The Problem of Sovereignty and Human Rights in Zimbabwe and Sudan

Sovereignty and Human Rights Infringement

This paper tackles the issue of sovereignty and its meaning in the context of Zimbabwean and Sudanese dictatorships which have flouted the human rights of its citizenry and the America’s more liberal, democratic stance. Although a sovereign state rightfully claims self-government, human rights violations negate and oppose the core function upon which the state has been founded: guarding human rights. Both dictators wield starvation and rape to bring opposition to their knees. These inhuman and inhumane acts represent flagrant injustice and disqualify the autocratic heads of states from sovereignty and the right to rule and open the way to foreign interference. Divergent forms of government, democracy and dictatorship, breed variance of opinion on sovereignty and the responsibility of regarding human rights as is clearly seen in the cases of two African dictatorships in Zimbabwe and Sudan as compared to traditional American values.

In a move to squelch opposition and to force submission, president of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, has launched a genocidal campaign aimed at punishing by starvation his dissidents who live in the constituencies that voted against him in recent Zimbabwean elections held in March 2008. International humanitarian aid and food supplies are not allowed to penetrate the anti-Mugabe zones in Zimbabwe. During elections, many women coming from politically dissident districts came forward with rape allegations (Jacobson 2009). Undoubtedly, for Mugabe human rights means nothing to him – only as it increases his power.

Zimbabwe stands officially as a sovereign state; however, gross human rights violations have caused the USA to intervene in Zimbabwe’s affairs. In indignant reaction, Mugabe has affirmed Zimbabwe’s sovereignty, and has expelled and repulsed foreign interference (including foreign aid). Here, Mugabe manipulates sovereignty in order to isolate Zimbabwe from the international community, to perpetuate his woeful reign, and to further his devices against his own people unchecked.

On the other hand, the U.S. view holds that sovereignty goes hand in hand with upholding human rights. It justifies its political interference since human rights and lives are at stake. Human rights law decrees the prerogative and inalienable rights of mankind. Under no circumstances should a government deprive the right and freedom to live, work, eat, speak, vote etc. Because of a divergence of views with respect to sovereignty, both Zimbabwe and the U.S. maintain an undermining of sovereignty. The USA has openly condemned and undermined Mugabe’s political authority (Kellerhals 2010); therefore, in Mugabe’s eyes the U.S. threatens Zimbabwe’s autonomy. With an end to democratize Zimbabwe, the US president, Barack Obama, on March 01 2010 has imposed fresh sanctions on Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe has a dictatorship; America has a democracy.

Like Mugabe, president of Sudan, Omar Al-Bashir uses starvation and rape as weapons. Al-Bashir is notorious for fending off international humanitarian aid agencies (Rice 2009) in the midst of a fragile, destitute, embattled economy. Denying citizens food constitutes a violation which attempts to repress freedom of thought, speech, and franchise. Ethnic-cleansing in Darfur, also disqualifies Sudan from claiming sovereignty. In Darfur rape is a (major) weapon of genocide (Robertson 2008). The only barrier to complete arabization and islamization is the blood line. The Janjaweed, under Al-Bashir, exterminate by rape Black-Sudanese (Schaeffer 2008). Since seed, in Sudan, is patrilineally determined, rape is utilized as a tool. In return for ‘services’, Al-Bashir grants the Janjaweed immunity so that victims receive no justice.

In the midst of perpetrating terrorism, President of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir claimed sovereignty, yet he violated human rights (Iskandar 2010). In an attempt to baffle the International Criminal Court’s attempt to arrest him, Al-Bashir has conceived a plausible reason to demand non-interference. The International Court cannot illegally topple an elected head of state. In Al-Bashir’s view, sovereignty is inextricably tied to a nation and regardless of human rights crimes. However, The U.S. affirms that a nation which encroaches on and breaches human rights has an invalid sovereignty for it leaves unfulfilled the purposes of its existence. Government is instituted to serve in the public’s interest and when that role is neglected, power and sovereignty are forfeited. Moreover, in an era of interdependence and globalization, espousing isolationist policies end to the detriment of a nation.

Currently, both Zimbabwean and Sudanese economies need foreign funding just to get by. The World Bank and other major fiduciary entities do not disburse funding without the acceptance of terms and conditions. Either way, as a consequence, sovereignty is still undermined because of a destabilized economy: beating back the tide of foreign aid and policies result in foreign interposition and ceding to foreign financial aid will end in accepting foreign policies.