Maravi

(TALKZIMBABWE) Condoleeza Rice frustrated over Zimbabwe

Condoleeza Rice frustrated over Zimbabwe
Comment
Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:56:00 +0000

THE outgoing US Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice is increasingly getting frustrated by her inability to get the ‘international community’ to invoke the Responsibility to Protect clause against Zimbabwe, a few weeks away from the end of her tenure.

The US administration, Britain and their allies has been frantically trying to get Zimbabwe to the table of the United Nations Security Council.

Earlier attempts mainly by Britain and the US in July this year were frustrated by permanent members to the Council: China and Russia, who blocked the discussion arguing that the situation in Zimbabwe was not a threat to international peace and security, and calling for a sanctions-free, peaceful resolution of the Zimbabwean crisis.

The US, Britain and their allies wanted to use the cholera outbreak in Zimbabwe as a reason for invoking the 'responsibility to protect': an international commitment by governments to prevent and react to grave crises, wherever they may occur.

In 2005, world leaders agreed, for the first time, that states have a primary responsibility to protect their own populations and that the international community has a responsibility to act when these governments fail to protect the most vulnerable.

The Zimbabwe Government argues that it has not reneged on its responsibility; but that Government efforts have been frustrated by punitive illegal sanctions imposed by the West. Regarding the cholera crisis, the Government argues that there has been a deliberate effort by Western countries not to allow Zimbabwe to procure water treatment chemicals and equipment. They call this a “chemical and biological warfare” against the Government and people of Zimbabwe.

On Monday Secretary Rice is expected to call for “meaningful action” by the international community against Zimbabwe. Effectively, that means sending international troops to Zimbabwe using the 'responsibility to protect' argument.

Russia and China are likely to block that effort having already refused to endorse US and Britain's demands in the last few days. Moscow and Beijing still share strong ties with Zimbabwe and have indicated they prefer a diplomatic, peaceful resolution to the problems in Zimbabwe.

South Africa, the current Sadc Chair has indicated that military action will not be a option. The African Union’s Chairperson and President of Tanzania, Jakaya Kikwete has also said the AU will never consider military action as an option. Besides the AU needs all its troops in Darfur and Somalia, and individual African states have to ‘donate’ troops. Angola and South Africa are some of the ‘big dogs’ in that process – to use US Ambassador James McGee’s phrase. These are allies of Zimbabwe and will not ‘donate’ any troops.

America cannot move unilaterally. Their troops are committed in Iraq and Afghanistan were the country has suffered many casualties; and so has Britain. Britain cannot move unilaterally either. Prime Minister Gordon Brown would be hard-pressed to get unanimity in Whitehall for military action against a former colony, without sufficient ground for that invasion. The morality of such a move is devastating politically. Britain has tried to rope in South Africa to change its stance, but there is no indication of a shift in policy by Pretoria. Last week Africa Minister, Lord Malloch-Brown vented his frustration from South Africa. Infact, South African President Motlanthe has called on MDC leader to join in the all-inclusive Government, now that Amendment Number 19 Bill has been gazetted.

Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga’s call has been labelled ‘gesture politics’ to appease his funders. His own country’s foreign minister, Moses Wetangula has indicated that the military option is not a possibility and is against the Constitutive Act of the African Union.

Wetangula attacked Odinga over the call. He said: “The constitute Act of the African Union does not allow a country to be invaded unless there is a rebellion which is not the case in Zimbabwe. Secondly, the AU has no troops to send anywhere. It can only request countries to contribute and I don’t believe that is the way to go,” he said.

Article 4 (Principles) of the Constitutive Act of the African Union - Organization of African Unity adopted in Lome in 2000, says the AU shall function in accordance with the principles of "sovereign equality and interdependence among Member States of the Union","prohibition of the use of force or threat to use force among Member States of the Union" and "non-interference by any member States", among other principles.

Botswana has already defied its foreign minister’s call for military action against Zimbabwe. On Saturday the country called for a stop to all talk about Botswana getting involved in military action against Zimbabwe; barely two weeks after Foreign Minister Skelemani voiced the possibility of such action on BBC’s Hard Talk Programme..

Other individuals who have called for military action, e.g. Archbishops Desmond Tutu and John Sentamu are considered to have no political or military clout to call for troops so their words will only contribute to an academic debate about such a possibility.

These developments have led Secretary Rice to express frustration over the world’s unwillingness for forcibly remove President Mugabe. “We all undertook this notion of a responsibility to protect a couple of years ago with great fanfare, and we’ve, as a community, fallen short,” she said in an interview last week with National Public Radio in Washington, although the US has itself failed to honour similar commitments in the past; like ratifying the Rome Statute of 1998 – the treaty which founded the International Criminal Court. Many US servicemen and military officials who have wantonly killed elsewhere will not come before the ICC.

Labels: CONDOLEEZZA RICE, ZIMBABWE

posted by MrK @ 9:07 PM