[A-List] NEPAD and Zimbabwe?

["Patrick Bond" <pbond@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Lorna,

Thanks for the reply. Because I was educated in the United States, I think I
understand the problem. It's that deep-seated structural inability of US
liberal institutions to connect the dots, and then to dress up that
pathological failure--in the process, totally distorting power
relationships--using an open-minded-sounding discourse, for opportunistic
and
feel-good purposes.

It's a shame. I thought LCHR might have transcended that style. Your
relegitimation of the Bush regime and NEPAD does enormous damage.

Yours,
Patrick


----- Original Message -----
From: "Lorna Davidson" <DavidsonL@LCHR.ORG>
To: "Patrick Bond" <pbond@sn.apc.org>
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 4:29 PM
Subject: RE: Lorna: NEPAD and Zimbabwe?


Dear Patrick,
Thanks for your message and your interest in our work on Zimbabwe.  We very
much welcome your (and indeed all) comments on our letter to the G8 and are
always interested in receiving more information and different perspectives
on the best advocacy strategies.

We have, of course, consulted widely with a range of colleagues in southern
Africa, including in Zimbabwe and South Africa, on how best to advocate for
greater respect for human rights in Zimbabwe at this time.  I and a
colleague were in Johannesburg, Pretoria, Cape Town and Harare in February
and March, to discuss these issues with local activists and academics and to
get people's views on NEPAD, the AU and other African institutions that
might be utilised to promote greater respect for human rights.  We recognise
that there are many differing views on the NEPAD plan and the role that is
being played by western countries in shaping and implementing it.

Our position is that, while there are flaws in the NEPAD constitutive
document and problems about how it was created and how it is being pursued,
it remains nonetheless one of a range of mechanisms that can and should be
utilised to promote fundamental human rights standards. At the very least,
it bears being said that grand plans for home-grown initiatives to promote
development cannot be trumpeted unless the countries who are pushing these
plans take their own commitments seriously.  This is our main point with
regard to Zimbabwe.  If NEPAD and its peer review mechanism does fail (or
has already failed), then we must be clear about why that is and what it
means, both now and for the future.

With regard to the role of the G8 and the Bush administration in particular,
we do believe that the US remains an important player in the international
community and can have a positive influence on human rights around the
world.  While many of the actions that have recently been taken (and
continue to be taken) by the US government have done severe damage, both
with regard to respect for human rights domestically and internationally,
this does not mean that there is no room left at all for the US to be a
positive force on human rights in many respects.  If you wish to look at the
copious material produced by the Lawyers Committee on recent developments in
the US with regard to the precarious balancing of rights and considerations
of national security, as well as on a range of other issues, you can find
this on our website (www.lchr.org).

Similarly, with regard to the role of South Africa in Zimbabwe, I agree with
you that President Mbeki has done very little to inspire confidence.  Many
of my colleagues in Zimbabwe have told me of the betrayal felt in the
country with regard to the role being played by South Africa.  However, the
reality remains that the South African government is an important player in
the developing situation, at a political level, and is likely to remain so.
We therefore believe that positive engagement with South Africa remains an
important part of our advocacy strategy, both directly (we regularly
communicate directly with the South African government) and indirectly
through US, or other international channels.

In short, our work on Zimbabwe is multi-faceted, and our letter to the G8 is
just one part of a broader advocacy strategy.  We continue to work closely
with Zimbabwean human rights activists and always take their advice on the
kinds of approach they feel can be most effective, given our own limitations
and strengths as a US-based organisation.

I have done a fair amount of research on NEPAD and am certainly very
interested to receive more material on it.  So, I would very much welcome
copies of the manuscripts that you mention.

Thanks again for your interest in our work.

Sincerely,

Lorna Davidson
Senior Associate

Human Rights Defenders Project
Lawyers Committee for Human Rights
333 Seventh Ave, 13th floor
New York, NY 10001
USA

Tel: (+1) 212 845 5251
Fax: (+1) 212 845 5299

E-mail: Davidsonl@lchr.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Bond [mailto:pbond@sn.apc.org]
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 4:00 PM
To: Lorna Davidson
Subject: Lorna: NEPAD and Zimbabwe?


Dear Lorna (if I can be informal),

This concerns the controversial letter (below) that you have sent out to
colleagues on email, signed by Mr Posner. No doubt the intentions are
democratic, but will the results be acceptable -- if G8 leaders do as is
requested, namely codify NEPAD and put pressure on African governments, in
precisely the way that the repressive ZANU-PF regime warns against? Is your
group not playing into the hands of some very dubious actors? Won't men like
Mugabe and Jonathan Moyo point to such a letter with glee?

I know it's hard from New York to keep an eye out for all the fine details
of politics in Southern Africa. However, it shouldn't be a surprise to you
that the New Partnership for Africa's Development is widely derided as
'subimperialist' by progressive civil society groups (e.g., those most
closely associated with the World Social Forum) in this region.

In fact, based upon the appalling record of nurturing the dictatorship since
2000, as well as the SA government's strategic interests -- economic,
geopolitical and domestic (in relation to future opposition party challenges
from the labour movement) -- there are very very few serious observers of
the Zimbabwe situation who believe that there is ANY positive role for the
Mbeki regime. In particular, NEPAD's peer review mechanism is widely
considered 'a joke' (even by the secretariat, which in our main business
newspaper last month admitted that NEPAD is no longer taken seriously
because of Zimbabwe).

Even more disturbing is that you believe the Bush administration can and
should make interventions on behalf of Zimbabweans, in the wake of his
delegitimation thanks to the US occupation of Iraq, not to mention the
racially-biased Florida election.

There are a great many resources that can be sent to you from southern
Africa to clarify these issues. For example, the Zimbabwe Coalition on Debt
and Development is producing a booklet on how NEPAD has failed. A book I
edited a year ago -- Fanon's Warning -- provides ample evidence that the
major civil society and intellectual forces in Africa view NEPAD as having
only one merit: as a point of unity against which all progressive forces are
uniting in opposition. Another book I coauthored -- Zimbabwe's Plunge --
provides detailed documentation of why Mbeki and Obasanjo cannot be trusted
to support democracy in Zimbabwe (as if the recent Nigerian election was not
enough proof). Also, three weeks ago, I presented a long powerpoint at
Columbia University and the African American Institute on NEPAD. Please let
me know if you'd like any of these manuscripts emailed (both the books were
copublished by a New Jersey press, Africa World Press).

There are SO many ways an excellent organisation like LCHR can promote
democracy and development in Zimbabwe and across Africa, but I must insist
that your group's strategy of working through the Bush and Mbeki regimes
will certainly rebound negatively on LCHR's good name.

Yours,

Patrick Bond
(Professor, University of the Witwatersrand)


> >  "Lorna Davidson" <DavidsonL@LCHR.ORG>
> >   16/05/2003
> >
> > Please find attached a letter sent today to each of
> > the G8 heads of state,
> > in advance of their upcoming Summit at Evian.  The
> > letter calls on the G8
> > states to fully implement their Africa Action Plan,
> > by working closely with
> > African states that demonstrate committment to the
> > NEPAD principles both in
> > their domestic policies and their regional
> > relations.  In particular, the
> > G8 should demonstrate their commitment to ending
> > ongoing human rights
> > violations in Zimbabwe, by working closely with
> > regional governments and
> > civil society groups to resolve the current crisis.
> >
> > Lorna Davidson
> >
> > Human Rights Defenders Project
> > Lawyers Committee for Human Rights
> > 333 Seventh Ave, 13th floor
> > New York, NY 10001
> > USA
> >
> > Tel: (+1) 212 845 5251
> > Fax: (+1) 212 845 5299
> >
> > E-mail: Davidsonl@lchr.org
> >  (See attached file: G8 letter Bush.doc)
>
>
> President George W. Bush
> The White House
> 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
> Washington, DC 20500
> Fax: 1 202 456 2461
>
>
> May 16, 2003
>
> Dear President Bush,
>
> We write to urge that the current crisis in Zimbabwe
> receives sufficient attention at the upcoming meeting
> of G8 countries in Evian, France.  The commitment of
> the G8 to ending serious human rights abuses in
> Zimbabwe by working alongside African states and
> institutions is crucial.  The resolution of the
> Zimbabwean crisis is not only a legal and moral
> imperative, but it also fundamental to the successful implementation
> of the G8's Africa Action Plan and the New Partnership for Africa's
> Development (NEPAD).
>
> We are pleased to note that monitoring the
> implementation of the G8 Africa Action Plan, which was adopted at the
> end of the June 2002 summit held in Kananaskis, Canada, is one of the
> items on the agenda of your upcoming meeting at Evian.  We are also
> encouraged by President Chirac's proposal to focus on
> several major themes during the meeting, including the
> promotion of democracy through dialogue with civil
> society and other states.  The crisis in Zimbabwe is a
> litmus test for the efficacy of your discussions.  The
> situation in Zimbabwe starkly contradicts the
> principles contained in NEPAD and supported by the
> Africa Action Plan.  Moreover, Zimbabwean civil
> society groups are routinely being persecuted, which
> hampers their efforts to promote respect for human
> rights and the rule of law.
>
> In the Africa Action Plan, the G8 states pledged
> their commitment to the principles and objectives
> contained in NEPAD.  Among these are the attainment of sustainable
> development through good governance, democracy and respect for human
> rights.  The G8 Africa Action Plan describes NEPAD as "a bold and
> clear-sighted vision of Africa's development" and
> seeks to encourage "the imaginative effort that
> underlies [it]."  The Plan also refers to NEPAD's
> peer-review process as an "innovative and potentially
> decisive element in the attainment of the objectives
> of the NEPAD."  The Plan does not, however, lay out
> any guidelines for how the G8 states will seek to
> support the peer-review process and ensure that it
> indeed fulfils its role as a "decisive element" in
> ensuring good governance and respect for human rights.
>
> We see the need for an effective peer review process
> in the implementation of NEPAD that includes
> independent civil society groups within Africa and
> rigorously examines states' implementation of
> internationally recognized human rights standards.
> (See Lawyers Committee letter to African heads of
> state, November 13, 2002, attached.)  The peer review
> process should include an examination not only of a
> state's internal practices and implementation of human rights, but
> also should assess their policies towards other African states and the
> consistency of such policies with international human rights
> obligations.
>
> We commend the commitment of the G8 states, contained
> in the Africa Action Plan, to establish enhanced
> partnerships with African countries whose performance reflects the
> principles and undertakings contained in NEPAD.  In order for this
> commitment to be fully realized, such enhanced partnerships should be
> established with countries whose actions both at home
> and in their relations with other countries in the
> region are reflective of the principles of good
> governance, democracy and human rights.  NEPAD is
> itself a regional initiative and requires regional
> vision and implementation, not only domestic policies
> and practices that conform with its aims.
>
> Many crises of poverty, disease, armed conflict, and
> denial of democracy and human rights continue to
> plague Africa and fundamentally undermine efforts to
> achieve sustainable development.  Combating such
> crises requires effective, co-ordinated strategies
> among African states and supported by the
> international community.  The current situation in
> Zimbabwe is one such crisis, the details of which are well-documented
> by local and international organizations (see Lawyers Committee
> Briefing Paper for the G8, June 2002).  Since your June 2002 meeting,
> the situation in Zimbabwe has further deteriorated,
> and it is largely the black population that is
> targeted for abuse.  Serious human rights violations
> committed by the government and its agents continue to
> receive insufficient attention both within the region
> and internationally.  Efforts to end the crisis must
> involve the combined efforts of governments and civil
> society groups in Africa which are encouraged by the
> G8.  Fundamental human rights issues must be
> addressed, including bringing an end to political
> violence, arbitrary detention and torture, restoring
> full freedom of expression and association, ensuring
> the independence of the judiciary, and combating
> impunity for human rights abuses.
>
> The very fundamental challenges to NEPAD presented by
> the Zimbabwe crisis and the response to it, and the
> creation of viable regional mechanisms to enhance
> respect for human rights in Africa must be prioritized
> at the G8 meeting.  We would greatly appreciate your
> action in this regard and any information that you can provide to us
> in response to our concerns.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Michael Posner
> Executive Director
>
>
> Cc: President Jaques Chirac
> Prime Minister Tony Blair
> Prime Minister Jean Chrétien
> President Vladimir Putin
> Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder
> Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi
> Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi
>
>
>
> Mr. Colin Powell, Secretary of State
> Mr. Jack Straw, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
> Affairs Mr. Joschka Fischer, Federal Minister for Foreign
> Affairs
> Mr. Igor Ivanov, Minister for Foreign Affairs
> Mr. Dominique de Villepin, Minister for Foreign
> Affairs
> Mr. Franco Frattini, Minister for Foreign Affairs
> Mr. Yoriko Kawaguchi, Minister for Foreign Affairs