Davidson and Purohit: The Zimbabwean Human Rights Crisis: A Collaborative Approach to International Advocacy YALE HUMAN RIGHTS & DEVELOPMENT L.J. [Vol. 7 so far as to brand those who raise concerns about human rights in Zimbabwe as using the issue as a "tool for overthrowing the government." 31 Such comments significantly increase the risk for human rights activists inside Zimbabwe, as well as impugning the motives of those outside the country. International groups32 concerned with the rapid deterioration of the rule of law and the consequent increase in human rights violations being committed in Zimbabwe are faced with a series of choices and critical questions to consider. For instance, should such. groups engage with the Zimbabwean government, and is it useful to engage key international players such as the United States and the European Union? Should they rely on data being compiled by Zimbabwean civil society groups or is it necessary to visit Zimbabwe in order to assess the situation independently? Should groups from overseas even attempt to compel the Zimbabwean government to refrain from violence by adopting the classic strategy of shaming the perpetrators? To a certain extent, either while working in coalition or independently, several different international organizations have embraced each of these options. In part this diverse approach is a reflection of the operational differences of the groups working to stem the ongoing human rights violations in Zimbabwe. For groups within Africa, key sticking points have been access to accurate information about the situation within Zimbabwe, the absence of sufficient resources to engage in sustained advocacy at a national and regional level on the Zimbabwe crisis, and in many cases the intransigence of their governments on the issue of Zimbabwe. Misinformation spread by the Zimbabwean government and the perception that the country's problems are based on racially polarized disputes over land have contributed to confusion and a certain amount of reluctance to become embroiled in the situation. Nonetheless, in several countries, human rights groups, trade unions, church leaders, and women's organizations have expressed great concern about the crisis in Zimbabwe and have sought to 33 engage with their governments and regional institutions on the issue. Toward the end of 2001, Human Rights First, a U.S.-based nongovernmental organization that works to promote and protect human rights both domestically and around the world, began to refocus attention December 2003. The issue threatened to split the commonwealth with countries such as South Africa, Zambia, and Mozambique arguing in favor of readmission. The decision was finally taken to continue the suspension and President Mugabe responded immediately by declaring Zimbabwe's withdrawal from the commonwealth. 31 Thabo Mbeki, We Will Resist the Upside-Down View of Africa, ANC TODAY, Vol. 3, No. 49, at 12-18 (Dec. 2003), www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/anctoday/2003/at49.htm (internal quotation omitted). 32 The term "international" is here used to denote non-Zimbabwean organizations rather than organizations that operate in more than one country. 33 Notable examples are Ditshwanelo (the Botswana Centre for Human Rights), The Namibian Society for Human Rights, and various human rights, church, and trade union groups in South Africa. Published by Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository, 2004 13