation, but rather are a calculated, systematic effort to attack Zimbabwean society from all sides --- a thorough package of repression developed over decades and carried out with absolute and total impunity.

And just to give you an idea of the appalling scale of the most recent violence, the PHR report cites documentation on politically motivated violence gathered for part of 2008:

"The Zimbabwe Peace Project, a human rights coalition of local NGOs and faith-based organizations, recorded 20,143 incidents of human rights violations between January and September 2008 including: 202 murders, 13 attempted murders, 41 rapes, 21 attempted rapes, 411 cases of torture, 463 kidnappings and abductions, 3,942 assaults, 444 cases of unlawful detention, 10,795 cases of harassment or intimidation, 2,290 forced displacements, 195 cases of discrimination (e.g., being denied access to government-subsidized food), 419 cases of looting or theft, and 907 cases of malicious damage to property.43 The majority of these human rights violations were politically motivated: 73% of victims are said to be supporters of the opposition MDC, and 80% of the perpetrators of violence are alleged to be ZANU-PF supporters."

(Note: The director of ZPP, Jestina Mukoko, was abducted herself in early December.)

The situation is, in a word, appalling. And the question remains: What is the way out?

A brief overview of the political dilemma:

• Mugabe lost the election in March but remains in power through a combination of brutal repression within Zimbabwe and strong-arming transition negotiations led by the Southern African Development Community (SADC). The fact that he's buddy-buddy with the mediator, former South African President Thabo Mbeki, has done more than a little to solidify his position.

• Despite the best efforts of opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, the talks have essentially failed, and really, seemed doomed from the start. A unity agreement signed on September 15 never stood a chance, and Mugabe has made no bones about the fact that he will not relinquish his power. The fact that South Africa and others in the region continue to push negotiations, often placing the onus on Tsvangirai rather Mugabe, is beyond me. (Suggestions for new SADC taglines: "The Shrinking Violet Brigade," or perhaps "Complicit in Crimes Against Humanity.")

• Mugabe appears to be moving towards setting up a government unilaterally, having already made several cabinet appointments outside of the bounds of the September agreement.

We could try this...

Donald Steinberg of the International Crisis Group argues for the establishment of an independent, non-partisan transitional authority to deal with the immediate humanitarian crisis and pave the way for fresh elections. In this scenario, Mugabe would be offered immunity from prosecution and go gracefully into exile. While the idea of an independent transitional authority is appealing, and setting aside the thought that immunity for Mugabe is unconscionable, there are crippling flaws in this scenario:

1. Where does the leverage to push Mugabe out come from?
2. Who would lead the transitional authority, and who would guarantee its security?
3. Related to both points above, how would the threat from the military and the notorious ZANU "war veterans" and youth militias be mitigated?

Steinberg fatally dismisses the problem of the military and allied armed factions in the current situation as well as any future scenario. Mugabe truly has a monopoly of violence in Zimbabwe, and the upper echelons of the military have a vested interest in keeping him in power. In fact, many speculate that a "military coup by stealth" occurred after the March 29 elections, with the Joint Operations Command (JOC) calling the shots from that point on:

"A senior Western diplomat traced the military takeover to the days after the March 29 election, when a stunned Mr Mugabe was preparing to stand down before the generals moved in. ‘The generals didn't let him go,' the diplomat said. ‘Afraid that Mr Mugabe's departure would expose them to prosecution, they struck a deal guaranteeing his reelection.'"

Whatever form a hypothetical transitional government takes, it will have to deal with the very important fact that it will not have the support of the military. Even more, in order for free and fair elections to take place, an incredibly robust international force would need to guarantee the safety of the Zimbabwean people from ZANU's many armed elements. People with guns and a political cover to preserve tend not to fade easily into the woodwork.

...or this:

And then there's John Prendergast's provocative new piece in the Christian Science Monitor, which calls on neighboring countries to intervene to forcefully oust Mugabe:

"When the situation in Idi Amin's Uganda spiraled out of control and he began destabilizing neighbors, Tanzania intervened in 1979 and overthrew Amin's regime. When Charles Taylor's destruction of Liberia and Sierra Leone became untenable, Nigeria and other neighbors sent troops, and the US sent warships off Liberia's coast in a concerted regional push to successfully urge Taylor to resign and leave the country in 2003. When Congo's Mobutu Sese Seko's divide-and-conquer approach to government began creating security problems for neighbors, they supported rebel groups to overthrow him in 1997."

It is, indeed, hard to imagine any other way to remove Mugabe. As my friend Blessing Zulu said, thousands of people have died at Mugabe's hand --- he needs to be pushed out of power, and taken to The Hague. But, in another conversation, Michael Kleinman brought up very compelling counterpoints (or counter-questions, more like) to Prendergast's argument:

"1. Who, exactly, is going to intervene?

2. What will be the result?  What are the unintended consequences?  (Interesting that he mentions Congo in 1997 as an example of overthrowing a tyrannical regime, seeing as how that led to a war which killed four million people.  Not sure that's my measure of success.)  Who will stick around to rebuild Zimbabwe?  If Afghanistan and Iraq have proven anything, it's that you can't simply invade and then hope that everything turns out for the best."

Frankly, I've come to the end of this marathon blog post, after hours upon hours of discussion and thought, completely torn. As Kleinman said, you have to ask "whether any of the scenarios to push [Mugabe] from power would create a situation even worse than the present." But as Prendergast writes,

"It will probably be messy in the short run and not without unintended consequences. But the status quo will guarantee that any hope for Zimbabwe - and huge numbers of its people - will eventually cease to exist."

Rock, meet Hard Place.