United Nations special envoy Anna Tibaijuka is investigating the shanty town clearances in Zimbabwe that have provoked allegations of widespread human-rights abuses by President Robert Mugabe’s government.
The demolitions form a backdrop to the row in Britain over deportations of failed asylum seekers to Zimbabwe. Although the Foreign Office and the Home Office this week denied there was a split between them over the deportations, there is a definite difference in emphasis.
If Mugabe’s government is as bad as the Foreign Office claims, why is the Home Office sending failed asylum claimants back to Zimbabwe? The answer, though neither the Foreign Office nor the Home Office will admit it, is that Zimbabwe is not as dangerous as many other countries that Britain regularly sends failed claimants back to.
There is a difference, too, within the international community between Britain, which is backed by the United States and Europe, and the African Union (AU), which has rejected calls for it to intervene. The AU believes there are more pressing issues on the continent.
Tom Cargill, an Africa analyst at Chatham House, one of Britain’s leading foreign policy think tanks, said that events in Zimbabwe were more complex than either Britain or the AU were prepared to admit. ”Britain is not helping things by criticising Mugabe. It is playing into his hands. But it is wrong for the AU to pretend it is a minor problem,” he said. ”A lot of Mugabe’s hold on Zimbabwe is psychological, the fear of violence rather than violence itself.”
For two years, from 2002, the Home Office had a moratorium on returning asylum seekers to Zimbabwe, as it had on those from Iraq. Last November, the Home Office ended the moratorium, claiming Zimbabweans were taking advantage of it.
Tibaijuka’s report-back offers the opportunity for an independent assessment. — Â