United Nations condemns Zimbabwe violence

By Lance Guma
24 June 2008

For the first time the United Nations Security Council has unanimously passed a statement condemning the Zanu PF campaign of violence in Zimbabwe. Mugabe’s traditional allies of South Africa, China and Russia for the first time endorsed a statement condemning Mugabe’s regime for the crisis. The trio however did their best to dilute a much tougher original draft which insiders say would have amounted to recognition of Morgan Tsvangirai as the legitimate president of the country. The earlier version of the resolution was more direct and explicitly blamed Mugabe for the crisis while declaring Tsvangirai the legitimate leader until a credible run-off was held.

The final version did say; ‘The results of the 29 March 2008 elections must be respected.’ This could be interpreted to mean that as Tsvangirai won the first election round, he is the legitimate leader. The statement also called on international monitors and observers to remain in the country until a credible election is held. In the past months South Africa, Russia and China have all been accused of blocking UN Security Council discussions on Zimbabwe. The non-binding statement from the UN however serves to demonstrate the growing frustration with Mugabe by the international community. It also becomes the Security Council’s first formal ‘action’ on Zimbabwe.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has already urged the government not to proceed with run-off on Friday, saying the result would have no legitimacy. He said the holding of an election after Tsvangirai had withdrawn, ‘will only deepen divisions within the country and produce a result that cannot be credible.’ Several African countries such as Kenya, Swaziland, Senegal, Zambia, Angola, Tanzania and Rwanda, among others, have also ratcheted up the pressure on Mugabe’s regime by speaking out against the violence and calling for the poll to be postponed.

Tsvangirai meanwhile welcomed the UN resolution saying, ‘I think it's a very important resolution. It recognizes the people who are accountable for the violence and this squarely places that responsibility on Mr Mugabe's leadership. How he is going to take it, we don't know. But I am sure that he can no longer remain defiant to that international position, which was unanimous by the way.’

Many analysts are beginning to speak about the United Nations ‘responsibility to protect’ in the case of a failed state like Zimbabwe. This newly developed concept in international relations provides a legal and ethical basis for humanitarian intervention. Guguletho Moyo from the International Bar Association told Newsreel that since 2005, when the concept was embraced by the UN, no single intervention has been carried out using it. The recent disaster in Burma and the military junta’s refusal to allow aid into the country was a typical scenario where the UN could have intervened, Moyo said. But she added that Monday’s developments have put Zimbabwe firmly on the agenda of the UN Security Council, whereas previously it was difficult to get countries like South Africa to agree to this.