Yale Human Rights and Development Journal, Vol. 7 [2004], Iss. 1, Art. 4 2004] Zimbabwean Human Rights Crisis without genuine collaboration with the affected groups themselves. This belief was grounded in part on an understanding that: (a) the Zanu-PF government was successfully dividing the world community by using "anti neo-imperialism" arguments; and (b) an effective response to this strategy required pressure for the cessation of human rights violations to come from Zimbabwe's direct neighbors in Africa and other powerful African states. VI. THE AFRICAN CIVIL SOCIETY CONSULTATION ON ZIMBABWE Following these discussions in early 2003, Human Rights First determined that its most effective role in the broader advocacy work would be to commit to organizing a consultative meeting of African civil society groups to tackle the Zimbabwe crisis. It was recognized that important regional civil society actors included representatives of the Christian churches, trade unions, human rights NGOs, youth groups, and women's organizations, and that each of these groups should be brought into the discussions. Crucially, Zimbabwean civil society leaders were the main proponents of the meeting and felt that the right role for Human Rights First to play was that of convener, because it had the capacity to bring together representatives of each of these sectors from several African countries. While Human Rights First staff were then able to make the necessary practical arrangements, reach out to the desired participants, create a structure for the two-day event and outline an agenda for the discussions, it must be emphasized that at all stages the role of the organization was one of facilitation, rather than substantive participation. Such a collaborative approach required the close cooperation and involvement of all of the participants in the meeting, and particularly that of a local partner organization in the host country. Recognizing the practical difficulties of holding the type of meeting planned within Zimbabwe itself, it was determined that Botswana was the most appropriate venue, for reasons of accessibility, proximity to Zimbabwe,38 infrastructure, and its government's more open position on Zimbabwe. Based in Botswana's capital, Gaborone, DITSHWANELO (the Botswana Centre for Human Rights) was identified as the preferred local partner organization, for it had already engaged in advocacy on Zimbabwe and in efforts to raise awareness about the crisis within Botswana. Collaboration with a local organization should be a necessary prerequisite for any western NGO seeking to hold a meeting in the global south. While this may seem obvious, discussions with African colleagues suggest that this approach is regularly not followed by western NGOs, often leading to southern groups feeling frustrated, marginalized and disrespected in superficially collaborative initiatives. 38 It should be noted that careful consideration of security was also required within Botswana, and Human Rights First consulted closely on this issue with Ditshwanelo and the Zimbabwean participants. http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yhrdlj/vol7/iss1/4 16