By Eleanor Albert
We are all aware of the nationwide cholera epidemic that ravaged Zimbabwe last year. We also aware that the government – headed by “President”-dictator Robert Mugabe – long denied the epidemic, allowing thousands and thousands of people to suffer. Georges Tadonki, former head of the UN humanitarian office in Zimbabwe said: “This time, cholera was everywhere. Corpses filled the streets and hospital beds. In some districts early in the crisis, half of those infected died,” in a Foreign Policy article this week.
True, the world is tragic, but my point is not to criticize the government of a poor African country—I want to be analyze the UN’s involvement in Zimbabwe at the time.
Tadonki, former head of the UN humanitarian office in Zimbabwe (Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)), was fired in early January 2009 during the peak of the cholera epidemic. He has appealed the decision, claiming that he was fired because of the severe risks and warnings he had raised to his superiors of the spread of cholera. In a typical he-said-she-said, his case was heard at a UN dispute tribunal starting on February 23, 2010.
One would assume that notifying superiors about the risks of a countrywide epidemic would be the right move—however, Tadonki stated that the UN country director Agostinho Zacarias ignored the warnings. It was at that moment that tensions grew between the two UN officials.
Here is the dilemma: Tadonki was critical of Zacarias’ non response to the risks of cholera as well as Zacarias’ relationship with the government of Zimbabwe; on the other hand, Zacarias was critical of Tadonki’s leaking of UN information without consultation to the UN itself. Nevertheless, Tadonki, while condemning Zacarias, was only in Zimbabwe for humanitarian issues and had no political risk tied to his position. There is no “right” by either party in this situation—inaction is not justified by risking national security. The large question is how the UN should act in undemocratic state and simultaneously ensure the safely and health of its people?
Some UN officials have said that the UN must keep a civil relationship with the government, no matter the nature of the system; otherwise any progress will be impossible. FP’s article stated “UN officials said they saw Zacarias as a classic, old-school African diplomat who thought he could achieve more by maintaining good relations and access to the government.” But is there a line that should be drawn? Do you ignore Mugabe and his regime’s denial of a cholera epidemic to salvage the UN’s position for negotiations and compromise? The disagreements on policy of Tadonki and Zacarias played a significant role in the failure to contain and treat the epidemic effectively.
Clearly morality and pragmatism play a role in such situations, but at what costs?
What is your point? Cholera started in Zimbabwe in January 2008 and actually blew up in April 2008. At that point of time, having lost the 28 March harmonized legislative and presidential elections, Mugabe had adopted an all-cost and no pity strategy to crush the MDC. While doing so all humanitarian field work was blocked, to avoid witnesses.
ReplyDeleteMugabe denied the cholera for a year and only accepted it in December 2008, he was then already sworn in, after winning the 27 June rerun unchallenged and snubbing critics. But it was too late, the epidemic had blown beyond Zimbabwe borders and thousands of people died for lack of urgent and basic assistance.
By forcing the UN to remain quiet and comply with Mugabe's political position, Mr Zacarias actually committed a crime against UN basic principles of humanity.
It this the UN we want? Was Zacarias rigth to silence Tadonki and other true humanitarians? the answer is NO NO NO NO NO and NO
Ask the deads and their families if they are grateful to Zacarias? Who benefited from Zacarias attitude? Mugabe or the people of Zimbabwe?
People like Zacarias are the one keeping Africa in hell.
I fully agree with you. What happened in Zimbabwe was a tragedy and a full failure on UN action and humanitarian aid. My point was the bring to light the kinds of challenges facing humanitarian response and to question the nature of the relationship with UN forces and oppressive governments.
ReplyDelete