Robert Mugabe’s role for the World Health Organisation is absurd and counter-productive

The human rights record of the President of Zimbabwe renders him particularly unsuited to any ambassadorial role in an agency of the United Nations

Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe has been named a ‘goodwill ambassador’ by the World Health Organisation (AP)

The appointment of Robert Mugabe as a goodwill ambassador for the World Health Organisation is not as absurd as it seems. But it is absurd, and counter-productive, bringing the WHO into disrepute.

Mr Mugabe is popular in Africa in ways that some westerners find hard to understand. Although he is a serial violator of human rights, and democracy in Zimbabwe fails to live up to any description of “free and fair”, he is still venerated there as the liberator of the country. His status in pan-African politics as the last of the freedom fighters who led the struggle against colonialism gives him a leverage out of proportion to his record.

Thus he is chairman of the African Union, and his WHO appointment is thought to be related to the support of African nations in securing the director-generalship of WHO for Tedros Adhanom, the Ethiopian politician.

But patronage politics and historical symbolism are poor reasons for making Mr Mugabe the global face of WHO’s drive against non-communicable diseases (heart attacks, strokes and cancer). His greatest achievement in the field of healthcare has been to live to the age of 93, which he has managed with frequent visits to Singapore for treatment.

The health of most of the rest of the Zimbabwean people, on the other hand, has suffered grievously under his dictatorial rule. Mr Tedros commended him, saying Zimbabwe “places universal health coverage and health promotion at the centre of its policies to provide health care to all”. Yet, as Glosswitch writes today, life expectancy in Zimbabwe has declined since the 1980s and maternal mortality has increased from 555 to 960 per 100,000 live births between 2006 and 2011.

Mr Mugabe has reduced his country to penury, although its economy has recovered a little in recent years. But it is his human rights record that renders him particularly unsuited to any ambassadorial role in an agency of the United Nations. He is under personal sanctions from the European Union and the United States for directing his supporters to use violence against members of rival political parties. And his government is being investigated for alleged violations of UN sanctions against trade with North Korea.

His attitudes towards gay rights are unfortunately typical of those of many African leaders, but few of the others threaten to cut the heads off gay people.

On its own, it might be possible to dismiss this appointment as a one-off, pointlessly damaging the campaign against heart attacks, strokes and cancer. But unfortunately it is part of a pattern of crony appointments in the UN and subsidiary organisations that bring the ideals of international cooperation into disrepute. Just this week, for example, the Democratic Republic of Congo was elected to a place on the UN Human Rights Council.

If António Guterres, the UN secretary general, is serious about the UN’s commitment to human rights, he should use his office to put a stop to this kind of nonsense.