« Prev Next »
THE ABUJA
AGREEMENT
Editor’s Introduction With
the May issue, we sent readers a questionnaire. So far, about 300 readers
have responded. Thank you for letting us know how you view the Monitor. We hope others will reply later. Early this month (October), an evaluation workshop recommended certain improvements to make the Monitor more ‘reader-friendly’. The ‘first fruits’ are our banner headline for our special focus, the bigger print, and Shona and Ndebele versions in the Financial Gazette Supplement. Our focus this month is the Abuja accord. Abuja stressed human
rights and the rule of law. These are also specified in the Harare
Declaration and the Millbrook Programme. The Abuja communique referred to
both Commonwealth documents. In this issue we will examine Government’s
observance of Abuja and the human rights it agreed to uphold. Abuja and Human Rights
The
Abuja communique, signed on 7 September 2001, agreed (among other things)
that: ‘Land is at the core of the crisis in Zimbabwe and cannot be separated from other issues of concern to the Commonwealth, such as the rule of law, respect for human rights, democracy and the economy. A programme of land reform is, therefore, crucial to the resolution of the problem. Such
a programme of land reform must be implemented in a fair, just and
sustainable manner, in the interest of all the people of Zimbabwe, within
the law and Constitution of Zimbabwe. The
crisis in Zimbabwe also has political and rule of law implications, which
must be addressed holistically and concurrently… The
orderly implementation of the land reform can only be meaningful and
sustainable if carried out with due regard to human rights, rule of law,
transparency and democratic principles. The meeting welcomed the assurances given by the Zimbabwe delegation as follows: …
The Abuja communique lacked any specific protection for the human rights of farmworkers. Since January 2001, nearly 14 000 farmworkers and their dependants, 70 000 people in all, have become destitute. Minister Chinamasa told Parliament that resettlement would not cater for all displaced farm-workers. GAPWUZ strongly condemned the wanton destruction of farm villages which after Abuja left 70 Macheke farmworkers without their right to shelter.
Abuja also said nothing specific about compensating previous owners
for land acquired in a legitimate and orderly land reform programme. It
was silent about systematic political violence, the position of the
judiciary, and incitement of racial hatred. Reactions to Abuja Angola, Botswana, Malawi, Mocambique, Namibia, South Africa and Tanzania immediately emphasised SADC’s support for the Abuja agreement. The Commonwealth expected to monitor its progress at Brisbane, but CHOGM was postponed to March 2002. So CMAG came to see what was happening. The
CMAG delegates were reported not to be impressed with progress. The UK did
not intend to release money until receiving detailed evidence of
Government’s compliance with what it had agreed to.
1.
Government reactions ‘Although the Abuja Agreement had brought a new dimension to the final resolution of the land issue, the Government was not placing all its hopes on the pact’. President
Mugabe waited until Cabinet and Politburo ‘approved’ the Abuja
communique, then accused ‘British’ farmers of ‘stirring trouble on
the farms … mobilising, arming and even paying their workers to attack
their black brethren settlers’. He warned them: ‘White commercial farmers are not a law eviction authority. They should rely on arms of Government which will only act within the laws and policies of the Government’. By late September Government spokesmen were claiming that Abuja recognised ‘the status quo’ on ‘fast-track resettlement’ and that donors would fund the acquisition of 95% of all commercial farms. This was promptly denied by donors. The European Union as donor refused to support ‘an illegal programme’. Then CHOGM was postponed. Mid-October saw government’s early caution transformed into a claim of full compliance with Abuja’s requirements. ‘Government
has made all the necessary efforts to make sure that the agreement
succeeds but it seems there is a hidden hand that is trying to turn the
Abuja agreement into yet another flop… The Zimbabwean Government
promised to carry out the land reform exercise according to the
constitution and laws of the country as
it had already been doing… Government
has stopped all further occupations of farmlands
despite repeated efforts from some white commercial farmers and opposition
elements to make it appear as if the occupations are still going on. Some
commercial farmers have “stage-managed” fresh farm occupations in a
bid to tarnish the image of the Government… Britain
has not yet taken any confidence-building measures… Some people have
even said Britain
agreed to sign the Abuja agreements knowing well that it would fan
instability on the farms…’
[We have emphasised the untrue claims in these Sunday
Mail quotations.] As the Commonwealth delegation arrived in late October to inspect reality on the ground, Government announced it had delisted 20 farms since Abuja. 2.
Civil society reactions
Zimbabweans were sceptical from the outset. ‘Will Robert Mugabe really go along with the agreements entered into at last week’s land talks in Nigeria?… If he engineered the ruckus we have witnessed, as a mere ruse to divert attention from his lack of ideas on how to arrest the decline of the economy, his staying in power beyond what is relevant and affective, as well as his increased unpopularity, then the Abuja agreement has done nothing to help him… If this cynical evaluation makes the “land issue” the seeming sole reason for his existence, then he will not find it in his interests to adhere to the Abuja agreement. We would then expect to hear a lot about how the British did or didn’t do this or that, thus scuppering the whole deal.’ (Chido Makunike). Sure enough, what Makunike predicted came to pass. ‘Abuja:
UK drags feet’ yelled The Sunday
Mail. ‘Abuja
pact holds – But UK backtracks, CFU mounts smear campaign’ screamed The Herald. ‘While the Government has pulled out all the stops to
implement the Abuja accord, the British administration has dismissed the
agreement as not binding…’ |