Mike Mavhura in hospital in Harare. Photograph: Chris McGreal
Reuters
Wed 16 Apr
2008, 3:56 GMT
By Louis Charbonneau
UNITED NATIONS, April 16
(Reuters) - Leaders of key members of the U.N.
Security Council and the
African Union meet at U.N. headquarters on
Wednesday where they are expected
to debate the crises in Zimbabwe, Sudan
and Somalia.
The meeting,
which will be chaired by South African President Thabo Mbeki,
is due to
focus on Security Council cooperation with the AU and other
regional
organizations.
South Africa has drafted a resolution cementing this
cooperation, which is
expected to adopted on Wednesday.
U.N.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon joined the United States, Britain and
France
on Tuesday in urging the Security Council and AU leaders to take up
the
worsening election standoff in Zimbabwe, despite resistance from South
Africa.
Ban said the summit, which British Prime Minister Gordon
Brown and several
African Union leaders will attend, offered "a natural
opportunity to address
the situation in Zimbabwe."
Britain has
accused Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe of delaying the
results of the
country's March 29 election to try to subvert the outcome.
Opposition leader
Morgan Tsvangirai has said he won the election and accuses
Mugabe of
planning violence to overturn the results.
South Africa holds the
Security Council's rotating presidency and has
opposed council discussion of
Zimbabwe, arguing that the problems there are
not a crisis and do not
represent a threat to international peace and
security.
Pretoria's
U.N. envoy Dumisani Kumalo said the issue was being dealt with by
the
Southern Africa Development Community, which has resisted calls for
greater
pressure on Mugabe.
But Ban said it was time the United Nations got
involved.
"I will be engaging in a number of meetings with the leaders
tomorrow to
discuss what the United Nations and how the international
community could
help the Zimbabwean people and authorities to resolve this
issue," he said.
He said Mugabe's government should release the election
results "so that the
Zimbabwean people will be able to enjoy the democratic
process, and also
they should be able to overcome these serious humanitarian
difficulties."
DARFUR AND SOMALIA
The Security Council is not
expected to make a unanimous statement or
resolution on Zimbabwe because of
resistance from South Africa and other
council members. But any discussion
of the issue at the meeting will
increase the pressure on Mugabe, Western
diplomats said.
Also to be debated is the crisis in western Sudan, where
only 9,000 of the
required 26,000 U.N.-AU peacekeepers have been deployed in
the war-racked
Darfur region.
International experts estimate around
2.5 million people have been displaced
and 200,000 have died in five years
of violence in Darfur which Washington
calls genocide. The Khartoum
government denies genocide and puts the death
toll at
9,000.
Somalia's Foreign Minister Ali Ahmed Jama said on Tuesday that
Somali
President Abdullahi Yusuf would tell the Security Council that
international
peacekeepers were urgently needed to bring stability to his
lawless country.
"We hope the Security Council would take meaningful
steps to assume its
responsibility and engage and replace the African Union
force there with a
U.N. force," he said. "This is the proposal we are going
to make."
Talk of outside intervention is still colored by memories of a
battle in
1993 in which 18 U.S. troops and hundreds of Somali militiamen
died. The
incident inspired a Hollywood movie, "Black Hawk Down" and marked
the
beginning of the end for a combined U.S.-U.N. peacekeeping force.
(Editing
by Chris Wilson)
With the election outcome still unclear, gangs warn against opposing Mugabe
Mike Mavhura in hospital in Harare. Photograph: Chris McGreal
It is called Operation Makavhoterapapi - Shona for 'Where did you put your cross?' - and it descended on 15-year-old Privilege Chikwana as she was doing her homework. Privilege was too young to have voted in Zimbabwe's still unresolved election but her mother did and the men at the door suspected she voted the wrong way. So they took the child back to the school in Chiwaka village where scores of Zanu-PF activists were holding opposition supporters prisoner and started beating her.
"They beat her on the buttocks with wooden rods, beat her and beat her because they said she was hiding me. Men were doing this," said Privilege's mother, Faustina Chikwana. "When I heard they had taken her to the school I went straight there. There was a big group of Zanu-PF, about 100. They had drums. They were singing. They grabbed me and they had a list of where we voted. That's when it started."
Chikwana and her daughter are now in a private Harare hospital hardly able to move because of the injuries inflicted on them as a wave of state-sponsored terror sweeps rural Zimbabwe to punish voters for supporting the opposition and to ensure that if there is a run-off presidential election they do not repeat their mistake. Scattered around the same hospital are others who have survived the systematic punishment beatings and burnings but with terrible injuries.
They include Mike Mavhura, whose hands are swollen, bloodied and seared after burning grass was piled on him and his arms were broken in several places. A little way down the corridor is Daniel Muchuchuti, a 62-year-old retired major from the Zimbabwean army and village head, being treated for broken ribs. On the floor below is Linus Mubwanda, whose brother was beaten to death in front of him.
They are from diverse parts of rural Zimbabwe - Mashonaland to Manicaland and the Mozambican border - and they are just a fraction of the many hundreds of people the opposition says have been assaulted as gangs of armed Zanu-PF supporters under military leadership move through the countryside using polling station returns from the election nearly three weeks ago to identify villages where support for the opposition was strong.
Many hundreds more have been forced from their homes. War veterans burned the houses of 30 families in Centenary. Those who have tried to report the attacks to the police have sometimes themselves been arrested.
Chikwana, 38, says she is not an opposition activist and that her vote is her secret. But not secret enough. There were two polling stations in Chiwaka. The one in the centre appeared to be correctly run but the other, on the edge of the village, raised suspicions. Ahead of the elections Zanu-PF was telling people that they should vote there.
"When they were beating me they wanted to know why I didn't go to their polling station. They said to me: there we could see how you put your vote, if you vote in the other place it's secret and that means you voted for the opposition. They said they knew how people voted in that polling station from the figures and it wasn't for Zanu-PF," she said. "They said we must vote for Zanu-PF. If you don't vote Zanu-PF you must go away. They said we were selling the country to the whites."
Chikwana said that the Zanu-PF supporters also burned four houses in the area. "I recognised some of the people in the group. There were war vets and village men, councillors from Zanu-PF. They brought people from villages all around to the school and were beating them," said Chikwana. "They beat us for at least an hour then they took us to a large room and kept us there with other people they had beaten. We were there for about six hours. Then they said we could go but we couldn't walk. We were crawling out the door."
Zanu-PF arrived at Felix Gutima's door in Baradze village at about midnight. He is the ward secretary for the opposition Movement for Democratic Change.
"They smashed in the door and entered the house. They demanded the party register. They told me they were on Operation Makavhoterapapi. It means: where did you put your cross?" They said they were finding out how people voted. They wanted to use that register to track down our members," said Gutima. "I'd already hidden it and when I wouldn't show it they attacked me. They hit me with wood and iron bars."
Mike Mavhura, an opposition activist, was dragged from his small general store in Musaruro village. "They came and broke down the door and dragged me out and beat me. They threw burning grass on to my body. They said: you are an MDC member so we want to give you a reason to change your mind," he said. "After that they broke all the windows in my store and took the goods."
The four men and two women who attacked Mavhura, 22, left him with extensive burns and deep lacerations on his arms and hands. The ends of his fingers are bloodied and burned from trying to snatch off the burning grass. The men also beat him severely with wooden rods, particularly his buttocks and arms, leaving him with four broken bones in his left hand and two fractured fingers on his right.
One feature of the beatings is that very few people are killed. It would appear that Zanu-PF has learned that deaths attract attention. But there has been at least one killing in the past few days. Tapiwa Mubwanda was the MDC district chairman in Mhfreyenyoka village in the north of the country. He was bludgeoned to death on Saturday as his brother Linus, another opposition activist, was beaten next to him.
"They said it was to teach us how to vote," said Linus, 58. "They said: 'It's your own fault, voting for the opposition. That's why we are doing all these things to you. When we have the run-off you will know how to vote'."
Tsvangirai will runZimbabwe's opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, yesterday shifted tack and said he would participate in a run-off election against Robert Mugabe, but only if the poll and count were monitored by international observers.
The Movement for Democratic Change had previously rejected a second round on the grounds that its own calculations showed Tsvangirai had won outright in the election more than 18 days ago. The state-run electoral commission has still to release the official count.
An opposition call for a general strike to demand the immediate release of the election results flopped yesterday with almost all shops and businesses open.
But the MDC received a boost in South Africa where the ruling African National Congress broke with President Thabo Mbeki and declared the situation in Zimbabwe to be "dire". It backed the opposition's call for the election results to be released "without any further delay".
Mbeki said at the weekend that there was no crisis in Zimbabwe and described the election results delays as "normal". The new ANC leadership, far more critical of Mugabe than Mbeki, yesterday said it would make contact directly with Mugabe's Zanu-PF and the MDC in an attempt to settle the crisis.
Washington Post
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, April 16, 2008; Page
A12
JOHANNESBURG, April 15 -- Zimbabwe's military has taken day-to-day
control
of key elements of the national government, limiting the authority
of
President Robert Mugabe as he struggles to maintain power after 28 years,
according to senior government sources, Western diplomats and
analysts.
Mugabe's clout has diminished as military forces deploy widely
across
Zimbabwe's countryside and in government agencies. Among those
agencies is
the electoral commission, which has refused to release results
from the
March 29 election and would manage a runoff vote, if one is
eventually
scheduled.
National decision-making increasingly has been
consolidated within the Joint
Operations Command, a shadowy group consisting
of the leaders of the army,
air force, police, intelligence agency and
prison service -- a group
Zimbabweans call the
"securocrats."
Although those officials long have been powerful, their
authority in
government and political matters grew sharply in the days after
the
election, when it became clear that Mugabe had lost a first round of
balloting to longtime opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai. Several of the
securocrats, whose ties to Mugabe date to Zimbabwe's liberation war in the
1970s, had vowed before the vote never to take orders from Tsvangirai, a
former trade union official with no military background.
The shift in
power is "an interim measure that is meant to stabilize the
country at this
critical moment," said a top government official and Mugabe
confidant,
speaking on the condition of anonymity. "The arrangement is just
temporary
because once he wins [a runoff vote], as the army expects him to,
he will be
back in charge."
Zimbabwe's political crisis has shown no sign of abating
since the election
17 days ago. All sides agree that Mugabe received fewer
votes than
Tsvangirai, but they disagree as to whether the opposition
candidate won the
clear majority needed for a decisive first-round
victory.
The opposition party, which asserts that Tsvangirai did win
enough votes to
become president, has tried various tactics to push Mugabe's
government from
office. It sued unsuccessfully to force release of the
results. It embraced
a runoff, announced a boycott of it, then reversed
again and said it would
take part under certain conditions. On Tuesday, it
called a general strike
only to see it fizzle.
Regional diplomatic
efforts, including quiet negotiations between the ruling
party and the
opposition, have failed so far. There are no official
presidential election
results, no date for a runoff and no clear path for
resolving the crisis.
That has made questions about who is in charge now all
the more pressing.
The constitutional mandate for parliament and Mugabe's
cabinet expired at
the end of March.
Opposition leaders have claimed for several days that
the military has
quietly taken control of the government. "It's a coup in
the guise of an
election," said opposition lawmaker David Coltart, who is
part of a
breakaway faction that does not answer to
Tsvangirai.
Mugabe's security minister, Didymus Mutasa, disputed
Coltart's description,
saying, "President Mugabe is still in charge, and
that is a fact. Those
people who are telling you that are wishing for bad
things for this country.
Wait until the runoff. We will beat them
overwhelmingly, and then they will
shut up."
Yet a Zimbabwean
general, speaking on the condition of anonymity, described
a meeting between
top military officers and Mugabe last week in Murombedzi,
about 55 miles
southwest of Harare, the capital. After declaring to the
president that they
were in charge, the officers laid out a plan by which he
would contest a
runoff vote in conditions made far more favorable by
military control of
polling stations and central counting centers, the
general said.
He
added that the military has assigned two senior officers to oversee each
of
Zimbabwe's dozens of local government districts. Their job, the general
said, is to coordinate political violence by ruling party groups that are
intimidating and attacking opposition supporters.
Two people have
died since the election. Dozens of others have been beaten,
whipped and
threatened by ruling party youth militias, opposition activists
say.
Veterans of Zimbabwe's liberation war have occupied many of the
remaining
white-owned commercial farms. As police checkpoints on Zimbabwe's
highways
have proliferated, a growing number are monitored by military
policemen or
officers of Mugabe's secret police.
Such harsh tactics were common in
previous elections, especially in 2000 and
2002; this year's vote was
generally regarded as less violent. The following
day, results were posted
at individual polling stations, which allowed both
the opposition and
independent monitors to compile tallies showing the
extent of Mugabe's
loss.
This more relaxed atmosphere, which resulted largely from pressure
applied
by leaders of other countries of southern Africa, changed in the
days after
the election. Through increasingly belligerent statements, ruling
party
figures vowed to defeat Tsvangirai in a runoff and challenged the
results of
several parliamentary seats they lost.
Seven election
officials were arrested, as were several journalists covering
the election
amid intensive restrictions on news gathering.
This crackdown has come
since the Joint Operations Command took operational
control of the ruling
party's political strategy and the country's electoral
mechanisms and
internal security measures, the senior government sources,
diplomats and
analysts said. The pretext, they said, is a national security
threat posed
by a possible victory by Tsvangirai, whom officials long have
accused of
colluding with Zimbabwe's former colonial ruler, Britain, to help
it
reassert control.
Former Mugabe information minister Jonathan Moyo, who
broke with the
president and now is an independent lawmaker, said that when
he was in the
cabinet from 2000 to 2005, major decisions needed the approval
of the
securocrats, much as a company's chief executive officer submits
major
initiatives to a board of directors.
Since the vote, Moyo said,
power has shifted from Mugabe, whom he called "a
hostage
president."
"His role is as a weakened CEO," Moyo said. "Still CEO, but
one who cannot
disagree with his boss."
The Telegraph
By David
Blair, Diplomatic Editor
Last Updated: 2:52am BST
16/04/2008
When Gordon Brown attends a special session of
the United Nations in
New York today, he will raise Zimbabwe's political
turmoil before the
Security Council.
But President Thabo Mbeki
of South Africa will chair the meeting - and
he will probably avoid
mentioning his northern neighbour where, he
stubbornly insists, "no crisis"
is unfolding.
This presents the Prime Minister with an acute
dilemma. British
officials have no doubt that President Robert Mugabe has
decided to defy
last month's election, which he almost certainly lost, and
hold power by
whatever means necessary.
A murderous terror
campaign designed to crush the opposition has duly
begun. Britain's logical
response would be to denounce Mr Mugabe as an
illegal leader and place a
tough Resolution before the Security Council
calling on Zimbabwe's regime to
release the results of the presidential
election.
America and
France will probably echo Mr Brown's concerns before the
Security Council.
But Whitehall sources say the Prime Minister will not
table a Resolution on
Zimbabwe.
Choosing this path would "set us up to fail", said one
official, by
placing Britain on a collision course with Mr Mbeki and other
African
leaders. Despite everything, Mr Mbeki still views Mr Mugabe as a
legitimate
president who must be dealt with, instead of
condemned.
Moreover, he remains utterly convinced that Zimbabwe's
election has
vindicated his conciliatory approach. He points to a modest
package of
electoral reforms agreed by Zimbabwe's regime and the opposition
before
polling day.
For the first time, all results were posted
outside polling stations,
transparent ballot boxes were employed and the
early stages of the campaign
were relatively peaceful. So Mr Mbeki believes
that his policy has produced
real gains. Tragically, this conviction has
entrapped him in a wilful
blindness about the terrible events now unfolding
in Zimbabwe.
Almost three weeks after polling day, no official
results for the
presidential election have been released. This has only one
logical
explanation. Mr Mugabe lost the first round and his minions are
busily
rigging the result.
The new safeguards rendered it
impossible to rig at polling station
level. So the chicanery is happening in
the national counting centre
instead. The figures will probably be finessed
to give the president a
narrow lead, while falling below the 50 per cent
threshold needed to avoid a
second round.
Anticipating this
run-off, Mr Mugabe's thugs are now trying to break
the opposition by their
customary methods of terror and violence. Mr Mbeki
is psychologically
incapable of acknowledging any of this.
To do so would be to admit
the failure of his policy. So he persists
in claiming that "no crisis" is
unfolding. Mr Mbeki, who holds the Security
Council's rotating presidency,
would probably block any British attempt to
debate Zimbabwe before this
body, possibly with China's help.
If Mr Brown says that Zimbabwe
has effectively suffered a coup and Mr
Mugabe is now an illegal leader a
claim already made by the opposition South
Africa would certainly offer no
support. Worse, Mr Mbeki could be pushed
into publicly endorsing Mr Mugabe
as a legitimate leader.
So Mr Brown's options are extremely
limited. The only glimmer of hope
is that some African leaders dissent from
Mr Mbeki's sanguine view of
Zimbabwe.
President Ian Khama of
Botswana, who took office a fortnight ago, has
hosted Morgan Tsvangirai, the
opposition leader, and privately signalled his
unhappiness. President Levy
Mwanawasa of Zambia has called Zimbabwe a
"sinking Titanic".
He
snubbed the regime by pointedly inviting Mr Tsvangirai to the last
summit of
southern African leaders. Britain hopes these divisions among his
African
peers might bring pressure to bear on Mr Mugabe.
The Telegraph
By
Byron Dziva in Harare
Last Updated: 2:48am BST
16/04/2008
The brutality of Robert Mugabe's crackdown on
the Movement for
Democratic Change was described yesterday by the victims of
his thugs as
they recovered from their injuries in a clinic in
Harare.
Lainos Mubwanda, whose brother Tapiwa was the first person
to be
killed in Zimbabwe's post-election violence, was injured in the same
attack.
He described how a gang of youth militia from the ruling
Zanu-PF party
arrived at their home in Mashonaland West, Mr Mugabe's home
province, where
his brother was a party organiser.
"About 200
of them descended on our homestead. They were armed with
metal, sticks and
knives. They were prepared to kill. I don't think they
were prepared for
anything less.
"They were accusing us of supporting the MDC, and
demanded information
from us. When they tried to beat me up, my brother
jumped to my side and
tried to restrain them.
"One of the
militias stabbed my brother twice on the right side of the
rib. He fell
down. They hit me in the head with logs and with a huge stone
in the head,
then ran away into the bush."
Mr Mubwanda lost consciousness.
"Later I heard that my brother had
died," he added simply.
The
violence is concentrated in former strongholds of Zanu-PF that
voted for the
MDC last month, such as Mudzi district in Mashonaland East
province.
Poshie Pfiranimata, 22, is the local MDC secretary,
and has to sleep
face down because of the pain from his beaten, swollen
legs. "They came
around midnight, broke down the wooden doors and forced
themselves into the
hut," he said.
"They were about 30 Zanu-PF
militias, armed with truncheons and
sticks. They started demanding the MDC
book containing the membership lists
of every local person supporting the
opposition. I told them that I had
submitted the book to Harare party's
headquarters.
"All hell broke loose. They started beating me with
logs all over the
body until I passed out. They feared I was dead and they
left me. I was only
rescued the following morning and taken to
Harare."
In all, two people are know to have been murdered and at
least 157
assaulted so far, including a 15-year-old girl and a pregnant
woman. Scores
of Zimbabwe's last white farmers have seen their land
invaded.
Zanu-PF's campaign extends to the airwaves where state
radio is
playing hate-filled songs hour after hour. Mr Mugabe routinely
calls the MDC
"sellouts" and the lyrics of one song played on Spot FM read:
"Give me my
spear so that I can kill the many sellouts in my forefathers'
country."
The MDC called a general strike yesterday to protest over
the
authorities' failure to announce the presidential election results.
However,
the call was ignored and businesses in Harare opened as
normal.
Last week, the opposition said they would boycott any
second round of
the presidential poll. But a spokesman for Morgan
Tsvangirai, the MDC
leader, said the MDC would take part if the election was
monitored by
outside observers.
Gordon Brown will be in New
York today for a special Security Council
session chaired by President Thabo
Mbeki of South Africa. There is unlikely
to be any discussion of Zimbabwe.
British officials say their options for
imposing pressure on Mr Mugabe are
constrained by the need to avoid
alienating African leaders.
But South Africa's ruling ANC contradicted Mr Mbeki's recent claim
that
there was "no crisis" in Zimbabwe. In a statement, the party said: "The
ANC
regards Zanu-PF as an ally. However, it regards the situation in
Zimbabwe as
dire, with negative consequences" for southern Africa.
Business Day
16 April 2008
Sure
Kamhunga
ZIMBABWE’s
opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) will ask
President Thabo
Mbeki to clarify what he meant by claiming there is no
crisis in that
country.
It is understood that MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai is being
pressed by
incensed party members to denounce Mbeki as a “dishonest” broker
in the
country’s political stalemate.
However, Tsvangirai struck a
conciliatory tone in an interview with Business
Day, saying his party —
which claims it won a landmark election victory
against Zanu (PF) — will
choose “an appropriate time" to seek clarification
from
Mbeki.
Mbeki’s remarks have been contradicted by the African National
Congress
national working committee.
Tsvangirai said Mbeki’s
credibility as an honest broker in the had taken a
huge knock after his
statement, made after a stopover meeting with Zimbabwe’s
President Robert
Mugabe last Saturday, en route to an extraordinary summit
of the Southern
African Development Community (SADC) in Lusaka.
The summit ended with a
call to the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission to
“expeditiously" release the
results of the presidential poll held on March
29.
“I do not know
what informed Mbeki to make such a statement and I am as
surprised as a lot
of people on his conclusion, which might undermine his
credibility as an
honest broker (in mediation efforts) to bring a resolution
to the crisis,”
Tsvangirai said.
“We hope to engage (Mbeki) and clarify that position
that there is no crisis
in Zimbabwe.”
He said Mbeki had in
previous private discussions acknowledged that Zimbabwe
faced a crisis “and
that it needs resolution".
Despite Tsvangirai’s conciliatory approach,
MDC sources said yesterday that
Mbeki’s statement — and TV footage of his
holding hands with Mugabe — had so
incensed some party members that they
were now demanding Tsvangirai publicly
denounce Mbeki for his stance on the
delayed release of the presidential
poll results.
However, a
diplomatic source in Harare said he doubted Tsvangirai would make
“such a
fatal error of judgment" considering that Mbeki was probably the
only
regional leader with influence over Mugabe. Mbeki’s policy of quiet
diplomacy towards Zimbabwe has been much criticised.
A senior MDC
official said the party had lost confidence in Mbeki, and his
“no crisis”
statement had destroyed any remaining credibility.
“He has a
well-established pattern of bias towards the incumbent in all his
mediations, and that is why no one wants to see him in Africa as a
mediator.”
However, Tsvangirai said the MDC acknowledged that SA, by
virtue of its
importance as a regional economic and political leader, had a
role to play
in resolving the Zimbabwe crisis.
He said it was time
for Mugabe to concede defeat and allow a smooth
transition to a new
government rather than continue to insist on a recount
of votes and a
runoff, which he warned that Mugabe would lose. He said he
was astounded to
hear government ministers declare there would be a runoff
between the MDC
and the ruling Zanu (PF) party even before the results of
the presidential
election had been released.
Yesterday — after yet another general strike
in Zimbabwe that flopped —
Tsvangirai was reported as saying that he would
contest a runoff, but only
if it was run by SADC with international
observers.
Business Day
16 April 2008
Allister
Sparks
THE
Southern African Development Community (SADC) faced its most critical
credibility test at its summit on the Zimbabwe crisis over the weekend — and
failed.
The SADC’s call for a speedy announcement of the
presidential election
results, and its appeal that should a run-off between
Morgan Tsvangirai and
Robert Mugabe be necessary it should be conducted in
“a secure environment”,
were well-meaning but hopelessly inadequate. The
request is toothless. There
is no hint of any penalty should Mugabe ignore
it, as he surely will.
This is where the default lies. There is
mounting evidence that the Mugabe
regime is in the process of manipulating
the electoral figures to steal both
the presidential and parliamentary
elections, in other words to retain
political power through a de facto coup
— and the SADC states are bound by
their own founding treaty to try to
prevent that.
Mugabe’s strategy of delaying the presidential count
has been two-edged. It
means there have been enough leaks from the counting
house to reveal what
the real count was, and what strategies are being used
to subvert it.
By noon on Sunday, March 30, 18 hours after the polls
closed and with
three-quarters of the count completed, police reports from
the country’s
9400 polling stations to the headquarters of the Joint
Operational Command
(the chiefs of the five powerful security services)
indicated Tsvangirai was
heading for a landslide victory, with 58% of the
vote at that stage to
Mugabe’s 27% and 15% for Simba Makoni.
This
triggered panic in the ruling Zanu (PF) hierarchy, which summoned an
emergency meeting of its politburo. At a second meeting the next day, it was
decided to slow the count so as to massage the figures and allow for a
run-off, at which huge security force deployments and intimidation could try
to ensure a Mugabe victory.
The Movement for Democratic Change
(MDC), aware of this, promptly issued a
statement claiming Tsvangirai had
won with a majority of 50,3%, a figure
based on 90% of reports received from
its own polling agents.
The MDC also called for a full audit of
results, which took another three
days and showed, according to further
leaks, a final count of 54% for
Tsvangirai.
At that point, the
Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC), under huge pressure
from the security
chiefs, froze the count, closed its command centre and
moved to a secret
venue where, at Zanu (PF)’s insistence, a recount of 23
constituencies is
now taking place with no opposition candidates, election
officials or
lawyers present.
The strategy seems obvious, and the SADC leaders,
including its chairman,
Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa, must know
this.
The key factor here is that the SADC Treaty, which established
the
organisation, enjoins its 14 member states to defend the principles of
democracy and ensure free and fair elections are held. It also binds member
states to align themselves with the principles set out in the Constitutive
Act of the African Union (AU), whose Charter on Democracy, Elections and
Governance “prohibits, rejects and condemns any unconstitutional change of
government”.
In other words, no coups.
Some may argue
there should be no interference in the affairs of a sovereign
member state.
That’s old fashioned. The Organisation of African Unity was
reconstituted
into the AU in 2002 to move away from that old passive
doctrine, which had
tarnished the continent’s image by silently tolerating
tyrants and military
dictatorships. Article 4 of the AU’s Constitutive Act
proclaims the right of
the organisation “to intervene in grave circumstances
that include war
crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity, as well as a
serious threat to
legitimate order”.
Only last month, the AU invoked this clause to
intervene militarily in
Comoros, when the island of Anjuan refused to
recognise the outcome of a
national election.
Obviously any
threat of military intervention in Zimbabwe is out of the
question, if only
because it would be logistically impractical. But what the
SADC summit
should have done was to couple its message to Mugabe with a
warning that if
its injunctions were not heeded, if the process of
attempting to rig the
elections and retain power unconstitutionally were to
continue, the SADC
member states would not recognise the legitimacy of the
outcome.
They would not recognise the reappointed regime. Mugabe
would find himself
heading an illegitimate government unrecognised within
its own region.
Such a warning, I believe, would have given him
pause. It may well have been
sufficient to prevent what now looks like a
certain drift to a de facto
coup.
Indeed, had the SADC issued
such an advance warning last year, when it
appointed President Thabo Mbeki
as its official negotiator — as this column
suggested at the time — we may
well have seen a much cleaner election
campaign yielding a more conclusive
result.
As it is, by my count eight of the 10 principles for
conducting democratic
elections set out in the SADC Treaty were
violated.
Of course, Mugabe may have ignored all such warnings and
treated the SADC
with the same contempt he has shown Mbeki. But at least the
SADC would have
emerged with some credibility, and the rest of Africa with
it. The
international community would have seen that there had been an
effort to
give substance to the fine words in the founding charters of these
institutions of the hoped-for African renaissance, and that they are not
just empty vessels floating on a cushion of hot air.
It might
even have had a meaningful effect within Zimbabwe, where there are
signs of
cracks in the Zanu (PF) hierarchy and within the powerful Joint
Operational
Command, which comprises the security chiefs who have committed
untold
crimes against humanity and are so fearful of the demise of their
protector
that they are prepared to commit more to keep him in State House.
As
it is, the whole world can see what is happening, and Africa’s image is
in
danger of returning to the derisory label of “the hopeless
continent”.
Mbeki’s performance as the SADC’s point man in this sad
saga has not helped.
His fatuous statement that “there is no crisis” in
Zimbabwe, even as
beatings, torture and intimidation of opposition
supporters was taking place
all around him as he stood on Zimbabwean soil,
marked a new low.
More revealing still was a statement he made in
London last week. “I must
say that we have been very pleased with the manner
in which the elections
have gone,” he said. “For the first time the
opposition parties had access
to everywhere in the country.”
There is
a damning admission in that. Implicit in Mbeki’s statement that
this was the
first time opposition parties had been able to campaign freely
was an
acknowledgment he knew they had not been able to do so in the 2002
and 2005
elections. Yet the African National Congress, the South African
government
and SADC observer missions, and Mbeki himself, all proclaimed
those
elections free and fair.
That tells you all you need to know about the
craven inability to confront
Mugabe, despite his destruction of his country
and his discrediting of the
whole of Africa.
Which calls to mind
the warning of political philosopher Edmund Burke more
than 200 years ago:
“All that is required for evil to flourish is for good
men to do
nothing.”
... Sparks writes for a number of South African
newspapers
Independent, Ireland
By Mike Cohen and Brian Latham
Wednesday April 16
2008
South African president Thabo Mbeki's bid to use "quiet diplomacy"
to
resolve Zimbabwe's political crisis is backfiring, as police deployed
water
cannon in the Zimbabwean capital Harare yesterday to counter an
opposition
call for strikes.
Almost three weeks after Zimbabwe's
presidential elections -- which the
opposition says it won -- officials have
yet to release final results,
leaving President Robert Mugabe in
power.
"No form of diplomacy has worked in Zimbabwe, quiet or otherwise,
simply
because we are dealing with a head of state who is completely
impervious to
criticism," Aubrey Matshiqi, an analyst at the Centre for
Policy Studies in
Johannesburg, said yesterday. "It's time to review
mediation as a form of
intervention."
Shared
That view is
shared by politicians across South Africa's political spectrum,
including
the ruling African National Congress. The ANC described the
situation in
Zimbabwe as "dire," contradicting Mr Mbeki's comments on April
12 that there
was "no crisis" in Zimbabwe.
Mr Mbeki lost control of the ANC to Jacob
Zuma in December, and since then
there have been policy differences between
the party and the government.
Mr Mugabe (84), a long-standing ally of Mr
Mbeki, is seeking to extend his
28-year rule of the
country.
Zimbabwe's police deployed water cannons and military vehicles
in Harare.
Roadblocks were set up on roads leading into the city and
security forces
patrolled townships that are support bases for the Movement
for Democratic
Change, the National Constitutional Assembly, a Harare-based
pro-democracy
group, said yesterday.
- Mike Cohen and Brian
Latham
Independent, UK
By a Special Correspondent in Harare
Wednesday, 16 April
2008
South Africa's ruling African National Congress has split publicly
over the
still-undeclared presidential election result in Zimbabwe, where
President
Robert Mugabe is accused of defying the verdict of his own
voters.
Leading ANC figures have openly contradicted President Thabo
Mbeki, who
declared after meeting Mr Mugabe in Harare last weekend that
there was "no
crisis" in Zimbabwe. A top ANC official, Matthews Phosa – a
close ally of
the ANC leader Jacob Zuma – said yesterday that a crisis was
"evident" in
South Africa's northern neighbour. The party's national working
committee,
in a snub to the president, resolved to open direct contact with
Zimbabwe's
ruling Zanu-PF and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change
(MDC) to
promote dialogue.
The deadlock in Zimbabwe has caused
frustration in South Africa with Mr
Mbeki's brand of "quiet diplomacy" to
boil over. His critics believe the
president's uncritical support of Mr
Mugabe is allowing the 84-year-old
autocrat to prepare a campaign to
overturn the results of both the
parliamentary elections, in which Zanu-PF
lost its majority, and the
presidential poll, where the MDC leader Morgan
Tsvangirai is believed by
independent monitors to have come within 1 per
cent of an overall majority.
The raging controversy in South Africa's
ruling circles contrasted with
apparent apathy on the streets of Harare
yesterday, where Mr Tsvangirai's
call for a national "stay-away" was all but
ignored. The opposition blamed
lack of publicity and Zimbabwe's economic
collapse, which makes it difficult
for people to forego a day's
income.
Zimbabweans are likely to hope instead that South Africa, the
regional
power, will at last put effective pressure on Mr Mugabe. Warning
that the
"dire" situation in Zimbabwe was having negative consequences for
the whole
of southern Africa, the top ANC committee said it would be
"undemocratic and
unprecedented" for Mr Mugabe to hold a run-off vote
without first announcing
the result of the 29 March presidential
poll.
Mr Phosa, the ANC treasurer, said the continuing failure to release
results
was causing uncertainty that could "lead to explosions", adding: "We
don't
want to prophesise disaster, we don't want disaster, we think
pre-emptive
action should be taken to avoid disaster."
Mr Tsvangirai
is in South Africa, having remained abroad since the election
amid hints
that he fears for his life if he returns to Zimbabwe. He has been
criticised
by some in the opposition for failing to appear more
"presidential" since
the poll, and for being unrealistic in demanding that
an emergency regional
summit in Zambia last weekend recognise him
immediately as Zimbabwe's
president.
In Harare yesterday, it was soon evident that Mr Tsvangirai's
"stay-away"
call had been a flop. There was some tension early in the day in
the city
centre, where riot police raced down streets, chanting and beating
their
batons against the sides of their trucks. But most shops and banks
were
open, apart from some near the MDC headquarters, and those with jobs
were
pouring in from the "high-density suburbs" – the euphemistic name for
the
former segregated townships, which are MDC strongholds.
Although
there was the hulk of a burnt-out bus on the outskirts, and
residents in one
area reported some stoning of minibuses in an effort to
stop commuters
heading for work, the police soon dismantled roadblocks and
scaled down
their presence as it became clear there was no opposition to
deal with. Many
arriving for work said they knew nothing of the strike
call – Mr Mugabe's
government keeps tight control of the media.
Irish Examiner
16 April 2008
By Steven King
Mugabe has gradually made the impossible possible: restoring Ian Smith’s
historical reputation.
He died, vindicated, last year.
Barely anyone in Zimbabwe has a job.
Inflation, at 100,000%, is so high that
wages would need to be raised hourly
to make turning up
worthwhile
TODAY, the state buries Patrick Hillery. If he was a
reluctant
President, he had been an energetic minister, holding numerous
offices over
a 14-year period. As Minister of External Affairs — renamed
Foreign Affairs
in 1971 — he had his work cut out for him. Not only was
there the outbreak
of the Troubles to contend with, but Ireland’s accession
to the EEC to
negotiate as well.
However, another issue
5,000 miles away was to be a constant irritant
for Hillery and his officials
at Iveagh House throughout his years of
service there:
Rhodesia.
When one considers that there are only 30,000 Europeans
left in
Zimbabwe today, it is remarkable to think that more than 8,000 Irish
passport-holders lived there during the 15-year life of Ian Smith’s racist
regime.
The white community was much larger then, of course —
although never
more than 5% of the total population. Irish passports were
much in demand.
Britain had imposed travel restrictions, refusing entry to
those holding the
green so-called ‘Republic of Rhodesia’
documents.
The Irish passport office did a brisk trade with anyone
who could
point to an Irish grandparent. The letter of the UN sanctions was
observed —
no passports were issued to those accused of close involvement
with the
Rhodesian Front government — but Hillery still had to defend
Government
policy from attacks by Garret FitzGerald and Noel
Browne.
Today, of course, a few Rhodies — whites who left Zimbabwe
after
majority rule — reside in Ireland permanently. But they are vastly
outnumbered by black Zimbabweans — many supporters of the Movement for
Democratic Change, others members of the oppressed Ndebele ethnic group —
who have fled persecution by the Mugabe regime. Those who could not afford
to return to vote in last month’s election — either for financial reasons or
for fear of their lives — must look despairingly at the farcical situation
now.
Back in the 1970s, Garret FitzGerald urged Hillery to give
the British
government advice on the means of testing the acceptability of
proposals
from Edward Heath to end the stalemate created by Rhodesian UDI
(Ian Smith
would not allow a referendum of the whole population; London
would not allow
a whites-only poll). It was a forlorn hope: if London in
1971 was not
prepared to listen to Dublin about the introduction of
internment, what hope
in respect of Rhodesia?
I was last in
Zimbabwe in 2004. By then, the economy was in freefall
and Mugabe’s subjects
were growing hungry, but he was more popular than
ever. Not in Zimbabwe,
mind you. But in many African capitals he was
receiving standing ovations,
not least at President Thabo Mbeki’s
swearing-in ceremony in Cape
Town.
At home, it was already clear that his ‘land-reform
programme’ had not
significantly reversed his unpopularity. He had already
taken to bludgeoning
black opponents and rigging elections. His supporters
didn’t care. Mugabe
was giving the whites hell. He was a hero.
One assumed this accounted for the Mbeki administration’s reluctance
to
criticise him in public. We were told that the situation in Zimbabwe was
delicate and that ‘quiet diplomacy’ offered the best shot at staving off
anarchy. For a while this seemed plausible. In time, though, it became clear
that quiet diplomacy was mostly a cover for covert support. South Africa
thwarted attempts to place his atrocities on the agenda at the UN Security
Council and the UN Human Rights Committee.
Having been elected
amidst high hopes, Mugabe has gradually made the
impossible possible:
restoring Ian Smith’s historical reputation. He died,
vindicated, last year.
Barely anyone in Zimbabwe has a job. Inflation, at
100,000%, is so high that
wages would need to be raised hourly to make
turning up worthwhile. Most
don’t bother. The unluckiest go hungry. All
because of one man.
Colonialism might have left a wretched legacy, but next-door Botswana
thrives as Zimbabwe grinds to a halt. Mugabe fears international justice —
he has the blood of thousands of Ndebele on his hands — but true justice
would see him indicted for millions more deaths caused by his
misrule.
As he enters the 29th year of his rule, Mugabe is not only
sucking the
life from his country but also holding back an entire continent.
In his
constant railing about colonialism, he keeps the country and the
whole of
Africa looking backward.
Mugabe is one of the last
leaders of a liberation struggle to hold
power in Africa and he regularly
invokes those credentials. He appears on
Zimbabwean television in his
fatigues even though it has been nearly three
decades since his movement put
down its guns. In any case, the
Jesuit-educated intellectual with eight
university degrees never carried one
himself.
With his
incessant reminders to his people of how much he sacrificed
for them, he
insists on a now outdated reverence for his generation. Yet
more than half
of the population of sub-Saharan Africa was born after the
last of the
independence wars. That language is lost on them. South Africa’s
Nelson
Mandela knew it and left office after one term nearly a decade ago.
Mugabe’s
rhetoric no longer resonates with anyone — except the powerbrokers
of the
African Union and the Southern African Development Community (SADC)
in their
Mercedes limousines.
Mugabe’s use of postcolonial rhetoric is
genuinely brilliant. The
bogeymen he conjures, combined with the respect
still accorded to him as a
veteran who supported other leaders in their
countries’ fights (Zimbabwe was
a key frontline state in the war against
apartheid), means that he steadily
undermines the ability of regional
organisations to stand up for any of the
principles of governance they
theoretically hold dear.
AND the dearth of meaningful intervention
by the west (just some
half-hearted bank account freezes and ill-defined
travel restrictions on
Mugabe’s cronies) puts the lie to any claims about
intervention to support
democracy and human rights.
It is time
we actually considered what is required for true democracy
in Zimbabwe and
across the African continent. There is an underlying problem
in the thinking
of African ruling elites: they believe that elections are
indeed enough to
measure democracy by.
The concept of some sort of limit to power is
largely anathema. Once
they have it, they will keep it, come what
may.
We cannot turn our backs on Africa, tempting as it might
appear. Great
work has been done by Irish officials in Mozambique; Irish
troops are on
their way to help bring peace to Chad as we speak. But
Africa’s greatest
need is help with building strong, independent civil
society institutions,
not bags of grain or guns.
In Patrick
Hillery’s day there was at least an effort to right wrongs,
to treat the
continent as part of the global community. Nowadays, the
developed word
hides behind compromised organisations like the African Union
and the SADC
for fear of appearing to tell Africans how to behave.
Archbishop Desmond
Tutu says we are cowards. He is right.
The Telegraph
Last Updated:
12:01am BST 16/04/2008
With every passing day, Robert
Mugabe's brand of national vandalism
heaps still more misery on
Zimbabwe.
The old dictator's latest ploys - clinging to power
despite an
election defeat, launching a murderous terror campaign against
his opponents
and pillaging what remains of a shattered economy - are well
rehearsed.
Tragically, the same is true of President Thabo Mbeki's
unceasing
indulgence of these outrages.
When South Africa's urbane
leader blithely announced that "no crisis"
existed in Zimbabwe, his
shamelessness was wearily predictable.
Mr Mbeki chairs a meeting of
the Security Council in New York today.
Naturally, no one expects him to
utter a word about his northern neighbour.
Grasping why Mr Mbeki
has adopted this quixotic approach towards
Zimbabwe requires more than an
understanding of realpolitik.
This is not simply a calculated
decision to refrain from denouncing Mr
Mugabe in the hope of buying
influence, nor is Mr Mbeki's reticence solely
explained by solidarity with a
pillar of the struggle against white colonial
rule.
To really
comprehend what lies behind all this, you must delve into Mr
Mbeki's bleak
psyche.
He genuinely believes that British criticism of Mr Mugabe
is motivated
by a desire to denigrate black people and, in particular, to
demonstrate
their unfitness to govern their own countries.
Well, we have news for Mr Mbeki. This newspaper's deep concern for
Zimbabwe
stems from the appalling spectacle of a beautiful nation, rich in
natural
resources, being wilfully despoiled by a venal leader.
As the
president of Africa's most powerful country, Mr Mbeki has a
special
obligation to act. He has one final chance.
Under Zimbabwe's own
laws, the election's second round must happen on
Saturday.
If
this does not occur - and it seems inconceivable - Mr Mugabe will
lead an
illegal regime. Mr Mbeki should have the courage to say so.
|
23:14 GMT, Tuesday,
15 April 2008 00:14 UK
Africa must condemn Mr Mugabe's brutal coupIndependent, UK Endgames for Zimbabwe's Mugabe
African Suicide American Spectator The Zimbabwe impasseWashington Times Second TakeBusiness Day Zimbabwe Opposition Leader Demands Level Playing Field in Election Run-offVOA ANALYSIS: South Africa's Mbeki to grapple with Zimbabwe at UNMonsters and Critics What's worse in Zimbabwe?Khaleej Times Online The Mbeki mysteryDispatch, SA Zimbabwe ambassador accuses white refugee farmers of stirring opposition
Letters to the Telegraph
The darkest hourcricinfo
Peter Roebuck
| The mishandling of the Zimbabwe crisis is perhaps the most shameful chapter in the ICC's history  April 16, 2008
|
Cricket has plunged into the darkest period in its history. Never can the game have so disgraced itself as it did at the most recent ICC meeting. Presented with an opportunity to confront the malign in its ranks, it followed, instead, the course of indulgence and vote counting. And so tyranny went unconfronted and players were let down and good men betrayed. It is not much of a way to run a pizza parlour, let alone a game with international pretensions and inclined to clothe itself in the rhetoric of nobility. Of course it is only a game, but it is also a meeting point and carries wider responsibilities. Alas, its new leadership has shown itself to be spineless, amoral, unprincipled, shallow, self-centred, ill-informed and contemptible. No game that hopes to retain even a modicum of a standing in the wider community can so abjectly bow to despotism. Nor can those responsible for the latest crassness escape unnamed. After all, they take the glories. Lalit Modi ought to be ashamed of himself, and the same applies to Sharad Pawar, the Indian board president. Previously regarded as a man whose principles had survived the callow pragmatism of politics, Pawar has emerged as a mere manipulator. Indeed, the entire edifice of the BCCI ought to be embarrassed by its recent wheelings and dealings. Oh brave new world that has such people in it. Of course there never was any point expecting anything except pathetic kowtowing from Ray Mali, a compromised and unworthy president of the ICC. His emptiness was exposed long ago, in the Transkei, before the fall of a system he was supposed to despise. It was documented at the Truth and Reconciliation Hearings. Nor is there anything to be gained from dwelling upon Norman Arendse, chairman of CSA, a third-rate occupant of an important position. His rise has been due not to courage or character but to an ability to sniff the wind. Angry? Damn right, I am angry, and not with the sort of sudden, regrettable fury caused by petty grievance but rather with the mountainous rage provoked by a terrible wrong, and the lamentable sight of expedient men looking the other way. Cricket boards, too, are known by the company they keep. Alas, the BCCI has shown that it puts self-interest above all other considerations. In order to retain power it will deal with the devil himself. As a result it stands accused of dragging the game, whose good name it is supposed to protect, into a sewer. Every now and then a game comes across a definitive issue. In the recent past fierce debate has raged about various red herrings. Everyone gets overheated about throwing, which is hardly a problem these days, especially among fast bowlers. Now everyone seems to be agitated about the IPL, forgetting that it was a necessary response to the breakaway ICL. In the longer run these are trivialities, the sort every game encounters in a changing world. Different opinions can reasonably be held about them. Governance is another matter. Turning a deaf ear to blatant misconduct is another matter. Allowing the game to sink into an abyss is another matter. Betraying honest cricketers is another matter. Tolerating the representatives of tyranny is another matter. Pretending tyranny does not exist is another matter. Ignoring blatant threats, bullying, misuse of funds, unlawful procedures, naked racism, intimidation of critics and so on and so forth - all the ghastly weapons of the all-consuming state - is another matter. That is not leadership. It is cynicism, or worse, cowardice. Modi, Pawar, Mali, Arendse stand accused of all this and more. Obviously Zimbabwe is the issue that has forced everyone involved in the game to examine their hearts and heads and stomachs. Specifically the manner in which Peter Chingoka, Ozias Bvute and their loathsome henchmen have run the game in that wonderful country. These men reflect their times. Make no mistake, they are Zanu-PF loyalists in sheep's clothing. Chingoka is a particularly nasty but of work. He has friends in very high places, enjoys the protection of the vice-president and her militarist husband. He has grown fat as others starve. As pitches go unprepared and grass grows high, he has bought property in London, built a house in Cape Town, invested heavily in companies, and generally made a fortune in a bankrupt land. Although charming when he chooses to be, his bitter, rampant racism has shocked even Zimbabwean politicians, not to mention ICC officials. Of course, that has not stopped his inexorable rise at the ICC. Cunning to the core, Chingoka has done deals with the BCCI, and votes for it at every opportunity. India owes him "big time". Like his mentor and master Robert Mugabe, he knows how to play his cards, talking about colonialism and intransigent whites, spreading rumours when it suits him. He is a pitiful figure who will not survive the return of democracy and the rule of law to his country, should that happy day ever dawn. Contrastingly, Bvute is the type that appears when there is easy money to be made, the sort that also knows when to jump ship. Nowadays his family lives in New York. Not so long ago, in a brief period under a cloud, Bvute was able to transfer a large sum of money to them. He has also bought a mansion in Harare, a purchase assisted by cricketing forces. Mostly, he throws his weight around in an attempt to cower the dispirited youth team representing the nation (which team managed to finish as high as second last in a recent domestic competition in South Africa). He also seeks to control the media. Not that in the case of television that is all that hard. Not so long ago a commentator remarked that whereas the Indian team had arrived at a Test match in Bulawayo in a luxury coach, the hosts had turned up in a ramshackle minibus. At once his producer roared into his earphones, telling him to avoid all political comment. He obeyed. These people know where their bread is jammed.
Between them, and ably assisted by other dubious office-bearers, and despite the best efforts of honourable men of all descriptions, they continue to destroy Zimbabwean cricket. Now and then they take ICC visitors on pleasant little trips from which said visitors emerge with gaga grins wrapped around their beneficent faces. They take tem to lively school festivals staged on prestigious school grounds. They take them to Victoria Falls and wine and dine them in posh hotels - the same treatment dished out to election observers. Mali and Arendse and company lap it up. They do not visit hospitals without medicine or schools without teachers or see millions living in avoidable poverty or queuing for bread or crawling under the fence near Beit Bridge. We would not want to upset the poor dears, and anyhow it is all a western conspiracy. These visitors do not ask why life expectancy has fallen to 36 despite the millions of dollars of aid that pours in from Britain and elsewhere. Zanu PF did not stay in power so long without knowing how to play the game. After years of sickening misrule in Zimbabwean cricket, the ICC finally asked KPMG to undertake a proper forensic audit. Not even Chingoka's supporters could prevent it. Of course, plenty of time had been provided to incinerate tell-tale documents. Moreover, these suspects had previously been arrested by the local police force on foreign exchange charges, which made them even more cautious. After a long scrutiny KPMG reported that it had found no evidence of criminal conduct. But it did uncover serious financial irregularities. Part of any board's duty is to ensure that money is properly used. ZCU has been given tens of millions of dollars. Why are the grounds in poor shape? Why are the players paid a pittance? Why have tournaments been cancelled? Where has the money gone? Unsurprisingly, the ICC finance subcommittee led by Sir John Anderson recommended that the matter be referred to the ethics committee for further consideration. As Mihir Bose and others reported, the ICC now faced its moment of decision. Did it care about the players or the welfare of the game? Nations concerned about such matters wanted to know more. Previously Malcolm Speed, the dismayed CEO of the ICC, had raised doubts about the reliability of ZCU's accounts. But the sickeningly cynical South African and Indian contingents protected their man. Chingoka had paid his dues. Perhaps the game has known a darker hour than this. God knows cricket had always reflected its times, as Zimbabwean cricket now reflects Mugabe and his murderous hordes. For an unconscionable time, no one said much about white captains of West Indies, or apartheid, or the massacre of the Tamils, or Mugabe's own slaughter in Matabeleland. God knows the game has been smug. Alas, nothing has changed. Indeed the position has deteriorated. Nowadays, anything goes. Some people are still trying. After years of fiddling around, England has refused to allow Chingoka into the country, a decision that might cost them the right to stage the next Twenty20 World Cup. In that case England ought not to attend. Mind you, with vast hypocrisy England is still sending Zimbabwean refugees back to the hellhole whence they came. Tatenda Taibu is eager to go to Australia. Once the golden boy, he had been lured back by money after fleeing in the wake of threats directed at his family. Other players are disenchanted. It is an appalling state of affairs. Protecting Chingoka and Bvute might serve the incumbents' purposes but it has cost them their reputations. Peter Roebuck is a former captain of Somerset and the author, most recently, of In It to Win It © Cricinfo | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
