Given this experience, and in light of the government’s preference to deny or ignore that human rights violations are an issue (let alone a problem), it is highly unlikely that the government would be prepared to engage civil society on these issues in a meaningful way. Somewhat ironically, even organisations such as the Amani Trust, which have been publicly attacked by senior government figures, have been contacted by government departments to provide training and other inputs. This seems to reflect the contradictions between political and practical imperatives adopted by different arms of government. Human rights organisations involved in monitoring and documenting violations under the banner of the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum have only last year begun to provide the government with copies of its monthly reports, and a limited process of denial (by government) and substantiation (by the Forum) has been entered into. Where government does not deny the assertions contained in the Forum’s report, there is no evidence that they are taking any action to secure redress. Although there may be no immediate tangible benefit to this type of engagement, it remains strategically important for organisations to be able to counter any subsequent claims from government that they “didn��t know” or “were not informed”. International engagement Although Zimbabwean human rights organisations have sought and continue to seek solutions through the domestic courts, this increasingly appears to be a strategy designed to secure some sort of official record, as opposed to meaningful legal and compensatory relief. Even if positive judgments are secured, government has demonstrated a patent unwillingness to recognise them or pay damages. Since 2000, human rights organisations have increasingly turned their attention to regional and international forums, including the United Nations, African Union, Commonwealth, SADC and European Union. As such, they have attempted to root their lobbying and advocacy efforts in the democratic and human rights principles underlying the operations and objectives of these groupings. The Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum has engaged the African Commission for Human and People’s Rights since 2002 and has observer status in Banjul. In May 2002, the Forum made submissions to the African Union meeting in Pretoria. Following these submissions, the Commission sent an official mission to Zimbabwe. This resulted in a hard-hitting report which, however, the Zimbabwean government successfully prevented heads of State from discussing. Subsequent efforts have, however, resulted in the AC’s report being adopted by the AU Executive in early 2005. Despite grandiose rhetorical commitments to building democracy and a culture of human rights throughout the continent, there appears to be little real commitment on the part of many African governments to engage in such discussions. This is also reflected in their sponsorship and support of ‘no action’ motions at the United Nations Human Rights Commission, which have effectively prevented any discussion on the human rights situation in Zimbabwe. A similar process to block a motion condemning violations in Zimbabwe was recently carried out at the United Nations General Assembly. Developing countries sponsoring these blocking tactics argue that the sponsors of these motions and debates are pursuing a selective, partisan agenda with political and not human rights objectives. While the exposure of ‘western double standards’ is not without merit, those blocking these motions offer no alternative process, revealing their own reluctance to promote justice and accountability for violations. The ‘politics of human rights’ remains superimposed over the fundamental interests of victims and survivors. 22