60 years after the UN Convention - Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation

More documents

Recommendations

Info

228 development dialogue december 2008 – revisiting the heart of darkness ian who resigned his membership of the ZANU-PF Central Committee as well as his seat in parliament. It is quite clear that the violence of Murambatsvina, military in nature, was the act of Zimbabwean state agents, initiated from elements within the government. The aspect of communal violence occurring in some parts of Africa was not present; the perpetrators were members of the security apparatus, armed, and carrying out assaults on the person and properties of unarmed civilians. Responses Reponses, too, need analysis. It is worth while examining the responses to Murambatsvina of diff erent players, to look for common patterns. The victims The vast majority of victims, if not all, responded fi rst with disbelief and then with passivity. While some vendors managed to fl ee, with or without their goods, the majority submitted, watched while their property was destroyed or seized, or even carried it into police trucks or on foot to the police stations. While there may have been isolated incidents of resistance, they have not been detailed in documented reports. Families watched as their houses were demolished by sledgehammer and bulldozer, frequently not even being permitted to salvage movable property or personal papers. Others dismantled their own houses, labouring brick by brick to save at least some of the materials. In this way they would avoid heavy fi nes that advance police patrols claimed they would pay if they left their homes standing, and they might manage to salvage roof sheets and some bricks which would otherwise surely be smashed by the demolition squad. This passivity has been noted in other contexts of mass violence, whether it be European Jews walking to their annihilation, Cambodians on death marches or Zimbabwean victims of Gukurahundi obediently hacking their own family members with axes. In all cases the victims appear paralysed with lack of understanding of what is happening to them, and the certain knowledge that in the face of superior brute force, resistance is futile. Resistance only came later, but on a very individual and small scale. It took the form of stubborn rebuilding of some structures and in the return of vendors to their old turf. Now, however, the vendor displayed 2 oranges and hid the rest, ever on the alert to make a quick disappearance when a warning signal was sounded of police ap-
mass violence in zimbabwe 2005 – murambatsvina 229 proaching. Although there were a few court challenges, interdicting evictions, and claiming compensation for property lost, these were generally ignored by the police, and the snail’s pace of the court process discouraged most from attempting to use it. 12 The only other way to challenge the state force was through bribing individual police offi cers, something that those whose livelihoods keep them far below bare survival level have less and less capacity to do. Thus the response by victims was, with few exceptions, individuals working out their personal fates. Responses in groups were few – surely an indication that the government had succeeded in its goal of disorganising the urban population. Witnesses Witnesses include both eye witnesses or bystanders, and the broader society who were aware of the disruption being caused to other people’s lives. How did the rest respond? Generally in the same way as the victims themselves – shocked, disbelieving, uncomprehending and initially paralysed. But when the paralysis passed, those determined to ‘do something’ focused on two activities: assistance for the victims who were in the open, and informing the rest of the world. Churches primarily did the former, especially in Bulawayo, and NGOs as well as many individuals did the latter. Civil society members and organisations were busy collecting information, publishing and communicating. Some human rights organisations assisted with legal cases against the state. These responses were in contrast to reactions to the atrocities of Gukurahundi. Victims of Gukurahundi were at the time mainly assisted by their own families, occasionally by some churches and mission hospitals. And those who sought to inform the outside world were handicapped by the diffi culty of collecting information from curfewed areas, the absence of e-mail and internet, and the disbelief of those foreign adorers of the ‘revolutionary’ but sensible government of Zimbabwe. In 2005, news of the atrocities spread rapidly, micro cameras, even satellites photographed the process, and since they took place in urban areas, hundreds of thousands witnessed the events. It was not possible to keep it quiet. But the voice of formal political opposition was muted. Verbal condemnations were made, but no action was taken. Although Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the opposition MDC, made a condemnatory 12 For a discussion of these see Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum (2005a: 28-29, 2005b: 17-19).
Page 1 and 2:
no. 50 | december 2008 Revisiting t
Page 3 and 4:
Revisiting the heart of darkness -
Page 5 and 6:
Acknowledgements The larger part of
Page 7:
Dennis Brutus, born 1924 in then Rh
Page 10 and 11:
8 development dialogue december 200
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181: 178 development dialogue december 2
Page 262 and 263: In short, both the understanding of
Page 273 and 274: Behind most mass violence lurk econ
Page 275 and 276: ehind most mass violence lurk econo
Page 281 and 282:
Is there a south perspective on gen
Page 283 and 284:
is there a south perspective on gen
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 299:
The Voksenåsen Statement Genocides
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304:
Page 308:
This Development Dialogue is publis
show all

60 years after the UN Convention - Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?