MALAIKA MAHLATSI| Zambia abstaining on Palestine vote a shock

A few years ago, I read a book titled When a State Turns on its Citizens by Prof Lloyd Sachikonye. The book traces decades of institutionalised violence in Zimbabwe. The central theme of the book is that the violence that characterises contemporary Zimbabwean society was born in the struggle for liberation – both by the colonial regime of Ian Smith and within the camps of national liberation movements.

Sachikonye argues that the Zimbabwean state has a monopoly of violence and rules with a margin of terror exactly like the Smith regime ruled the former Rhodesia. It is a sobering account not only of how violence has become embedded in post-colonial institutions, but of how former national liberation movements can evolve into repressive governments who recycle the violence and repression of their former colonisers on their people.

I was reminded of this book last Friday when the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) held a vote on the protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations in regard to Israeli-led genocide that is under way in Palestine. The result of the vote was telling, with 120 countries voting in favour of a ceasefire to protect Palestinian civilians, 14 countries voting against and 45 countries abstaining.

Most of the countries who voted against this resolution were Pacific islands and territories, some of the world’s poorest and most underdeveloped nations. But while this was surprising, the abstention by Zambia was a shock to the system.

Zambia, at the time known as Northern Rhodesia, was a British colony from 1911 to 1964. Like other African countries who were colonised, Zambia suffered immeasurably as a result of the plundering of its resources, settler colonialism and the violence that defined it.

Colonialism disenfranchised Zambian people and because most of the country’s taxes from its mineral resources were being taken to Britain, even after it gained independence, it continued to struggle with poverty and economic marginalisation. It was for this reason that Zambia became one of the frontline states that played a significant role in the fight against apartheid in SA.

Zambia would go on to provide shelter and financial support to national liberation movements in SA including the ANC, for which it paid a heavy price. For many years, the SA Defence Force ran operations and raids in Zambia, aimed at destroying uMkhonto we Sizwe bases and killing members of the ANC.

Zambian civilians were often casualties of these raids and bombings. Despite this, the Zambian government, under the leadership of the late Kenneth Kaunda, persevered with their solidarity efforts, determined to contribute to the end of apartheid in SA.

You can imagine, then, how shocking and debilitating it is that in 2023, this same Zambia would abstain from voting against the actions of an apartheid state on a matter as critical as opening humanitarian corridors and implementing a ceasefire in a war that has claimed the lives of over 7,000 Palestinians, half of whom are women and children.

Many more lives have been claimed over the years as Israel builds illegal settlements in occupied Palestinian land, repeatedly disregarding international law and UN resolutions. Zambia knows too well the horrors of occupation, colonial conquest and imperial devastation. While other African countries including Cameroon, South Sudan, Tunisia, Cape Verde and Ethiopia also abstained, it is Zambia that cut deeper to me because it had a front-row seat to apartheid. It knows too well the struggles of Palestine because it too endured them.

Although the resolution passed, resolutions of the general assembly are non-binding. However, they do provide an indication of the political posture of countries on matters of importance. The posture of Zambia is neutrality in the face of apartheid and genocide.

But as the late Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu posited, to be neutral in situations of injustice is to choose the side of the oppressor. And that’s the side that Zambia, a country that was once a beacon of solidarity for the anti-apartheid struggle in SA, has chosen. This Damascene conversion is a sad moment in history – one that serves as a reminder to us that under the right conditions, liberators can and often do turn into perpetrators.