Presidential Spokesman, George Charamba, posted on @jamwanda2 | KEY POINTS FROM REPORT OF UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON RIGHT TO FOOD.
Report by Ms Hilal Elver, UN Special Rapporteur on right to food, covering her preliminary impressions from her visit to Zimbabwe from 18 – 28 November, 2019, has been spectacularly mangled by Zimbabwe’s polarised and often uninformed media.

This leaves readers all the poorer for it, while undermining the constitutional reason for existence and privileges for the erring media.

As always, the Public has to turn elsewhere beyond the politically divided and motivated media for fact and sense.

By way of background, Zimbabwe has to date hosted two Special Rapporteurs, with three more expected for the country to complete its obligations under various peer accountability agreements with the United Nations. That Zimbabwe continues to host such missions after a long hiatus shows the country’s determination to re-engage and to satisfy international norms in the way it conducts itself.

This point was recognized by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food who noted the invitation was “an expression of the Government’s willingness to open its doors to international human rights mechanisms and, with it, to improve its own human rights record.” This is not a small point given that under the First Republic, Zimbabwe used its sovereign authority to keep out such scrutiny, thus laying itself open to criticism.

The Second Republic is thus etching a different trajectory & living true to its promise to open its doors to international scrutiny on human rights adherence. It’s a new turn in governance, accountability & (re)engagement. By no means a small point in overall national narrative!

As per tradition, all such reports or observations are PRELIMINARY. What makes them preliminary is that the State Party is allowed/required to respond to initial observations by the Rapporteur for a final report which is then presented to full plenary.

The final report usually is what passes for conclusive record which the Rapporteur then tables, & is always a result of collaborative effort with State Party. What that means is that certain aspects in preliminary report may change or reflect counterpoints raised by the State Party. This is critical.
The local media wrongly cover this preliminary report as some Roma-locuta; causa-finita-est (Rome/Pope-has-spoken; case-is-closed) document!! It isn’t.

Secondly, the visit comes against the backdrop of mounting national food insecurity doubly arising from devastating Cyclone overwritten on a searing drought. Necessarily, the right to food becomes a key variable in the matrix of human rights. The visit is thus appropriate and reveals a State Party which confidently invites scrutiny upon itself at a time of greatest vulnerability, both for its citizens and for itself in the eyes of a censorious world. That, in itself, shows a determination to do right, indeed to be seen to be doing right.

The politics of right to food have always looked large in Zimbabwe and the way Zimbabwe is perceived, principally by the West. That Zimbabwe invited the Rapporteur at a time such as this shows active, creative pre-emptive diplomacy, more so given the kind of opposition we have.

The scope of the rapporteur’s work encompasses different Govt departments and interest groups whose missions impact on right to food. It also entail wide-ranging reading of policy instruments and related reports on right to food and general food security in the country.

There are also field visits to cover sample communities which then allow Rapporteur to make fair generalization on National State of access to food. With those key preliminary points made, we can then move into the nub of the preliminary report itself, principally what it says.

FOOD INSECURITY: basing on ZIMVAC figures, the report says 5,5m Zimbabweans, or 38% of the rural population is currently food insecure. The report projects the figure to double in early 2020. This parlous state and prospect is blamed on natural adversities, principally on drought and the March Cyclone.

This is barely news to any Zimbabwean. Where the report begins to make news is on remedial measures meant to deal with this situation. It identifies key actors as Government of Zimbabwe which bears primary responsibility, the international community which “has the responsibility to help countries in dire situations”, and humanitarian agencies. The report remarkably breaks with UN tradition in its assessment of the international response to Zimbabwe’s burgeoning food crisis.

While most reports indulged in pass-time of blaming Government solely, the Rapporteur says: “However, I note that the imposition of unilateral economic sanctions and conditionalities has contributed to a negative image of the country, thereby adversely impacting on the levels of international aid to Zimbabwe, in comparison to neighbouring countries that suffered similar adverse effects from Cyclone Idai.”

The report proceeds to devote a whole section on this matter, stressing ILLEGAL sanctions and conditionalities imposed on the Government of Zimbabwe levy “indirect costs on the overall civilian population, particularly on right to food.” It notes: “Zimbabwe has been under some form of sanctions since 2001. These targeted sanctions and conditionalities were imposed on the country following policy disagreements concerning the manner in which the land reform Programme..
was handled, reflecting criticism of the political situation and human rights abuses. While sanctions target certain individuals and institutions, they contribute to creating a very adverse environment for business, international trade and foreign investment. To some extent, they also contribute to the overall atmosphere of corruption, uncertainty, and food insecurity and unemployment for the most vulnerable people in the country, particularly in these times of emergency. It is my strong conviction, based on what I have learned during the course of this mission, that these economic sanctions worsen the existing inequalities and do not have any actual impact on their supposed targets.”

The Rapporteur explicitly mentions American sanctions: “The conditionalities under the ZDERA Act coupled with the failure by the Govt to clear its arrears make it a serious challenge for the Govt to access credit lines from international financial institutions. Such conditions clearly diminish the ability of Govt to meet its obligation to adequately feed its people.”
The Rapporteur then makes a specific appeal: “Given the economic and food emergency presently existing in the country, I urge concerned member states, development partners and the international financial institutions, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, to ease the conditions imposed…
on the deployment of funds to the Govt. For similar reasons, I urge the termination of all sanctions.” That pointed appeal is balanced off against a call on Zim Govt “to initiate the promised legal reforms to respect, protect and fulfill its human rights obligations, notably, the rights to freedoms of expression, assembly and association, which are the necessary foundations of a human rights based approach to food security.” Key points loom large from this portion of the report.

Firstly, this is the first time a UN report has acknowledged SANCTIONS even calling them ILLEGAL. Secondly, this is the first time a UN report relates impact of these ILLEGAL SANCTIONS on the GENERAL POPULACE and adverse conditions obtaining in the country. Thirdly, this is the first UN report which tackles America’s ZDERA, mentioning it by name and linking it to bilateral aid, IFIs and conditionalities from both. Lastly, this is the first UN report which has frontally called for an immediate, unconditional lifting of sanctions, thus bringing the UN in harmony with SADC and AU’s anti-sanctions resolutions!!!

One could also add that this is the first ever UN report to admit that in essence, sanctions stemmed from LAND REFORMS & LAND REFORM-RELATED POLICY DIFFERENCES. The media reportage on report either overlooked this key development, or only carried it belatedly as an afterthought.