IS ZIMBABWE ON THE BRINK OF GENOCIDE?

 

 

 

 

Report prepared for ZWNEWS by an independent human rights consultant.

 

January 2003

 

The identity of the author has been withheld to protect individuals and organisations

 

 

 

 

Background

 

Genocide is a scary word. It is something that the mind shies away from, something that people are afraid to contemplate even in the abstract, because it is so horrific that we will not believe it. And it is perhaps for this reason that the genocide of Jews in WWII was carried out for so long before it was fully comprehended, and why the Interahamwe managed to kill 800 000 Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 before the international community reacted. The truth is that at least the latter could have been prevented, and that all the indicators were there for the international community to see what was happening. But they did not react, partly because they just could not believe that it was happening, or could happen.

 

When reports of killings and mass human rights violations reach the international community, the first response is always cautious. The first demand is for verification, whilst the second is usually conservative under-reaction. The machinery for dealing with mass human rights violations is inherently conservative, and this inevitably produces a significant time lag in responding to such situations. There seems to be a reluctance to accept that people can really be slaughtering one another without provocation and that civilians are being subjected to a steady and relentless elimination process.

 

But the sad truth is that people are indeed capable of mass slaughter, and hence it is all the more necessary to be ready to respond quickly where the indicators are present in order to prevent excessive deaths. And Zimbabwe, recently assessed as one of the most oppressive states in the world, seems primed for just such a situation. This may seem a ridiculous claim when there have been comparatively few deaths so far from the conflict of the past three years, but, as will be seen below, it is less the deaths to date than the insidious pattern of organised violence and torture that leads to the concern about a potential genocide.

 

Genocide

 

The crime of genocide is defined in international law in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. The Genocide Convention was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948. The Convention entered into force on 12 January 1951. More than 130 nations have ratified the Genocide Convention and over 70 nations have made provisions for the punishment of genocide in domestic criminal law. The text of Article II of the Genocide Convention was included as a crime in Article 6 of the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Zimbabwe is a signatory to this Convention.

 

There are two salient articles in the Convention:

 

Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts

committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical,

racial or religious group, as such:

 

  • Killing members of the group;
  • Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  • Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring

about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

  • Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  • Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

 

Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:

 

  • Genocide;
  • Conspiracy to commit genocide;
  • Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
  • Attempt to commit genocide;
  • Complicity in genocide.

 

The following are acts of genocide when committed as part of a policy to destroy a group’s existence:

 

  • Killing members of the group includes direct killing and actions causing death.
  • Causing serious bodily or mental harm includes inflicting trauma on members of

the group through widespread torture, rape, sexual violence, forced or coerced

use of drugs, and mutilation.

  • Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy a group

includes the deliberate deprivation of resources needed for the group’s physical

survival, such as clean water, food, clothing, shelter or medical services.

  • Deprivation of the means to sustain life can be imposed through confiscation of

harvests, blockade of foodstuffs, detention in camps, forcible relocation or

expulsion into deserts. 

  • Prevention of births includes involuntary sterilization, forced abortion,

prohibition of marriage, and long-term separation of men and women intended to

prevent procreation.

  • Forcible transfer of children may be imposed by direct force or by through fear

of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or other methods of

coercion.  The Convention on the Rights of the Child defines children as persons

under the age of 14 years.

 

 

As can be seen, acts of genocide need not kill or cause the death of members of a group: torture, political rape, displacement, deprivation, and various other actions, short of killing, also are included in the definition. Furthermore, it is a crime to plan or incite genocide, even before killing starts, and to aid or abet genocide. The criminal acts described in the Convention include conspiracy, direct and public incitement, attempts to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide.

 

Stages in genocide

 

Genocide clearly is not a spontaneous occurrence, and the killing of masses of people, or the harming of large numbers, must take place over time and involve planning. There are usually a series of stages in the development of a genocide or politicide, and there is compelling evidence that many of these stages have already taken place in contemporary Zimbabwe.

 

The following is taken from the 8 stages in genocide identified by Genocide Watch, and then applied to the Zimbabwe situation. As will be seen later, Genocide Watch themselves argue that stage 6 has been reached in Zimbabwe.

 

1. Classification

 

Classification is a normal human process, and all societies make classifications about their composition. This is generally not problematic, but can become very dangerous when a society is racially or ethnically divided, and is very serious when these divisions have resulted in racial or ethnic clashes and conflict in the past.

 

Zimbabwe has two major ethnic divisions – Shona and Ndebele – and a number of racial divisions. These divisions have played a major part in the violence of previous decades, and, in the past three years, there has been increasing recourse by the Mugabe regime to attribute the problems in Zimbabwe to racial and ethnic problems. It is important here to note that the violence in the 1980s would easily conform to the definition of genocide, and of course the fundamental basis for the Liberation War of the 1970s was the racist policies of the illegal Smith regime. Currently, there has been a continuous emphasis by the Mugabe regime on the role that whites and their followers – who tend to be all who do not support Zanu PF – are playing in destabilising the country.

 

2. Symbolization

 

Essentially, here we are talking about stereotyping of people and groups of people, and the processes aimed at dividing up societies that are always composed of diverse groups into “in” and “out” groups. In Zimbabwe, this has occurred in the past with the Ndebele being vilified in the 1980s[1], and today has revolved around the framing of the Zimbabwe crisis as due to the recalcitrant white commercial farmers, and the support of the whites and their international allies for the MDC. There are endless statements along these lines[2].

 

The key organising issue has been the so-called land problem and its use in dealing with the matter of maintaining political power in the hands of Zanu PF. The land issue, despite the government having failed to produce any significant land reform in nearly 20 years of power, is used by the Mugabe regime to symbolically aim the problems of the nation at the whites, their international allies, and those whom the whites support. The acceptance of white support by any Zimbabwean group or political party becomes the basis for including them as enemies, with the blunt references to the Liberation War of the 1970s. There is a very simple metonymic process: problems of whatever kind are due to white, colonial powers, oppressors, enemies, white sympathisers, etc. The contrasting pole of this construct is inordinately simple: Zanu PF are the liberators, good, etc, and you can know Zanu PF from the others simply by which colour they are or which party card they carry.  This stereotyping is extraordinarily effective because it links the past to the present in a very straightforward manner, and uses race as the organising device.

 

3. Dehumanization

 

This can take many forms and does not need to conform to the crude approach of the Nazis to the Jews. It is essentially building upon the stereotyping process by attributing the problems in the society to the “out” group, focusing hate and dislike against this group, and encouraging actions against this group.

 

In Zimbabwe, there has been and continues to be a basic undercurrent of racial and ethnic hate. This has escalated in the past three years, and, as indicated above, takes the form mostly of stereotyping whites as exploiting and racist, with all black “out” groups portrayed as willing dupes of the whites. The rhetoric revolves around a plot to return the nation to colonial domination, with frequent references to slavery and the like. In common with the Nazi rhetoric, the “out” groups are seen to be involved in a plot to overthrow the nation or maintain economic and political power over the “in” group.

 

Here the power of the press and media in escalating polarisation and dehumanisation is crucial. The Mugabe regime has enormous control of the press and the media, and especially the radio which is the primary source of information for most rural Zimbabweans. The outpourings of invective, hate speech, and blunt misinformation are very significant in developing the attitudes of Zimbabweans, and here the vilification of the MDC is crucial.

 

An additionally relevant fact for the development of dehumanisation has been the partisan attitude of the Zimbabwe Republic Police. Since the beginning of the farm invasions there has been a deplorable tendency for the police to refuse to take action in many situations of violence and degradation on the grounds that the matter was “political”. This has had the effect of removing protection from many groups in Zimbabwe, and encouraging an attitude that the violence was deserved or condoned. Here the partisan statements of the Commissioner of Police, Augustine Chihuri, are especially sinister[3].

  

4. Organization  

 

As Genocide Watch points out, genocide is always organized, usually by the state. Special army units or militias are often trained and armed, and plans are made for genocidal killings. These plans may not aim primarily at killing, and, as was seen from the definitions above, genocide can include campaigns of systematic torture, displacement of groups, and deprivation of food and resources. There is good evidence for all of these latter forms of genocide being perpetrated in Zimbabwe, a fact which does not appear to have been properly understood by much of the international community, and is particularly misunderstood, possibly deliberately, by most African governments. This is amply demonstrated by the outrageous reports of African states on the various elections that have taken place over the past three years.

 

In the past three years, there has been a proliferation of militia groups in Zimbabwe. The first onslaught, after the Constitutional Referendum in February 2000, was spearheaded by so-called “war veterans”, but very evidently assisted by military and CIO personnel[4]. This was facilitated by the apparent passivity of the Zimbabwe Republic Police in the face of blatant criminal acts being perpetrated on commercial farmers, commercial farm workers, and finally on ordinary citizens. The violence, which was extreme and revolved mainly around torture[5], was never formally repudiated by the political leaders of Zimbabwe.

 

The next phase in the use of the militia has revolved around “youth militia”, the so-called “green bombers”. The initial intakes, as was openly admitted by the regime, were composed of the young men who had been associated with the “war veteran” militia. This was clearly a reward for loyalty, but, from the perspective of preventing genocide, unfortunately involved further training of young men who had already been involved in violence and human rights violations.

 

As the reports of all human rights observer groups show, an alarmingly high proportion of the human rights violations documented have been perpetrated by the youth militia, whilst the pattern of torture seen clearly supports the notion that torture techniques are being taught[6]. The youth militia, when deployed, followed a very clear pattern in the development of tolerance to the presence of youth militia. They re-established the bases seen in the Parliamentary Elections, went on a strong recruiting drive – mostly using compulsion – of the local youth, and then employed an in-service training programme with these youths. Much of this training again resulted in the local youths becoming involved in violence and torture.

 

The last phase to date has seen the increasing involvement of the Zimbabwe Republic Police in torture and harassment of “out” groups. This has followed massive staff changes in the police ranks, with all new appointments being based on a “loyalty” basis. Subsequently, the reports of observers show a marked increase in the number of cases in which the police, and especially the ordinary uniformed branch, have perpetrated torture. This was dramatically seen in Buhera, where the endless press reports and statements of the MDC arguing that a pogrom was taking place, were amply supported by the cases seen by human rights groups[7].

 

Significantly, the army is not frequently mentioned in human rights reports, but, given the massively effective use of the militia in winning elections, they have not been needed to date. Here it should not be forgotten that the bald statement of political support for the Mugabe regime given by the defence chiefs in 2001 has never been repudiated. However, it is important here to note that the Zimbabwe National Army is mentioned in many other reports as benefiting from the favours of the regime[8].

 

Finally, the use by the regime of statutes of impunity adds to the problem in a very significant manner, and this has drawn frequent comment from local and international observers[9]. Impunity, both formal and practical, is additionally supported by the subversion of the judical process[10].

 

5. Polarization

 

Here the process requires that groups are driven apart, and the press and media are particularly important in forcing and maintaining the polarisation.

 

In Zimbabwe, the government-controlled press, television and radio now operate in a flagrant manner with all pretence at impartiality gone. Any cursory examination will show this to be so, but anecdote is more than adequately supported by the reporting of independent press monitoring groups. Additionally, virtually all foreign press people have been expelled, a relatively large number of local journalists have been tortured, assaulted, falsely charged and imprisoned, harassed, and threatened with removal of their licences. Increasingly, all independent voices are becoming self-censoring. Even independent monitoring organisations have come under attack, with the arrest in August of the Medical Director of the Amani Trust for allegedly making a “false statement” about political rape being a good illustration of the attempt by the regime to silence all critical voices.

 

The wide spread use of hate speech and racist commentary continues unabated. The interesting aspect to the attempt to force polarisation is the pairing of “white interest” with “MDC dupes”, and, whilst this might seem an improbable pairing for use in building towards genocide, it is easily reinforced through the current violence. Only loyalty to Zanu PF counts, and if a person is unable to demonstrate active support for Zanu PF – a party card or attendance at party-approved meetings- then the presumption is that he or she is MDC. Being MDC implies being a dupe of the whites, and membership in the “out” group is assured. This can be avoided, and the final defence is of course a conversion to Zanu PF, which will obviously involve some form of loyalty test. This loyalty test is now being applied to the distribution of drought relief, where many independent reports show that those who are not able to demonstrate allegiance to Zanu PF are excluded from food relief[11].

 

The polarisation has made a slow and steady process over the past three years, and it now permeates all aspects of Zimbabwean life. Most significantly it now revolves around the access to food, but this is merely another aspect of the process in which all people in Zimbabwe must make active and open declaration for Zanu PF in order not to be a target of some form of discrimination.

 

6. Preparation 

 

It is at this point that Zimbabwe is currently argued to be by Genocide Watch. Here the “out” group is visibly distinguished by the perpetrators. It is the final point at which preventive action can be taken by the international community. As Genocide Watch comments:

 

      At this stage, a Genocide Alert must be called. If the political

will of the U.S., NATO, and the U.N. Security Council can be

mobilized, armed international intervention should be prepared,

or heavy assistance to the victim group in preparing for its self-

defense. Otherwise, at least humanitarian assistance should be

organized by the U.N. and private relief groups for the

inevitable tide of refugees.

 

Whilst there are no signs of concentration camps, there is quite obvious “sealing up” of rural districts, quite transparently creating “no go” areas. This seems likely to split the towns from the country, severing family ties, and ensuring that rural districts will remain uniformly supporters of Zanu PF. Here it is instructive to consider the Appendices, especially Appendices 2 and 3. The information in these two reports shows different aspects of the preparations.

 

The two final stages, Extermination(7) and Denia(8), do not need to be described in any detail here, and in any event are stages when the international community has no preventive options left.

 

The point of studying genocide, and, more importantly, of actively monitoring potential situations in which genocide may occur, is to prevent its occurrence. It is for this reason that continuous reports of gross human rights violations from a country attract the attention of organisations monitoring for signs of potential genocide. Genocide Watch, for example, has three levels of Alerts. A Genocide or Politicide Watch is declared when early warning signs indicate the danger of genocide or political mass killing. A Genocide or Politicide Warning is called when genocide or politicide is imminent, often indicated by massacres. A Genocide Emergency is declared when genocide is actually underway.

 

The brink of genocide

 

If we consider the stages above, Zimbabwe appears to be primed for massacres, and Genocide Watch (from whom this information was obtained) considers that Zimbabwe has already reached the stage of preparation (see below). As indicated above, independent information gathering and a number of indicators point strongly towards preparations for an ethnic cleansing operation. The Mugabe regime has already proved that it is capable of such an action through the Matabeleland massacre in the 1980’s, where thousands were slaughtered, and this episode in Zimbabwe’s history would strongly conform to the definition of genoc