COLD WAR GHOST MANIFESTATION; THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION UNDER SPOTLIGHT AS RUSSIA TAKES A MOVE TO BALANCE GLOBAL POWER

The recent international events has made International Relations a

 

darling subject to follow; with the emergency of revolutions as a contemporary catalyst in modern day politics, several analysts had questioned whether the idea of revolutions is people centred or is subjected to political manipulation by powerful nations to maintain their unipolar interests.

  

 Misheck Gondo

Of interesting to note is the rise of Russia a former guru in the Soviet Union, its response to the global issues shows not only political stamina, but also the shifting of political unipolarism to bipolarism.

The Syrian Case, the Edward Snowden Case and the newly born Ukrainian Case proved to the world how Russia is determined to leverage the international political order which has been in the hands of western hegemony.

The military intervention by Russia to protect the Russian speaking in Ukraine has not only caused political shiver to the EU and US but also political confusion, as seen by the level of sanctions being imposed as a global isolation strategy.  Rationally, one would advise the EU and US that a military threat should attract a military respond, a threat of sanction will unlikely shake Russia, but consolidate its quest to be seen as a powerful 21th century political force.

Some quotas might believe that the political reaction by Russia is based on its interest to exploit gas in Crimea, but this is just a molecule in an element; the issue is about broader interests that are premised on the future security of Russia.

To grasp the current actions by Russia, there is need to take a step back to the Cold War era and also understand Russia‘s foreign policy objectives from that period. To mention but a few, Russia strives by all cost to protect smaller states through the doctrine of non interference.

 Politically, the events which are believed to have been funded by the West were leading to the Ukraine joining the EU with Crimea included; this was believed to have weakened Russia both militarily, politically and economically. Ukraine is not the last target for this ‘Western’ strategy, currently Venezuela is on fire. Politically Russia cannot just watch while its interest being thrown into political oblivion.

The Russian position on Ukraine might be morally justified but legally wrong, as compared to the similar illegal intervention by United States America in other independent territories such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya among others. USA has shorter memory of its illegal interventions in sovereign states in search of unfounded nuclear or hides behind the pretext of terrorism.

United States of America is on a free-fall, this is a naked reality, many smaller states support U.S.A not because of its romantic foreign policy but because of fear, political  intimidation come from their motto which goes by saying, ‘If you are not with us, you are against us’. However the fall of USA does not make Russia a better devil, it will remain an extremist country whose policies are dangerous to international relations.

Russia is also taking advantage of the Obama party ideology (the Democrats) which has an anti-war doctrine.  The previous Bush‘s Republican Party was using war as a means of communication. It is important to note that U.S will never fight Russia directly; it will implore strategies such as proxy wars, economic isolation among others. However with the 21^st century globalisation, Russia has many partners to do business with.

The fall of USA is also being fast -tracked by its decreased support from EU countries, US has been fingered in spying EU countries using advanced technology, this king of betrayal to allies warrant long term punishment, in the near future countries such as Germany might take over the role of the falling U.S and balance world power with extremist counties such Russia and China.

There is a widespread debate on the legality of Russia‘s military intervention in Ukraine, the Security Council met eighty times and Russia vetoed against the US proposal, with China abstaining, while the remaining council members voted in support of Ukraine on its right to territorial integrity. 

Self-determination challenges the ides of sovereignty and territorial integrity of a state. The legitimatization of the principle of national self-determination in the 1990s has led to a growth in the number of intra-state conflict where sub-groups have sought greater self-determination and sometimes, even full secession. Accordingly, international reaction to these new movements has been uneven and has often been dictated more by politics than by principle.

Self-determination is a jus cogens or a peremptory norm and therefore cannot be legitimately made to stand derogation from. This  is  because it is sourced in customary, treaty and case international law with a vested right to protect the human rights of people united together in expressing their sovereign right to independence. 

Self-determination is an important right as far as humanity is concerned, yet it is a contentious, principle of International Law. It emerged as a powerful subject and a critical right seeking to usher independence of many peoples, most significantly the independence of colonial peoples.  The right to self-determination is comprised of different elements and it has several aspects. The most sagacious element is the fact that it is linked to the fundamental principles of Public International Law and that it incarnates the concept of the right of peoples to determine their own destiny without outside interference or subjugation, presupposing all peoples are equal.

This means trust and non-self-governing territories must naturally be granted a right to independence, self-expression and actualisation of their independence once it can be collectively proven that they possess the capacity for economic, social and political self-sustenance.  

The granting of the right to self-rule has proven contentious as the secession of a territory connotes an embarrassing internal fractionalisation which is not usually permissible for socio-political and economic reasons in many single-unit, self-governing entities.

There is conflict in international law with regard to territorial integrity and the doctrine of self-determination. The United Nations Declaration on Friendly Relations stipulates that there shall not be dismember or impair, totally or in part the integrity or sovereignty of an independent state.  Paragraph 6 of the UN Resolution 1514 also aired that, any attempt aimed at partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country incompatible with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter is not permissible.

The above notion heavily contradicts with the concept of self-determination. The United Nations enacted two important legal texts to explain human rights and as an enforcement mechanism for United Nations Charter that is the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), both of the two covenants, adopted in 1966. Self-determination is a critical component in these documents, Article I of ICCCPR and ICESCR stipulate that   the peoples are entitled to the right to self-determination and by virtue of that right they are free to pursue their economic, cultural, social and political development.

Having brought forward the different declarations and international law instruments, what remains a question is whether the Russian‘s military intervention in Ukraine is permissible under international law. It has to be noted that the use of force to acquire an independent territory is prohibited within the context of international law; let alone the invasion of an independent state such as Ukraine, it is not justifiable to invade another independent state in the pretext of protecting ethnic speaking nationals of that sovereign state.

It is as saying South Africa invading Zimbabwe to protect the Zulu speaking Zimbabweans in Zimbabwe; it does not make a legal sense. The referendum in Crimea could have been legitimate if it was supervised under Ukraine government with the guidance of United Nations.

The modern international law articulates clearly that annexation by force is in serious violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, in this regard there was no justiciable right for the Russian government to erode the sovereignty of an independent State, Ukraine.

Even though the people of Crimea have the right to self-determination, the manner in which the annexation was done cannot be binding under international law. Russia‘s move is an act of war not to Ukraine but to fellow super powers, it’s a clear message of  a rising super power that is not only seeking to balance the world power, but also to protect certain interests.

The role of China in this game should not be overlooked, China abstained in the Security Council, as a permanent member with a veto vote, this is an indirect support for Russia‘s rise to fame. However, China cannot directly support the right to self-determination as this will create internal chaos in its land, were many independent ‘states’ are seeking the same right.

China has for long suppressed minority territories that were once independent, the case of Tibet which is led by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Hong Kong among other. So China will be very cautious in the manner in which it renders support to Russia, in order to avoid international strife from its suppressed colonies in its own land , that are seeking the right to self-determination. Apart from that, during the time Russia is using aggression to the West and in return received sanctions, China is on a US –EU tour to strengthen relations, this must be a message to Russia.

Self-determination movements remain vibrant in such areas of the world. Some regions possess de-facto independence, for instance Taiwan, North Cyprus, Kosovo, and South Ossetia, and the recent is Crimea in Ukraine, it is of great fundamentality to note that the quest and legitimate claim of independence is vastly disputed by some states. There are also other movements that have a history to fight for their rights such as that of Kurdistan the State of Palestine and Chechnya.

Even in Zimbabwe, there is a group of individuals calling itself Mtwakazi Liberation Front that is seeking the right to self-determination, however this groups lacks basics understanding of international law which is used to grant the right in question. If not so, it’s just a strategy to seek attention.

The recent meeting between Lavrov and Kerry in Paris is a game of diplomacy; Russia seeking dialogue with USA after its interest has been achieved in Crimea, what a strategy.

Vladimir Putin ‘s   compass on Crimea has taken off side, the long run of him might be of no happiness, neither the Russians should celebrate this pot of  Cold war 11 or World War 111 in their back yard, if not before that, a humiliation in the international political order. I don’t think Russia is ready for war with the western world but it is seeking the balance of power which brings with it political, economic, social and cultural respect.

It’s a game of mind and diplomacy.

Let’s wait and see

Misheck Gondo is an International Relations Expert with the University of Zimbabwe (U.Z)

gondo.gism@gmail.com

VULTUROUS AND VEMPAROUS ECONOMY, CAN ZIMBABWE BE A PREDATORY STATE?

The victory that brought Zimbabwe to a new dispensation of independence was pinnacled with hope of a better and a sustainable economy. The emergency from an environment epitomized by suppression in form of colonialism gave Zimbabwe a clean slate to do better in national development.

Misheck Gondo

 It is however important to hail the immediate post independence era in which policy formulation was directed towards critical economic issues such education for all, eradication of poverty, employment, consolidation of good foreign policy and regional integration. 

The post independence era ushered with it names such as the Bread Basket of Africa among other ululations directed towards the economic strides that emanated from a promising economy. 

It is now fair to ask what went wrong in the process of building our mother land. The hope of a better Zimbabwe started to disappear as political tensions appeared. Economic discord became the order of the day, foreign relations in doldrums; pre-colonial era repeated itself in a new fashioned style led by the sons of the soil.

The year 2000 de-intensified the dream of a new era, the gap between ruling classes and the proletariat became wider, with the former getting richer and the later getting impoverished. The relationship was that of carnivores which service on eating the other.

Economists had vast complications to classify which class of economy Zimbabwe was riding on. The characteristic of our economy since the emergency of post independence political troubles did not qualify to be part of the three basic types of economy. The state of affair had turned to be that of a primitive state whose rulers extort taxes for their personal benefits.

A predatory state can be explained as a state that punishes its citizens for the benefit of the ruling class, the punishment came in form of burdened tax levels, exorbitant rates of public services such as education, transport and accommodation among others. This predatory state can result in lower levels of both output and popular welfare.

The predatory state may provide public goods to its citizens and hence may superficially resemble a contractual state.  As noted by Political       Economists, the ability to provide such goods can actually reduce popular welfare after allowing for tax changes. Moreover, the kinds of public goods that predatory states provide are those that increase revenue, not necessarily welfare.

The state of affair will be anarchic which resembles statelessness; the attention is focused on political survival at the expense of citizen survival. Policies and laws that emanate from a predatory state seek to format the majority into believing that their government is people centered and pro-poor.

Zimbabwe since 1980 has managed to craft appraisable blue prints to cover the five year tenure of political office. As noted in one of Takura Zhangazha‘s 2013 article, “It also has the propagandist hue of past governments’ five- year economic blueprints of the 1980s and 1990s.”The blue prints failed to bring much needed political change that upgrade the lives of the poor majority, even before the much touted sanctions hymns.

The last decade also saw Zimbabwe reaching stratospheric levels of inflation, window measures were introduced such as printing of money among other unsustainable ways. The government seemed to have mooted a holistic plan to siphon little moneys from poor citizens, with high rate of bills that are paid by rate payers that does not complement the services offered in return.

Residents receive water bills that are exaggerated, yet the water is erratic in supply and contagious in consumption. In opposite, the salary bills for the city bosses will not be tallying with reality.

Coming to our roads, the lives of people are at risk, with high probability of accidents, yet attention by city fathers is directed to innocent vendors who are seeking to sustain their families and to pay the mentioned high bills. The government must put the concerns of its citizens first, making sure that their rights are guaranteed above average point.

The Zimbabwe health system is crumbling at a faster pace, on the other hand, the fees are now beyond the reach of many, and recently Minister David Parirenyatwa appended his signature to new medical tariffs that are yet to be gazetted. 

It is a pave strategy by the government to sustain itself from collection of not only exorbitant changes but also unjustified fees. The ordinary consultation is estimated to be around 75% higher as approved which will translate to the rise from US$20 to around U$35. Given the fact that Zimbabwean tariffs are already high in comparative analysis within the Southern Africa region, it is very unreasonable to raise them further as the government is putting an unnecessary burden of their failure to innocent masses.

The education sector is also another preserve for the elite. Parents are struggling to pay for their children from primary to tertiary institutions. In a predatory state, the government makes favorable laws that can not be implemented practically; our National Constitution Section 27 noted the obligation by the government to make primary education free to children and secondary and tertiary education accessible to all with the girl child in mind. On that note, its accessibility is questionable when tertiary institutions are hiking tuition, the case of University of Zimbabwe (UZ) which has increased its tuition by 10 % for students that come from families that are surviving on US$1 a day. 

Transporters and car owners are not spared in the present collection of revenue, as evidenced by police presence at every junction and few kilometers apart in the highway roads. ZIMRA at the other corner is also making sure they collect every cent from tax payers towards the payment of hefty salaries, in which the boss takes home US$3,720 000.00 million annually.

Zimbabwe is an agro-based economy in which agriculture should be developed and benefit the nation, ironically the sector is not receiving practical policy attention. The erratiness of inputs toward farming season, the exorbitance of the former and the market price at the end of the day leaves farmers in utter surprise and disgruntlement.

 It has been reported recently that some Tobacco auction floors in Karoi started to purchase Tobacco with as little as 20c per KG; one wonders where is the government to protect the vulnerable farmer from economic vultures.

Other schools of thought are arguing that the government is benefiting in such a scenario, enabling the buyers of Tobacco to buy at lower price; pay the balance to the government, to liquidate its operations such as to pay civil servants salaries among others.

The Zimbabwe Indigenization Policy was at the center of government to acquire sustainable growth. The policy has been criticized for lack of clarity and its vampire guerilla nature that scare away foreign direct investment (FDI). The policy compels foreign owned firms with a minimum capital of $ 500,000 to cede 51 percent of the shares to locals. Truly speaking, if this behavior is not corrected, Zimbabwe will continue to sink into oblivion. Globalization requires a conducive environment where everybody is treated equally in congruency with consistency, clarity, transparency in the application of law.

Instead of taking over what belongs to others, those who do not have, I mean the locals, must be empowered to start their own businesses with an environment that encourage partnership and growth. Some Political elitist hide behind indigenization in order to loot and enrich themselves, time will tell.

In the vicinity of last year elections, ZANU PF elaborately in its manifesto promised to create about three million jobs. It is now that the revolutionary party is admitting that they will not be able to do that, what an insult to the electorate and majority unemployed youth. 

The high unemployment rate estimated to be above 80 percent, has left the economically bruised citizens hopeless, especially with the contemporary discourse of parastatal salaries, corruption, politicking and closed political space that does not allow developmental economic dialogue.

With the Zimbabwe Opposition Parties that seem to have no direction at all, the increased complications are knocking at the doors of the very poor.

However, the answer of whether our beloved state has turned into a vultures’ or vampires’ economy which carries the characteristics of a Predatory state lies with the people. It is multiple choice question that; can Zimbabwe be classified to an economy that utilizes any available chance to extort the single pen from its poor citizens through exorbitant revenue in order to lubricate unsanctioned government bills.

Zimbabwe needs to have self-introspection, take commitment to make things right, above political rhetoric and elucidations. Making our foreign relations right, promoting dialogue and national consensus among Zimbabweans for the sack of economic revival.

The government should reflect and admit on its failures, take corrective actions, the current salary gate has raised eye brows, how can the whole government system with sophisticated intelligence failed to dictate the rewards ushered to parastatal bosses in the past decade.

In common sense, the currently failure by the government to pay civil servants salaries  beyond poverty datum line and offer new jobs  could be the thing of the past through shifting to productive policies and creation of  an environment of good governance, tolerance, rule of law among other sustainable policies that enable fiscal inflows and creation of employment.

  It is also sad to note that the money paid to few elites in parastatal could be spread to benefit the citizens at the same time workers receiving their adequate basic salaries in those institutions.

Zimbabwe Agenda for Sustainable Socio-Economic Transformation (ZIMASSET) can only succeed with good corporate governance, dedicated team that seeks to transform the country without political protection to those who economically sabotage the economy.

Let’s wait and see

Misheck Gondo is an International Relations expert with the University of Zimbabwe (UZ)

gondo.gism@gmail