An Abhorrent Form of Censorship

Two Zimbabwean journalists from the state-owned Sunday Mail and Herald newspapers -- Munyaradzi Huni and Caesar Zvayi -- have been placed on the European Union's sanctions list. The two, alongside other perceived supporters of the Mugabe regime, will have their assets frozen and will not be allowed into European Union territory ("Journalists added to EU sanctions list," SW Radio Africa, July 23).

This move is shocking because it is a blatant attempt at mind-control and is clearly aimed at muzzling all voices, other than those that are seen and heard to be supporting Morgan Tsvangirai.

I say the decision to place the journalists on the sanctions list is an attempt at mind-control because, early this month, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner stated that the EU would not recognise any government in Zimbabwe other than a government led by Tsvangirai ("EU wants Tsvangirai to head Zimbabwe govt", Reuters, July 1).

The EU, like the United States, tries to justify this position by arguing that because Tsvangirai 'won' the March 29 elections, he should, therefore, lead the country.

In all likelihood, the EU is aware that the argument it is advancing on who should lead Zimbabwe is deeply flawed. This would explain why it is now waging psychological warfare on writers and political commentators -- it wants to manipulate and control what journalists, writers and political commentators write and say about Tsvangirai.

I say the EU's position on Tsvangirai is flawed because it is not and should not be up to the EU to decide who should have what position in the Zimbabwean government. That decision should be left to the people of Zimbabwe.

In addition to that, the EU's position on who should lead the country is flawed because it is based on the embellishment that Tsvangirai won the March 29 elections. The truth of the matter is that Tsvangirai got 47.9% of the votes and this fell short of the 50% (plus 1) that both the MDC and Zanu-PF had agreed were needed in order to determine who should lead the country.

Based on the results of the March 29 elections, it can actually be argued that the majority of the people in Zimbabwe (52.1%), do not have confidence in Morgan Tsvangirai as a leader.

Had Tsvangirai taken part in the June 27 presidential run-off and had he received 50% plus 1 of the votes, then yes, he would have had the right to lead the country. But because he unilaterally pulled out of the elections, he left Robert Mugabe as the sole candidate. And, because Mugabe was the sole contestant in the June 27 elections, he won and is, therefore, the legitimate leader of Zimbabwe.

Also, Zvayi no longer works for the Sunday Mail and I doubt that Huni, like the bulk of those working within Zimbabwe's state-owned media, can afford to travel to any part of the EU. It is also highly unlikely that any of them have assets in the EU.

In placing these two journalists on the sanctions list, the EU is actually trying to instill fear and create a psychological block on all writers and commentators who have an interest in Zimbabwe and who have an alternative take on what is happening there. This is further evidenced by the fact that, currently, among other things, Peter Mavhunga -- a court probation officer and part-time newspaper columnist who has been living and working in the U.K. for the past 30 years -- is now being subjected to a witch-hunt by British authorities because he writes for the Zimbabwean state-owned Herald newspaper ("UK bars Zim DJs," Journalism.co.za, July 15).

While I believe that a solution needs to be found to the country's political and economic crisis, I do not believe that threatening, harassing and intimidating writers in this manner will do anything to resolve the crisis.

Behaviours like these are an abhorrent form of censorship and are an attack on the freedoms of speech, thought and association. They are no different from the treatment repressive regimes all over the world routinely mete out on writers they see as expressing views that deviate from and which threaten the regimes' interests.

In placing Huni and Zvayi on its sanctions list, the EU is, in effect, threatening, not only journalists who work for the state-owned media in Zimbabwe, but all people who have an interest in the future of the country and is telling them, "If you are seen to be supporting anyone other than Tsvangirai, we will make life uncomfortable for you."
 
Instead of threatening writers and political commentators, if the EU truly wants a feasible solution to the crisis in Zimbabwe, it should support the mediation efforts that are currently being overseen by South African President Thabo Mbeki.

Link

An earlier version of this article has been featured on OhmyNews International.

Saddam Hussein’s Execution Is A War Crime

Saddam Hussein was killed before dawn, under cover of darkness, on Dec. 30.

Before his execution, Saddam Hussein was a prisoner of war and as a prisoner of war, he was entitled to fair and humane treatment as well as protection from summary execution.

None of these things happened.

Saddam was captured by U.S. soldiers on Dec. 13, 2003. In itself, this act alone made him a prisoner of war because he was part of Iraqi army’s chain of command and before his capture, he wore a military uniform and bore arms openly.

But instead of treating him with the dignity and respect that should be accorded to prisoners of war, the United States handed him over to an Iraqi government whose legitimacy is questionable knowing that there was a strong possibility that government would execute him.

The Third Geneva Convention is supposed to protect captured military personnel. It is supposed to protect prisoners of war like Saddam Hussein.

The convention makes it illegal to torture prisoners.

Article 3 of the convention prohibits: "Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture."

It also prohibits: "The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

And just like the motives of the war on Iraq, the independence and impartiality of the court which sentenced Saddam Hussein to death is questionable.

Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International's Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme described Saddam's trial as "a shabby affair, marred by serious flaws that call into question the capacity of the tribunal, as currently established, to administer justice fairly, in conformity with international standards."

Saddam's experience before the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (SICT) was cruel and it was torture.

In its November 2006 report, "Judging Dujail: The First Trial Before the Iraqi High Tribunal," Human Rights Watch identified serious flaws with the proceedings.

For a year after his arrest, Saddam was denied access to legal counsel. Witnesses and defence lawyers died because the tribunal would not, or could not, protect them -- and, throughout the trial, the tribunal routinely ignored complaints from Saddam Hussein's lawyers about the proceedings.

Saddam's defense team was also only allowed two weeks, instead of 30 days, in which to read and respond to the trial judgment and when they did file an appeal against the sentence, it took the Iraqi Appeals Chamber less than 21 days to quash the appeal.

Richard Dicker, Director of Human Rights Watch's International Justice Program said: "It defies imagination that the Appeals Chamber could have thoroughly reviewed the 300-page judgment and the defense's written arguments in less than three weeks' time."

He described the appeals process as "even more flawed than the trial."

Manfred Nowak, the United Nations' Special Investigator on Torture, strongly opposed the way Saddam's trial was conducted.

"This would be a good chance for bringing Saddam Hussein to a truly independent court and we now have the International Criminal Court," he said.
.
Novak opposed the sentence that had been meted out at the end of the trial.

"Even a person like Saddam Hussein should not be sentenced to death," he said.

And yet for George Bush was okay for the Iraqi government to kill Saddam.

Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention also prohibits "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment."

And yet the world has seen an unkempt Saddam Hussein emerging from the bunker in which he had been hiding and the world has seen him in his underwear.

The way the Iraqi government orchestrated Saddam Hussein's trial as well and executed him also contravenes Articles 10, 12, 13, 20, 23 and 84 of the Third Geneva Convention and it makes a mockery of international law and of some of the most basic and fundamental human rights like the right to a fair trial and the right to life.

The Bush administration could still have stopped the Iraqi government from executing Saddam Hussein because U.S. troops were guarding him right up to the time of his death.

It is unclear what the Iraqi government is hoping to achieve by executing Saddam Hussein. It is also unclear what the Bush administration is hoping to achieve by allowing this to happen.

One thing that is clear is that the two parties have turned Saddam Hussein into a martyr and that now, more than at any other time, during the conflict in Iraq, Saddam Hussein will more actively inspire militants to fight against occupation forces as well as the present Iraqi government and any similar governments in Iraq.

Another thing that is clear is that in executing, facilitating and allowing Saddam Hussein to be executed, the Bush administration, together with the present Iraqi government have committed a war crime. They have violated the rules of war which, among other things, prohibit the ill-treatment, execution of, or use of capital punishment on prisoners of war.