The ZIMBABWE Situation
An extensive and up-to-date website containing news, views and links related to ZIMBABWE - a country in crisis
Please note: You need to have 'Active content' enabled in your IE browser in order to see the index of articles on this webpage
Britain's prime minister says UN Security
Council has failed to stand up for Zimbabweans
International Herald Tribune
The Associated
PressPublished: July 12, 2008
LONDON: British Prime Minster
Gordon Brown will press the European Union to
take harsher action against
Zimbabwe, after Russia and China vetoed proposed
new sanctions at the U.N.
Security Council, his office said Saturday.
Brown plans to discuss EU
action against Robert Mugabe's regime when the
British leader meets with
French President Nicolas Sarkozy and EU foreign
policy chief Javier Solana
at a summit starting Sunday in Paris.
The three will be among 43 leaders
of European, Middle Eastern and North
African nations at the
summit.
Brown's office said he would propose new EU travel bans on
members of
Mugabe's regime and action against companies owned by Mugabe
allies.
Russia and China on Friday vetoed a proposal from the United
States and
Britain for a new U.N. arms embargo and other punitive measures
against
Zimbabwe's president and top aides.
The vetoes came as a
surprise and disappointment for Brown, who believed he
had secured
sufficient international backing for U.N. measures against
Mugabe during
last week's summit in Japan of the Group of Eight
industrialized nations, a
Brown spokesman said, speaking on condition of
anonymity in line with
government policy.
"It was a high-stakes gamble, which earlier in the week
looked promising
because the Russian president had made commitments at the
G-8 to go along
with financial sanctions," said Mark Malloch-Brown,
Britain's minister for
African, Asia and the U.N.
Zimbabwe's
opposition party said Friday that at least 113 of its members
have been
killed in political violence since March.
British Foreign Secretary David
Miliband said Britain would continue to
press Mugabe over government-backed
violence and intimidation of the
opposition during Zimbabwe's first-round
presidential vote in March and
runoff ballot in June.
"Mugabe is more
isolated within his own country than ever before," Miliband
told British
Broadcasting Corp. radio. "We have got to make sure, though,
that the final
hold that he has on power, which is at a barrel of a gun, is
as short as
possible because the misery for those people is absolutely
overwhelming."
Russia UN veto "incomprehensible", Britain says
Reuters
Sat 12 Jul
2008, 7:25 GMT
LONDON (Reuters) - British Foreign Secretary David
Miliband said on Saturday
Russia's veto of a United Nations Security Council
resolution to impose
sanctions on Zimbabwe was
"incomprehensible".
"I'm very disappointed that the U.N. Security Council
should have failed to
pass a strong and clear resolution on Zimbabwe,"
Miliband said in a
statement.
"It'll appear incomprehensible to the
people of Zimbabwe that Russia, which
committed itself at the G8 to take
further steps including introducing
financial and other sanctions, should
stand in the way of Security Council
action."
"Nor will they
understand the Chinese vote," Miliband said. Veto-holding
China was also
among five countries that opposed the U.S.-drafted text in
the 15-nation
council on Friday.
Nine countries voted for the resolution to impose an
arms embargo on
Zimbabwe and financial and travel restrictions on President
Robert Mugabe
and 13 other officials, and authorise a United Nations special
envoy for the
southern African nation. One country abstained from the
vote.
The Group of Eight rich nations, which includes Britain and Russia,
agreed
on Tuesday to impose sanctions against Zimbabwe's leadership because
of
violence during the widely condemned re-election of President Robert
Mugabe.
Britain's diplomatic relations with Russia have been strained
since the 2006
poisoning in London of emigre and Kremlin critic Alexander
Litvinenko.
Russia has refused to hand over the main suspect, Andrei
Lugovoy, on the
grounds that its constitution rules out extraditing its own
citizens, and
Moscow has emphatically denied state
complicity.
Despite Friday's diplomatic setback, Miliband insisted
Britain would keep up
pressure on Mugabe.
Zimbabwe's opposition
Movement for Democratic Change leader Morgan
Tsvangirai withdrew from a June
27 presidential run-off poll, citing attacks
on his supporters by pro-Mugabe
militia.
The MDC and Western powers have branded Mugabe's landslide
re-election a
sham.
"We will continue to advocate intensified EU
measures against Mugabe and his
ruling clique. The U.N. still has a key role
to play in supporting African
efforts to bring an end to this crisis, and we
will continue to press for
the appointment of a U.N. envoy," Miliband
said.
"A solution must be found that reflects the will of the Zimbabwean
people,
whose will continues to be so brutally denied."
Fury as Zimbabwe sanctions vetoed
BBC
Britain and the US have condemned Russia and China for vetoing
a draft UN Security Council resolution to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe's
leaders.
UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband said their veto was incomprehensible,
especially as Russia had earlier suggested it backed tougher action.
The measures had included an arms embargo and a travel ban for Robert Mugabe
and 13 of his key allies.
Zimbabwe's UN ambassador said the UK and US had come up with flimsy reasons.
Boniface Chidyausiku said he was happy to see what he called the machinations
of the two failing.
International security
There has been growing international criticism of Zimbabwe since the
re-election of Mr Mugabe in a run-off boycotted by the opposition.
The opposition's Morgan Tsvangirai and his Movement for Democratic Change
party say they had faced a campaign of violence by Mugabe supporters, which left
dozens dead and thousands injured and forced from their homes.
Russia and China said they opposed the resolution because the situation in
Zimbabwe did not threaten international stability.
UK ambassador says the Security Council has failed Zimbabwe's
people
The US ambassador to the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad, said Russia's veto raised
"questions about its reliability as a G8 partner".
Mr Miliband said Russia used its veto despite a promise by President Dmitry
Medvedev to support the resolution when it was discussed at this week's summit
of the G8 group of industrialised nations.
A BBC correspondent at the UN, Andy Gallacher, says the failure of the
resolution is a major blow for the United States and Britain.
The UK ambassador said after the vote that the UN had failed in its duty.
"The people of Zimbabwe need to be given hope that there is an end in sight
to their suffering," said Sir John Sawers. "The Security Council today has
failed to offer them that hope."
However, Russia's ambassador Vitaly Churkin said sanctions would have taken
the UN beyond its mandate.
China's Foreign Ministry's chief spokesman Liu Jianchao said sanctions would
complicate conditions in Zimbabwe and would not help to encourage the various
factions engage in political dialogue and negotiations.
South Africa - which is hoping that President Mugabe and the opposition can
reach a deal on a power-sharing - voted against sanctions.
Envoy call
The resolution would have imposed an arms embargo on Zimbabwe and financial
and travel restrictions on President Mugabe and 13 of his top officials.
|
UN SANCTIONS VOTE
FOR Belgium Burkina Faso Costa
Rica Croatia France Italy Panama UK United States
AGAINST China Libya Russia South
Africa Vietnam
ABSTAINED Indonesia
|
It also called for a UN special envoy for Zimbabwe to be appointed.
The resolution had the support of nine council members, the minimum required
to pass in the 15-member council.
But the veto of any of the five permanent members is enough to defeat a
resolution.
Violence in Zimbabwe is said to have increased after the disputed
presidential elections.
The MDC's Morgan Tsvangirai, won the first round of Zimbabwe's presidential
elections on 29 March, but official results gave him less than the 50% share
needed to avoid a run-off.
He pulled out of the run-off poll after many of his supporters were targeted,
assaulted and even killed, leaving Mr Mugabe to win unopposed in the second
round at the end of June.
The MDC says 113 of its supporters have been killed, some 5,000 are missing
and more than 200,000 have been forced from their homes since March.
|
Zimbabwe sanctions: A schism between the United States and
Europe is what Russia wants
The Telegraph
By Adrian Blomfield
Last Updated:
11:01pm BST 11/07/2008
Last Tuesday, Dmitry Medvedev,
the Russian president, stood shoulder
to shoulder with his fellow G8 leaders
when they threatened the regime of
Robert Mugabe with "financial
measures".
On Friday, Russia wielded its Security Council veto to
block the same
sanctions it purported to support just three days earlier.
The dramatic
change of tack would seem to suggest that the Kremlin either
could not
resist the temptation to irritate the West or that Moscow simply
does not
hold much truck by G8 agreements.
While perhaps not
surprised that Russia has chosen to be obstreperous
once more, Britain and
the United States are more than irritated with
Moscow. If it hadn't been for
Russia, the resolution would have passed.
As Sir John Sawers, the
British ambassador to the UN, pointed out,
China would not have used its
veto if Russia had supported the resolution.
Although China, which has close
trade ties with Zimbabwe and sells it arms,
had more to lose than Russia
from imposing sanctions, Beijing did not want
to court more international
controversy ahead of next month's Olympic Games
by standing alone against
the rest of the Security Council.
Even though Moscow had signalled
as late as noon on Friday that it
would not stand in the way of sanctions,
the decision to use its veto will
not come as much of a surprise for Russia
watchers.
The Kremlin traditionally opposes international efforts
to intervene
in what it sees as the domestic affairs of sovereign nations
and Russia duly
used this objection to explain its veto. Much as the
humanitarian and
political crisis in Zimbabwe has upset and enraged
Westerners, Russia and
Russians have responded with much greater
ambivalence.
From Prime Minister Vladimir Putin down, the Russian
hierarchy is
dominated by ex-KGB types for whom concern for human rights,
either at home
or abroad, figures very low down on their list of priorities.
A quick glance
of Russia's closest friends underscores this, from Hugo
Chavez of Venezuela,
a grateful recipient of arms from Moscow, to Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad of Iran and
Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus.
Part
of the reason for this reluctance to isolate repressive regimes
is that
Russia does not want to create a precedent that could one day return
to bite
it. After all, the West wants to punish Mr Mugabe for intimidating
the
opposition, stealing an election and browbeating his people. Similar
charges
could be drawn against Russia, which may not be as brutal as
Zimbabwe but
is, in many ways, as repressive.
Zimbabwe, at least, has an
opposition of sorts. It is not the first
time that Russia has stood against
the wishes of Britain, France and the
United States, the Western members of
the Security Council, in recent years.
In fact, the Kremlin has started to
wield its veto, or the threat of it,
almost as often as in Soviet
times.
Last year, Russia vetoed a US sponsored resolution that
criticized
Burma's human rights record. In 2004, Russia agreed to a Security
Council
resolution threatening sanctions against Sudan if it refused to
disarm the
Janjaweed militias terrorizing Darfur. Khartoum duly defied the
resolution,
but Russia prevented the Security Council from carrying out its
threat by
signalling it would use its veto.
It is not just
self-preservation, however, that motivates Russia.
Eager to show off its
resurgence since the 1990s and as desperate as ever
for international
respect, Moscow also wants to present itself on the world
stage as a
powerful antidote to the West.
The Kremlin, emboldened by the vast
energy resources it controls,
therefore delights in opposing the West
whenever it has the opportunity -
even when it does not necessarily make
sense to do so.
The prospect of a nuclear Iran, for instance,
should worry nearby
Russia even more than it does the West, yet Moscow
consistently opposes
Western efforts to get tougher on Teheran.
The Zimbabwe resolution also gave Russia the chance to exact revenge
on the
United States and Britain, both of which have annoyed the Kremlin -
more
than they normally do, that is - over the past few days.
Washington
and Prague last week signed a deal to install the radar
component of a Nato
missile defence shield in the Czech Republic. The
Kremlin, which believes
the system is directed at Russia rather than Iran,
vocally protested and
even threatened a military response.
The sanctions resolution
against Zimbabwe was an American-led effort
and therefore gave Russia the
chance for immediate retaliation. The Kremlin
is also aware how important
the Zimbabwe crisis is for Britain, which is
regarded by many officials as
Russia's foremost enemy.
Moscow was incensed this week when British
intelligence officers were
quoted in the press as saying that the Russian
state was behind the 2006
murder of ex-KGB defector Alexander Litvinenko.
The opportunity to hurt
Britain and the United States simultaneously must
therefore have been hard
to resist, and goes some way to explaining the
last-minute U-turn.
A final factor to consider is Russia's growing
interest in Africa.
Moscow abandoned the continent after the Cold War, even
if Russian arms
dealers with suspected official connections stayed on to
make vast profits
from some of the continent's nastiest
conflicts.
Recently, Russia has begun to follow China's lead in
reengaging with
Africa. Gazprom, the state energy giant, has signed
multi-billion pound
deals with Nigeria, while Russian metal oligarchs and
finance moguls have
started to look at investment opportunities from South
Africa to Zambia and
Kenya - and even to Zimbabwe.
By backing
Zimbabwe at the UN, Russia is sending a classic Cold War
signal to other
African leaders that it is looking to make deals with: No
matter how bad you
are, we will always stand up against the West on your
behalf.
Russia is banking on the West responding to this challenge with its
traditional sequence of bewilderment and impotent rage followed by
inaction.
Just possibly, though, Russia may have underestimated the
anger its
veto has caused. For the first time mainstream US officials have
started to
echo Republican presidential contender John McCain's questions of
whether
Russia belongs in the G8.
"The Russian performance here
today raises questions about its
reliability as a G8 partner," Zalmay
Khalizad, the American ambassador to
the UN, said after the
vote.
While the Kremlin clearly believes that G8 agreements are so
worthless
they can be flouted within days, Russia dearly wants to remain
part of so
prestigious a club.
The West therefore does have one
potent weapon it can use to rein in
Russian aggression. Yet even if the
United States decides to back Russia's
expulsion from the G8, European
members are unlikely to follow suit.
A schism between the United
States and Europe is just what Russia
wants. The Kremlin is in a win-win
situation and knows it.
Zim: Britain vows to keep pushing for action
IOL
July 12 2008 at 04:52PM
London - Britain pledged on Saturday to
return to the United Nations
(UN) Security Council concerning Zimbabwe if
there is no quick end to
violence after a bid to pass sanctions against
Robert Mugabe was vetoed by
Russia and China.
"We will continue
to stand firmly for human rights and democracy and
will return to the
Security Council in the absence of early progress on
mediation, humanitarian
access and an end to violence," a spokesperson for
Prime Minister Gordon
Brown said in a statement.
The spokesperson, speaking on customary
condition of anonymity, added
that Brown would discuss further measures with
EU partners including French
President Nicolas Sarkozy and European
Commission President Jose Manuel
Barroso next week.
Brown will
also ask UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to send his
special envoy urgently
to Zimbabwe, the spokesperson said.
Earlier, Foreign Secretary
David Miliband denied that the failed bid
to pass targeted UN sanctions
against Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe was
"ill-judged".
Britain, the former colonial power in Zimbabwe, has been vocal in
criticising Mugabe and his ruling Zanu-PF party over last month's
presidential elections, amid claims of rigging and violence against
opposition supporters. - Sapa-AFP
Zimbabwe says sanctions failure a victory over
racism
Washington Post
By Nelson Banya
Reuters
Saturday, July 12, 2008; 10:59
AM
HARARE (Reuters) - Zimbabwe on Saturday welcomed the failure of a
Western-backed U.N. Security Council resolution to impose sanctions over its
violent presidential elections, calling it a victory over racism and
meddling in its affairs.
Russia and China on Friday vetoed the
resolution, which would have imposed
an arms embargo on the southern African
country and financial and travel
restrictions on President Robert Mugabe and
13 other officials.
Britain said Russia's veto was "incomprehensible,"
while Russia said
sanctions would have set a dangerous precedent of
political interference.
Russia, China and regional powerhouse South Africa
said the resolution would
have hurt dialogue between the ruling ZANU-PF
party and the opposition.
"We are very happy with the turn of events and
would like to thank those who
helped defeat international racism disguised
as multilateral action at the
U.N.," Zimbabwean Information Minister
Sikhanyiso Ndlovu told Reuters.
"The principles of non-interference into
the sovereign affairs of a U.N
member state have been upheld. What has the
U.N got to do with member
states' elections?" he said.
Zimbabwe's
opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai defeated Mugabe in a March 29
presidential election but failed to get enough votes to avoid a second
ballot.
Tsvangirai withdrew from the run-off poll held on June 27,
citing attacks on
his supporters by pro-Mugabe militia. His Movement for
Democratic Change
(MDC) and Western powers branded Mugabe's landslide
re-election a sham.
The MDC is now in preliminary talks with ZANU-PF
under the auspices of South
African mediators, but has refused to negotiate
a power-sharing deal until
the government halts the bloodshed. The MDC says
113 of its supporters have
been killed.
South Africa's government
applauded the U.N. decision on Saturday, in line
with an African Union
resolution to encourage dialogue between ZANU-PF and
the MDC
instead.
"It is our considered view that imposing sanctions would indeed
have
impacted negatively on the current dialogue process among Zimbabwean
political parties," it said in a statement.
Millions of people have
fled to neighboring states, including South Africa,
to escape an economic
meltdown in Zimbabwe, which has led to widespread
shortages, 80 percent
unemployment and inflation economists estimate to be
at least 2 million
percent.
China also said the sanctions could undermine the talks and
would
"complicate" rather than ease the
conflict.
"INCOMPREHENSIBLE"
British Foreign Secretary David
Miliband said on Saturday: "It'll appear
incomprehensible to the people of
Zimbabwe that Russia ... should stand in
the way of Security Council
action."
The Group of Eight rich nations, which includes Zimbabwe's
former colonial
ruler Britain, the United States as well as Russia, agreed
on Tuesday to
impose sanctions because of the violence during the widely
condemned
elections.
Despite the diplomatic setback, Miliband
insisted Britain would keep up
pressure on Mugabe.
The U.S.
ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, accused Russia
on Friday
of a "U-turn" from its position at the G8 summit, and said it
raised doubts
about its reliability as a partner in the group.
Russia hotly denied any
policy reversal.
"We consider such statements unacceptable," Russian
Foreign Ministry
spokesman Andrei Nesterenko said in a statement published
on the ministry's
website www.mid.ru.
"Both the U.S. and United
Kingdom's ambassadors to the United Nations are,
in the best case, not
informed about the discussion between G8 leaders in
Toyako, or in the worst
case are deliberately distorting facts," Nesterenko
said.
Earlier,
the ministry said the situation in Zimbabwe posed no danger to
regional or
international peace and security and did not merit sanctions.
"An
adoption of such a document by the U.N. Security Council would have
created
a dangerous precedent, opening the way for interference by the
Security
Council in internal affairs in connection with certain political
events
including elections, which is a gross violation of the U.N. Charter,"
it
said.
(Additional reporting by Muchena Zigomo in Johannesburg, Gleb
Bryanski in
Moscow and Chris Buckley in Beijing; Writing by Caroline Drees;
Editing by
Jon Boyle)
Zimbabwe's
ambassador to the UN defends Mugabe
http://www.hararetribune.com
http://www.hararetribune.com
By Trymore Magomana | Harare
Tribune News
news@hararetribune.com
Updated:
July 12, 2008 12:56
Zimbabwe, Harare--Zimbabwe's
Ambassador to the UN, Boniface
Chidyausiku, is one of those interesting
fellows working 24/7 to defend the
ZANU-PF government that is under pressure
from the whole world, minus China,
Russia, South Africa, over human rights
abuses in Zimbabwe.
Boniface, of course is the brother of that
other man, Godfrey
Chidyausiku, you know the guy appointed chief justice by
Robert Mugabe?
Chairman of the draft constitution that was defeated by
popular vote in
2000?
Anyway, Boniface was at the UN Friday,
where he laid out his argument
on why the UN shouldn't impose sanctions on
the ZANU-PF government.
In classic denial of the situation
obtaining on the ground in
Zimbabwe, Boniface told the 15 member security
council, that: "Zimbabwe is a
country at peace" He conveniently ignored the
fact that more than 114 people
have died since March 29 or that thousands of
people have been displaced by
violence, planned, executed, by the ZANU-PF
government.
The man reminds me of Prof. Jonathan Moyo in his old
days of defending
the ZANU-PF government, frothing at the mouth, day in and
day out when he
was Minister of Information.
Watch his whole,
absurd statement -
http://www.youtube.com/v/SEMvABKDaSk&hl=en&fs=1
The UN is not designed to be moral
The Spectator
Saturday, 12th July
2008
James Forsyth 9:46am
The decision by Russia and China to veto sanctions against Zimbabwe should
finally remove the scales from peoples’ eyes about the role and purpose of the
United Nations. The UN’s founding purpose, at which it has been effective, was
to prevent great power conflict. That is why the UN cannot act without the
consent of every one of the five permanent members of the Security Council. Two
of the Council’s members--Russia, a ‘managed democracy’, and China, a Communist
dictatorship—have no interest in embedding in international affairs the idea
that internal repression and the failure to hold free and fair elections justify
the international community taking action against a country. Those waiting for
the UN to act morally are hoping against type.
Britain and America are right to think that an arms
embargo and a travel ban on members of the Mugabe regime should be imposed. So a
mechanism other than the UN needs to be found for such sanctions. The best idea
to date for how this could be done is a League of Democracies. The League would
enable the democracies of the world to act in concert when they believed that it
was necessary to do so in defence of the basic liberal freedoms.
Another benefit of the League would be that it would
encourage countries to think of themselves as democracies first. This would
hopefully result in African democracies looking at future Zimbabwes through a
democratic rather than a post-colonial prism.
PS Bob Kagan lucidly explains the consequences of the
return of ideological competition to the international state system in The Return of History and the End of
Dreams; considering their surprise at the Russian and Chinese vetoes, Gordon Brown and David Miliband would
be well-advsied to take it with them as holiday reading this summer. You can
read my assessment of Kagan’s case for a League of Democracies here.
SA Govt welcomes UN decision not to sanction Zimbabwe
SABC
July
12, 2008, 09:30
South Africa has welcomed the United Nations Security
Council's decision not
to impose sanctions against Zimbabwe.
Foreign
Affairs spokesman Ronnie Mamoepa says SA voted against the draft
resolution
yesterday, in accordance with the African Union (AU) Summit
decision to
"encourage President Robert Mugabe and the leader of the
Movement for
Democratic Change (MDC) to honour their commitment to initiate
dialogue with
the view to promote peace, stability, democracy and
reconciliation of the
Zimbabwean people".
He says South Africa is facilitating talks between
Zanu-PF, the MDC faction
of Morgan Tsvangarai and the breakaway MDC faction
of Arthur Mutambara, in
Pretoria. "It is our considered view that imposing
sanctions would indeed
have impacted negatively on the current process among
the Zimbabwean
political parties. In addition both SADC and AU have not
called for
sanctions," he said.
The AU summit in Egypt had appealed
to states and all parties concerned to
refrain from any action that could
negatively impact on the climate for
dialogue. The UN Security Council
wanted to impose sanctions against
Zimbabwe including a travel ban and asset
freeze on Mugabe and other
individuals.
Russia and China vetoed the
proposed sanctions, rejecting US efforts to step
up punitive measures
against Mugabe's authoritarian regime after a widely
discredited
presidential election.
Mamoepa says the role of the international
community at this juncture should
be to encourage the Zimbabwean political
parties to deepen and consolidate
the current dialogue process, as
facilitated by SADC. - Sapa
MDC Statement on Veto on UN Resolution
The Zimbabwean
Saturday, 12 July 2008 18:56
Saturday 12 July 2008
MDC
Statement on Veto of UN Resolution
The Movement for Democratic
Change appreciates the focus of the United
Nation Security Council on the
Zimbabwean crisis.
We acknowledge that the Security Council has
recognized the magnitude
of the problems facing Zimbabwe and their impact on
the southern African
region.
The international community has
recognised that the violence in
Zimbabwe is state-sanctioned. Over a hundred
people have been killed, many
thousands beaten, tortured and displaced and
millions now facing economic
hardship and starvation.
The
suffering of the Zimbabwean people is worsening every day and a
peaceful
negotiated transition is urgently required.
In light of this, the
MDC calls upon the African Union to work with
SADC in establishing the
framework in which a negotiated solution can be
formulated.
The
MDC would like to express its gratitude to countries and
organisations that
continue to support the Zimbabwean people in their
struggle for freedom and
stability.
Zimbabwe's crisis poses threat to region: Liberian
president
Yahoo News
by M.J Smith Sat Jul 12, 12:05 PM ET
SOWETO, South Africa
(AFP) - Liberian President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf on
Saturday warned that
southern Africa "will feel the effects of instability"
if Zimbabwe's
political crisis is not resolved, in remarks to an audience
that included
Nelson Mandela.
Delivering the annual Nelson Mandela Lecture in the
run up to the
anti-apartheid icon's 90th birthday, Johnson-Sirleaf said "we
in Africa do
not have the luxury to enclose ourselves in our respective
political
enclaves."
"Until the situation in Zimbabwe is resolved,
the entire region will feel
the effects of instability, and the dream of
democratic and accountable
government will remain unfulfilled," she told the
audience of dignitaries.
In the speech in Soweto township, once a centre
of anti-apartheid struggle
and Mandela's former home, she cited her own
country's experience with
successive civil wars that ended in 2003, when
former president Charles
Taylor was forced into exile.
"In Liberia,
we know only too well that the war conditions in our country
were exported
to the region and still today the region continues to suffer
as a result,"
she said.
Johnson-Sirleaf, Africa's first democratically elected woman
president,
spoke after China and Russia vetoed new sanctions against
Mugabe's regime at
the UN Security Council following the 84-year-old
leader's one-man election.
The Liberian leader had previously said she
supported the sanctions that
would have imposed an assets freeze and a
travel ban on Mugabe and 13 of his
associates, as well as an arms
embargo.
On Saturday, she said she had urged her African Union colleagues
at a recent
summit in Egypt to denounce Zimbabwe's one-man election on June
27 that
handed Mugabe a sixth term as president.
The AU summit ended
with a relatively bland call for dialogue among
Zimbabwe's political parties
and the formation of a national unity
government.
Mandela, who turns
90 on Friday, made brief remarks before the Liberian
president's speech,
calling Johnson-Sirleaf "an inspiring example to Africa
and the world as one
who strives for peace where others seek to fight and
destroy."
"It is
so easy to break down and destroy," Mandela said. "The heroes are
those who
make peace and build."
The former South African president and Nobel peace
prize winner has limited
his public comments in recent years, but in late
June spoke of a "tragic
failure of leadership in our neighbouring
Zimbabwe".
South African President Thabo Mbeki has sought a negotiated
solution to
Zimbabwe's crisis, though he has faced criticism over his quiet
diplomacy
approach.
Zimbabwe's ruling party and opposition held talks
in the South African
capital this week, and opponents of the UN sanctions
said they wanted to
support the Mbeki-led mediation rather than impose
measures that could
damage it.
Zimbabwe opposition leader Morgan
Tsvangirai pulled out of the presidential
run-off five days ahead of the
election, citing rising violence against his
supporters that left dozens
dead and thousands injured.
Mugabe defied regional and international
calls to postpone the poll and
pushed ahead with the vote, which he
predictably won in a landslide.
Tsvangirai finished ahead of Mugabe in
the March 29 first round of the poll,
but with an official vote total short
of an outright majority.
South Africa Crucial to Zimbabwe
New York Times
By THE
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: July 13, 2008
JOHANNESBURG (AP) - The failure
of the United States campaign to gain
approval for international sanctions
on Zimbabwe's leaders returns the focus
to South African efforts to end the
political crisis in Zimbabwe.
It also raises questions again about
whether President Thabo Mbeki of South
Africa is the right mediator to
resolve it.
South Africa made the link itself in deliberations at the
United Nations
that ended Friday with Russia and China vetoing the proposed
sanctions. The
measures were meant to punish President Robert Mugabe's
authoritarian
government in Zimbabwe after a widely discredited presidential
runoff in
which he was the only candidate.
South Africa's ambassador
to the United Nations, Dumisani Kumalo, said
meetings mediated by Mr. Mbeki
were occurring between Mr. Mugabe's party and
the political
opposition.
South African officials say the goal of the talks is to form
an inclusive
government. Mr. Mugabe and the opposition leader, Morgan
Tsvangirai, say
they are willing to share power, but they differ on who
should lead.
Mr. Mugabe's political party, ZANU-PF, wants him at the head
of any
coalition government, something the opposition and Mr. Mugabe's
critics in
the West have rejected. Mr. Tsvangirai bases his claim to
leadership on the
first round of presidential voting in March, in which he
defeated Mr.
Mugabe, but did not win a majority of the votes, which led to
the runoff.
Mr. Tsvangirai, who withdrew days before the second round of
voting because
of a campaign of violence against his supporters, has accused
Mr. Mbeki of
bias in favor of Mr. Mugabe.
Zanu-PF, MDC meet again for talks
IOL
Jean-Jacques
Cornish
July 12 2008 at 09:24AM
Zimbabwe's ruling
party and opposition held a second day of talks in
South Africa on
Friday.
The talks, aimed at laying the groundwork for negotiations
to resolve
Zimbabwe's political crisis, were the first since Mugabe won
another term as
president in a June 27 poll widely denounced as a
sham.
Held in Pretoria, the talks had been kept under wraps as the
parties
set conditions for negotiations.
Nqobizitha Mlilo, the
opposition Movement for Democratic Change's
(MDC) chief spokesperson in SA,
said on Friday the party's chief negotiator,
MDC secretary-general Tendai
Biti, would return home earlier in the day and
"should be" back in
Zimbabwe.
Asked whether that meant the day's talks had ended, he
said: "It's my
understanding that the meetings have finished already." He
was unable to say
whether further meetings were planned, and Biti could not
be reached for
comment.
The MDC has insisted substantive
negotiations could take place only if
violence is halted and over 1 500
"political prisoners" are released.
It has also called for an
expanded mediation team, including an
African Union (AU) permanent envoy and
the swearing in of lawmakers, as the
opposition now controls
parliament.
"Those are the issues, that's the sole agenda. There is
no substantive
agenda," Mlilo said.
President Thabo Mbeki is
the region's long-time mediator between the
opposition and Mugabe's ruling
party.
South African government officials - though not Mbeki
himself - were
involved in Thursday's discussions in Pretoria, said
presidential
spokesperson Mukoni Ratshitanga.
"They [talks] are
going on, yes they are taking place," said
Ratshitanga, confirming the
second day of talks had begun yesterday.
Zanu-PF was represented by
Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa and
Labour Minister Nicholas Goche, and
the MDC by Biti and deputy
treasurer-general Elton Mangoma.
Zanu-PF has refused to comment on the talks.
Mugabe was re-elected
in last month's run-off after MDC leader Morgan
Tsvangirai pulled out,
citing a wave of attacks against his supporters that
killed dozens and
injured thousands.
On Friday, the MDC said a total of 113
supporters had now been killed
in politically related violence.
The UN's refugee agency also said yesterday that increasing numbers of
people have fled Zimbabwe since the June 27 vote, and several have shown
signs of beating or torture.
Tsvangirai confirmed in a
statement that the MDC would set
preconditions for further talks. -
Sapa-AFP
This article was originally published on page 2 of The
Star on July
12, 2008
Help
the people of Zimbabwe, MDC tells African Union
http://www.hararetribune.com
By Marvis Murray in
Harare | Harare Tribune News
news@hararetribune.com
Updated:
July 12, 2008 13:40
Zimbabwe, Harare, The MDC on
Saturday made a fresh call for the
African Union to intervene in the
mediation process with President Robert
Mugabe's regime, after a failed bid
to impose sanctions at the United
Nations.
"The suffering of
the Zimbabwean people is worsening every day and a
peaceful negotiated
transition is urgently required," the main opposition
Movement for
Democratic Change (MDC) said in a statement.
"In light of this, the
MDC calls upon the African Union to work with
the SADC (South African
Development Community) in establishing the framework
in which a negotiated
solution can be formulated."
The MDC said it acknowledged that,
despite Friday's veto, the UN
Security Council had recognised the "magnitude
of the problems facing
Zimbabwe and their impact on the southern African
region".
China and Russia vetoed a US draft resolution at the
United Nations
that would have imposed an arms embargo on Zimbabwe as well
as an assets
freeze and travel ban on Mugabe and 13 of his closest
allies.
South Africa, Libya and Vietnam voted against the
resolution.
The MDC added: "The violence in Zimbabwe is
state-sanctioned. Over a
hundred people have been killed, many thousands
beaten, tortured and
displaced and millions are now facing economic hardship
and starvation.
South African President Thabo Mbeki is trying to
mediate between
Mugabe's Zanu-PF party and Morgan Tsvangirai's MDC, but has
been criticised
for not taking a tougher stance with Mugabe.---Harare
Tribune News
Update: Complete MDC Statement on UN veto
The Movement for Democratic Change appreciates the focus of the United
Nation Security Council on the Zimbabwean crisis.
We
acknowledge that the Security Council has recognized the magnitude
of the
problems facing Zimbabwe and their impact on the southern African
region.
The international community has recognised that the
violence in
Zimbabwe is state-sanctioned.
Over a hundred people
have been killed, many thousands beaten,
tortured and displaced and millions
now facing economic hardship and
starvation.
The suffering of
the Zimbabwean people is worsening every day and a
peaceful negotiated
transition is urgently required.
In light of this, the MDC calls
upon the African Union to work with
SADC in establishing the framework in
which a negotiated solution can be
formulated.
The MDC would
like to express its gratitude to countries and
organisations that continue
to support the Zimbabwean people in their
struggle for freedom and
stability.
Only Africa Can Make Mugabe See Sense
Daily Trust
(Abuja)
OPINION
12 July 2008
Posted to the web 12 July
2008
Dr. Tajudeen Abdulraheem
There has been a lot of
opprobrium directed at African leaders for lacking
the political will to
check if not end the tragic lives of Zimbabweans due
to the misrule of the
aged ex- freedom fighter, President Robert Mugabe.
However I do have a
different take on the outcome of the recent Sharm El
Sheikh Summit of the
Heads of State and Government of the African Union.
Media reports and public
reaction both in Africa and outside of Africa have
been highly critical and
dismissive.
For many, the resolution on this matter was yet another
unprincipled fudge
by the leaders, many of whom have no better democratic
credentials than
Uncle Bob's. So what would you expect from such a group the
cynics ask? As
understandable as this position is, it fails to take
cognisance of the
changing dynamics of intra African diplomacy. By that
failure, those holding
the view become unwitting allies of President Mugabe,
whose tainted and
stale reading of Africa convince him that no African
leader can criticise
him. He said this much soon after his hurriedly counted
one man race against
himself and his even more harried 'swearing in, before
rushing off to Egypt.
He claimed that none of the leaders had cleaner hands
than his bloodied
dictatorship-saturated fingers. In a sense, he was daring
those with cleaner
hands to cast the first stone at him. It was a desperate
bravado from a man
who has lost all claims to moral or political integrity.
He exonerates
himself not by proclaiming his innocence but declaring that he
was not the
only guilty one. No doubt his fellow riggers and robbers of
people's mandate
felt uncomfortable.
However, it also provided
opportunity for those who are not defensive about
their legitimacy to speak
out loudly that they no longer wish to be silenced
by executive highway
robbers of people's votes like Mugabe. They did not
have to be big states to
do so. Where President Yar'Adua of Nigeria was
silent the newly elected
President Koroma of Sierra Leone and the President
of Liberia, Mrs Sir-leaf
Johnson, (ironically both countries enormously
grateful for the role that
Nigeria and the rest of ECOWAS played in
restoring stability and
democratisation to their countries), did not mince
their words in standing
up to Mugabe. The Vice President of Botswana
unashamed of its long
democratic stability and unbowed by the deafening
'quiet diplomacy' of its
equally democratic, potentially more influential
but completely ineffectual
neighbour, lame duck Thabo Mbeki's South Africa,
spoke most forcefully and
demanded that Mugabe should not be invited to
future AU and forthcoming SADC
meetings until there is a genuine political
negotiation leading to a
legitimate political transition. Again Botswana
showed that you do not have
to be a giant to stand up for democratic
principles.
Kenya,
influenced by its recent election theft controversies was also very
open
(especially PM Raila Odinga) in demanding that the AU took a robust
stance
in favour of democracy. Even before the summit, countries as diverse
as
Rwanda, Mozambique, Angola, Kenya, Uganda, in spite of their own internal
challenges or contradictions were quite open in drawing attention to the
open rigging of the electoral process and campaign of one-sided violence by
the ZANU-PF government.
After Mugabe ran off with the votes of
Zimbabweans, the Pan African
Parliament's Observer Mission, the normally
sanguine SADC group of observers
and other African-led observers were
unanimous in stating that the 'Mugabe
running against Mugabe one man tango'
violated all known African protocols
of democratic elections even as
treacherous as the record of elections are
on this continent.
What do
all these tell us? It means Africa, Africans and a growing number of
African
leaders are no longer prepared to be judged by the worst of our
political
culture but willing to stand up for and defend higher principles
and values.
A new sense of shame is again beginning to challenge us to do
much better by
ourselves. It is no longer enough to say others are also
guilty. It is not
convincing anymore to bemoan the hypocrisy of our leaders
or those of the
west. Bad behaviour is bad behaviour and it does not matter
whether London,
Washington, Brussels or Abuja, Pretoria, Nairobi or Kigali
are saying it.
Even among thieves, there must be some rule of procedure.
Zimbabwe and
Mugabe had become the weakest link in transforming the way we
relate to each
other. In 1999, in of all places, Algiers, the OAU leaders
decided that
enough was enough about military coups even though some of them
had come to
power through such coups. Many did not think that it could be
enforced but
at Christmas that year, General Gueye in Ivory Coast dared
Africa. We know
what happened to him and all other ambitious gun men since
then. Having
outlawed coups and stuck by that convention the next stage is
to end the
practice of undemocratic leaders who perpetually remain in office
through
election rigging, unconstitutional manipulations of the political
process or
subversion of their country's constitutions.
It does not matter that some
of the current leaders used similar methods. It
is a question of drawing a
line, somewhere. That will necessarily be
arbitrary and invite all kinds of
accusations of why now, why not before.
The essence will be to raise the
ceiling higher and establish new standards
of behaviour. It will be about
moving forward, from an imperfect present,
not looking back.
Mugabe's
extreme vulnerability makes him an ideal political opportunity to
SAY NO:
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. If African leaders isolate Mugabe, he will have no
choice
but to agree to a negotiated settlement. Even in Kenya, the PNU hawks
initially thought that they could ride the storm and even insulted OAU
chairperson then, President Kuffour's initial effort but they had to bow to
negotiations when they saw that both Africa and the rest of the
international community was serious.
Zimbabwe has been burning for
many years but it has, largely, been a one
sided violence perpetrated by the
state and its agents. Do we have to wait
until frustrated MDC and other
opponents of the Mugabe dictatorship start
retaliating with widespread
violence before we compel Mugabe to do the right
thing? It is good that no
one has recognised him officially apart from that
face of Africa's
inglorious past, Omar Bongo (in power for more than four
decades!). Those
states and leaders who have been courageous enough to
openly criticise
Mugabe's vote grab should take the next step by refusing to
recognise his
election. The AU and SADC must decide quickly what to do with
Mugabe's
brazen violation of their standard, otherwise no one will take
their
observer missions seriously again. No person of integrity could serve
in
such missions in future if those who sent them cannot accept their
report.
Tax payers, funders and other donors should demand refund of their
money or
charge the officials of these organisations with misuse of public
funds if
they spend so much money observing selections without any sanctions
for
defaulters.
Finally, it is quite clear that Thabo Mbeki is incapable of
being an honest
broker of genuine negotiations in Zimbabwe. Mugabe has given
him so much to
go with and it is obvious that the MDC does not trust him.
The AU needs to
assume leadership of the process just as it did in Kenya
where Museveni as
EAC chairperson failed to make any headway due to his
perceived bias. Thabo
does not even have the full support of his own party
let alone, the country
and even less so the SADC countries.
It may take force in Zimbabwe
http://www.winnipegsun.com
Sat, July 12, 2008
By
Joseph Quesnel
A new motto for Zimbabwe's dictator Robert
Mugabe should be "what happens in
Zimbabwe stays in Zimbabwe."
He
wants us to believe that human rights violations, politically-motivated
beatings and killings, and illegitimate elections are none of the West's
business. This week, he made headlines by declaring that UN sanctions will
result in civil war. No, Mr. Mugabe, your starvation policies and thuggish
hold on power will achieve that, not UN actions. Thankfully, many residents
of Zimbabwe don't see it that way, judging by the protests and the strength
of political support for the opposition Movement for Democratic Change.
They, like us, are realizing how connected we all are. We can see their
suffering through media broadcasts and realize that human rights are not
limited by borders. In this case, this does not necessarily mean we should
send an army to "liberate" Zimbabwe or send special force units to
assassinate Mugabe. It does, however, necessitate continuing a strong,
united response and possible military assistance to opposition forces. After
all, if force is what is keeping this thug in place, it will take force to
remove him.
Mugabe has adopted the practice of so many despotic
African leaders of
rallying people around anti-colonial rhetoric to divert
their attention from
their own plight and who is truly responsible.
Externalizing failure is a
common tactic of unaccountable leaders losing
legitimacy. In a milder form,
some First Nation leaders in Canada do
this.
Corrupt band elections and a lack of financial accountability are
ignored in
favour of rhetoric against "colonial oppression" or the white
man. This is
not to argue that colonialism did not bring oppression or that
its effects
have disappeared. Colonial disregard for tribal and ethnic
divisions in
former colonial possessions led to many problems in
establishing cohesive
national identities in many developing countries. But,
the colonialism card
can only be used so far.
Eventually, countries
must own up to their problems and adopt policies to
improve conditions.
Rwanda is a perfect example of a nation rejecting past
divisions and
adopting economic growth as the way toward a new future. In
Zimbabwe, it is
impossible to ignore a one-million-per-cent inflation rate
no matter how
many speeches Mugabe delivers blaming colonial Britain.
Downtrodden Africans
are looking at their situation and realize their
problems are properly
attributed to the policies of Mugabe's ruling party.
It was Mugabe who
evicted white farmers from productive agricultural land to
reward cronies.
As a result, a former bread basket was reduced to a
recipient of food aid.
Mugabe's government adopted this economic policy, so
he bears responsibility
if the economy takes a nose dive. The more Africans
that are informed, the
harder it is for leaders to manipulate populations
through propaganda.
Currently, Africans are held back by fear from speaking
out. Perhaps an
intellectual wave, like in the West, could help bring down
despots. All of
this involves our moral and, likely, military support.
joseph.quesnel@gmail.com
An open letter to Mugabe
Newsleader.com
Mwizenge S. Tembo . The
Changing World . July 12, 2008
After the first elections on March 30,
you, your political party ZANU-PF,
and your government spokesmen were quiet
and dragged your feet in releasing
the election results. None of us needed
to be told what was happening. When
all suffering human beings are given a
fair opportunity to choose, they will
choose to get out of pain, hunger,
unemployment, 200,000 percent inflation,
misery, violence and hopelessness.
The people of Zimbabwe had chosen change
and hope in the March elections.
None of us needed to be rocket scientists,
given you and your party's
history of human rights abuses, to figure out
that in the runoff elections,
violence and intimidation would be unleashed
at the opposition.
I
wasn't surprised when the Washington Post disclosed the inner circle
details
of how and when you and your ZANU-PF hatched the sordid plans to
spread
mayhem in the country leading to the runoff elections. The official
estimate
is that over a hundred people were killed in campaign-related
violence
leading to the June runoff elections.
Thousands were displaced, many injured,
and opposition homes burned down.
You were happy when the opposition leader
Morgan Tsvangirai finally withdrew
from the elections, and you could then
claim that you had a landslide
victory. The swearing-in ceremony was quickly
arranged. Are you and your
supporters in ZANU-PF and the current government
truly happy and proud that
you won the election fair and square? What are
you going to do now that the
rest of the world, some African leaders, and
even many of your neighbors
don't support you?
I understand how you
and the thousands of ZANU-PF war veterans fought for
more than 10 years in
the bush in the 1970s in the Chimurenga war of
liberation to oust the
minority white settlers who were of British descent.
You might also feel
strongly that you are still fighting the British former
colonizers, the
United States, and the rest of the world. But all these deep
convictions
that inspire the destructive, and hateful actions and rhetoric
will not help
Zimbabweans and Africans to create a better future for our
impoverished and
struggling citizens. How long can 11 million Zimbabweans
blacks and the few
whites who all love the country continue to pay for this
now apparent
grudge?
You might argue that Africans like this author who never lifted a
gun to
kill colonizers and are living comfortably abroad among Western
imperialists
have no right or basis for making any critical comments about
your country
and the government.
This would be wrong. When my country
of Northern Rhodesia, now Zambia, was
fighting for independence in the
1950s, I was younger than 10 years old, too
young to do any type of
fighting. I am glad that adults in our country did
the political fighting.
Should all those Zimbabweans who never took part in
the fighting have no
right to criticize the government? Should you, the
former fighters, have the
absolute right and justification to stay in power
forever even through
violence and intimidation of your fellow citizens?
Since you were brought
up in the Christian faith, you are probably familiar
with the parable of
King Solomon. Two women are brought before him with a
dispute each claiming
that the one baby was hers. King Solomon offered to
literally cut the baby
in half to give one half to each woman. One woman was
overjoyed with the
king's judgment. The other woman was sad and offered to
let the other woman
to keep the baby.
That's how wise Solomon recognized the child's
mother.
You are 84 years old and have been in power for 28 years. Your
most
important protagonist and the former leader of the white settler
oppressors
Ian Smith is gone. Talk to former President Kaunda of Zambia,
Quett Masire
of Botswana, Nelson Mandela of South Africa, and many other
former African
Presidents. They all stepped down. They loved power,
too.
Mr. Mugabe, if you truly love your country, you will step down and
let a
younger and new leadership revive the country. The more you delay, the
longer it will take to rebuild the country, the shattered economy, to heal
the deep wounds. Maybe from where you are with your close supporters and the
comfortable seat of power, you don't see the suffering and the devastation
millions of men, women, and especially children are experiencing.
You
still have a chance to end your leadership with a good
reputation.
Mwizenge S. Tembo, Ph.D was born and grew up among the
Tumbuka people of
Eastern Zambia. He now teaches sociology at Bridgewater
College. Readers may
e-mail him at mtembo@bridgewater.edu.
CHRA Report
Municipal Police torment
vendors
Residents across
Harare have been
sending information to CHRA that
Municipal police officers are harassing vendors, confiscating their goods.
Residents report that this problem escalated during the campaigns towards the
Presidential election runoff where entire vendors were also being forced to
attend Zanu Pf rallies and meetings. The current economic meltdown has seen an
increased number of residents engaging in street vending as a means of earning a
living for their families. CHRA notes
with grave concern that some of the street vendors being raided and arrested are
children whose ages range from between 10 to 15 years.
It is painful to
realize that the already poor vendors are losing their goods as a result of the
numerous raids by municipal police. Such raids are frequent at Mbare Musika bus
terminus, Ruzende, Market
Square and 4th street but terminus as well
as various other places in the residential suburbs. In Mabvuku-Tafara vendors
have virtually abandoned vending as the spate of raids has escalated. A resident
who spoke to CHRA Information
Department accused the municipal police of raiding the vendors of their goods
for personal purposes as those goods are never taken to Town House. Ironically,
these are the same people who were in forefront of destroying vending sites
during operation Murambatsvina in 2005. The Government and the City of
Harare has done
nothing to build alternative vending sites since then.
The residents express
their disappointment with the raids and call upon the new council to find a
solution to this problem as a matter of urgency. Usually the municipal police
officers carry out these raids in plain clothes, a development which has created
space for criminals to raid the vendors of their goods.
A
street vendor operating from 4th
street alleged that some of the municipal police
officers raiding them often demand money from the vendors so that they can be
spared of the raids. The same vendor also accused the municipal police officers
of heavy handedness as usually they carry out the raids armed with syjamboks,
button sticks and hand cuffs. A member of CHRA secretariat recently witnessed an embarrassing
act whereupon a municipal police officer forcibly handcuffed and hit a street
vendor with a button stick.
The Combined Harare
Residents Association urges the new
city council to find a lasting solution to the problem,
appreciating that the raids are not an option at all. The Association will soon
be formally engaging the city council over the issue of street vendors and their
harassment by the municipal police officers.
Chief
Executive Officer
Combined Harare Residents
Association (CHRA)
145 Robert Mugabe
Way
Exploration House, Third Floor
Harare
ceo@chra.co.zw
www.chra.co.zw
Landline:
00263- 4- 705114
Diplomatic Row Over Zimbabwe Veto
CBS news
U.S., U.K. Engage In War Of
Words With Russia, China, While Zimbabwe
Declares Victory Over
Sanctions
UNITED NATIONS, July 12, 2008
(CBS/AP) Russia on
Saturday attacked remarks by U.S. and British officials
who criticized
Moscow's veto on proposed U.N. sanctions against Zimbabwe.
The Russian
Foreign Ministry in a statement Saturday said it was
"impermissible" that
the criticism called into doubt Russia's worthiness as
a Group of Eight
partner.
The United States accused Russia and China of standing with
Zimbabwe's
President Robert Mugabe against his own people, after the two
permanent
members of the U.N. Security Council vetoed proposed sanctions
against
Zimbabwe.
The resolution would have imposed an arms embargo
on Zimbabwe, an
international travel ban and a freeze on the personal assets
of Mugabe and
13 other officials.
It also called for the appointment
of a U.N. special envoy for Zimbabwe.
The U.S., along with Britain and
France, supported the resolution, arguing
that sanctions were needed to
respond to the violence and intimidation that
opposition leaders and
international observers said Mugabe and his
supporters used to steal the
recent presidential election.
Russia, however, claimed the sanctions
would have taken the U.N. beyond its
mandate, while China argued Zimbabwe
should be allowed to resolve its
political crisis on its
own.
Meanwhile, Zimbabwe's information minister hailed the failure of the
resolution, calling the proposed sanctions an example of "international
racism."
The BBC reports Sikhanyiso Ndlovu saying the resolution was
designed to make
the people of Zimbabwe suffer in order to incite a
revolution, and accusing
Britain of wanting to "divert attention by bringing
unfounded allegations
against Zimbabwe, against the people of Zimbabwe,
trying to make the people
of Zimbabwe suffer more with the economic
sanctions... so that they can turn
against their own government."
The
vote in the Security Council: FOR: Belgium, Burkina Faso, Costa Rica,
Croatia, France, Italy, Panama, United Kingdom, United States. AGAINST:
China, Libya, Russia, South Africa, Vietnam; ABSTAINED:
Indonesia.
Astonishment Voiced Over Veto
U.S. Ambassador
Zalmay Khalilzad said Russia had initially indicated it
would abstain rather
than veto.
"The U-turn in the Russian position is particularly surprising
and
disturbing," he said Friday. "Only a few days ago the Russian Federation
was
supportive of a G-8 statement which said, and I quote, 'We express grave
concern about the situation in Zimbabwe.'"
"The Russian performance
here today raises questions about its reliability
as a G-8 partner," he
said.
Russia said that was an "impermissible" interpretation because the
G-8
powers agreed not to mention U.N. sanctions in the joint statement on
Zimbabwe, albeit at Russia's behest.
"The American and British U.N.
representatives in the best-case scenario are
totally uninformed about the
discussion of the G-8 leaders in Tokyo, and in
the worst case they are
deliberately distorting the facts," the statement
said.
British
Foreign Secretary David Miliband added that the vetoes "will appear
incomprehensible to the people of Zimbabwe."
Khalilzad said, "China
and Russia have stood with Mugabe against the people
of
Zimbabwe."
Russia says it believes the sanctions would set a dangerous
precedent for
U.N. Security Council meddling in internal
affairs.
Permanent G-8 members Britain, France and the U.S, have pushed
through
nonbinding Security Council resolutions condemning election violence
and
intimidation in Zimbabwe.
South Africa, Russia and the other
member with veto power, China, have
opposed taking further
action.
Despite the veto, Russia added that it condemns "the
irregularities and acts
of violence that have taken place, ... and for which
both Zimbabwean
authorities and the opposition are
responsible."
New Focus On South Africa
The failure of the
U.S. campaign for international sanctions on Zimbabwe's
leaders returns the
focus to South African efforts to end the deadly
political crisis and to
questions about whether President Thabo Mbeki is the
right
mediator.
South Africa made the link itself during deliberations at the
United Nations
that ended Friday with Russia and China vetoing the
U.S.-proposed sanctions.
South Africa's U.N. Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo
said meetings mediated by
Mbeki were under way between Mugabe's party and
its opposition. Kumalo
pleaded with his colleagues on the Security Council
to "give space" to that
dialogue.
South African officials say the
goal of the talks is forming an inclusive
government in Zimbabwe. Both
Mugabe and Zimbabwean opposition leader Morgan
Tsvangirai say they are
willing to share power, but they differ on who
should lead.
Mugabe's
ZANU-PF wants Mugabe at the head of any coalition government,
something the
opposition and Mugabe's critics in the West have rejected.
Tsvangirai bases
his claim to leadership on the first round of presidential
voting, in which
he beat Mugabe and two other candidates, but did not win
the 50 percent plus
one vote necessary to avoid a runoff against second
place finisher
Mugabe.
Tsvangirai, who withdrew from the runoff because of a campaign of
violence
against his supporters, has accused Mbeki of bias in favor of
Mugabe, and
called for a second mediator to be brought in.
Nicole
Fritz, head of the Southern Africa Litigation Centre, an independent
human
rights group that has closely followed the Zimbabwean situation,
worried
that without the pressure of sanctions, Mbeki would be able to make
little
headway as mediator.
The failure of the sanctions resolution "buys Mbeki
time," she said. "My
sense is that buying Mbeki time is not going to do us
any good."
In a statement Saturday welcoming the defeat of the
resolution, South Africa
said it believed "imposing sanctions would indeed
have impacted negatively
on the current dialogue process among Zimbabwean
political parties."
The process is at a very preliminary stage -
Tsvangirai argues it cannot
even yet be labeled talks.
Tsvangirai is
not alone in questioning Mbeki's mediation, which began more
than a year ago
at the request of the main regional body, the Southern
African Development
Community.
Mugabe, accused of a brutal crackdown on political dissent and
ruining a
once vibrant economy, has repeatedly praised Mbeki. That has not
helped the
South African leader's case among critics here and abroad who
have likened
Mbeki's "quiet diplomacy" to appeasement of
Mugabe.
During a visit to South Africa earlier this week, Liberian
President Ellen
Johnson Sirleaf called for another "high profile" African
mediator to join
Mbeki in trying to find a solution for Zimbabwe. Sirleaf is
an admirer of
Mbeki - she noted he had helped broker the agreement under
which Liberian
war lord Charles Taylor went into exile in 2003, opening the
way for peace
in her beleaguered country, and said she hoped he could do the
same for
Zimbabwe.
South Africa also has won praise as a mediator in
Burundi, Ivory Coast and
elsewhere on a troubled continent. But in Zimbabwe,
Mbeki is accused of
showing too much loyalty to Mugabe out of respect for
the Zimbabwean
leader's past as an anti-colonial hero, or out of shared
skepticism about
African trade union movements. Tsvangirai is a former labor
leader, and
South Africa's trade union movement has long presented a
powerful challenge
to Mbeki from the left when it comes to setting economic
and other
priorities here.
Mbeki "is now Mugabe's champion," said
Tiseke Kasambala, a Zimbabwe
specialist at Human Rights Watch who expressed
frustration Saturday at the
failure of the U.N. sanctions resolution. "He's
no longer a neutral
mediator."
Mbeki argues that confronting Mugabe
could backfire. And his supporters have
said he deserves credit for a first
round of presidential voting, which was
seen as relatively free and fair.
Thanks to an agreement Mbeki helped
broker, results of that first round were
posted at individual polling
stations, an innovation that made rigging
difficult.
Now, Mugabe is staking his claim to rule on the victory in the
June 27
unopposed runoff, which his state-run media lauded Saturday for its
"crushing result and its permanence."
MDC
dismisses report on violent rebellion
http://www.thezimbabwetimes.com
July 12, 2008
By Our
Correspondent
HARARE - The Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) has
dismissed a report by
a South African based-policy institute suggesting that
it trained its
members to engage in acts of violence against ruling Zanu- PF
party
supporters in retaliation to attacks on its members.
The Human
Sciences Research Council (HSRC) released a report warning of the
possibility of an outbreak of civil war in Zimbabwe suggesting that MDC had
sent its members for training in one of the neighbouring countries to carry
out acts of retaliation against Zanu-PF members.
"The situation on
the ground is quite but and if a civil war is to happen it
will not be
caused by MDC," said the MDC spokesman Nelson Chamisa. "Why
should we train
anyone when we don't believe in violence, anarchy and a
breakdown of the
rule of law?
"The MDC is a peaceful political party not a rebellious
movement. We suspect
that the organisation which compiled this report is
working in cahoots with
Zanu-PF to try and justify the violence in the
country."
Chamisa added that the HSRC should be investigated and asked to
name the MDC
members who were sent for training and identify the country
where the
training took place.
"The authenticity of this report
should be investigated because Zanu-PF pays
a lot of money for these kinds
of jobs," he said. "These are malicious
allegations against the MDC. It's a
stage-managed event."
HSRC said in the report that the extent of
political violence in the country
had been extended to the rank and file of
the opposition MDC.
It said the source of the violence now includes MDC
supporters who were
engaging in retaliatory acts of violence against Zanu-PF
militias and war
veterans who were the principal instigators of violence in
the period
running up to the controversial June 27 presidential
runoff.
"In an extremely volatile situation, retaliatory violence will
make the
situation murkier," said Kwandiwe Kondlo, HSRC executive director
and editor
of the report.
The report titled: Saving Zimbabwe - an
Agenda for Democratic Peace, further
states that there is currently a low
intensity war in Zimbabwe uniquely and
often linked to the country's
election cycles.
The study was compiled by the Democracy and Governance
programme of the HSRC
in partnership with the African policy Institute in
Nairobi and Pretoria
based on the analysis of documents, interviews with
strategic policy makers
and practitioners across the continent, and the
coverage of critical
regional meetings and field presence in
Zimbabwe.
The report was released as Zimbabwe's warring political parties
resumed
preliminary talks aimed at solving the country's crises in Pretoria
on
Thursday. The MDC has said the talks did not constitute substantive
negotiations but an opportunity to set conditions for dialogue.
The
MDC says more than 100 of its supporters have been killed and more than
25
000 displaced by political violence since the combined presidential and
parliamentary elections in March that were won by the opposition
party.
Political violence has continued in the aftermath of President
Robert Mugabe's
re-election following a run-off vote in which he was the
only candidate
after MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai pulled out saying the
violent attacks
against his supporters made a free and fair vote
impossible.
MDC death
toll hits 115
http://zimbabwemetro.com
By Roy Chinamano ⋅ © zimbabwemetro.com ⋅ July 12, 2008 ⋅A total
of 115
supporters of the Movement for Democratic Change have now been killed
in
politically-related violence in Zimbabwe, says the
party.
Among the most recent victims was a polling agent, Gift
Mutsvungunu, whose
body was found in a suburb of Harare on Thursday after he
was reported
missing last week, the MDC said in a statement.
It
added: “His body shows signs of intense torture, his eyes were gouged out
and his backside suffered serious burns before his abductors killed
him.
“There is reasonable suspicion that state security agents killed
him, as his
injuries are consistent with those of other deceased persons who
were
abducted and later killed by state security agents.”
According
to the MDC, the latest deaths meant that 24 of its supporters had
been
killed since veteran leader Robert Mugabe was re-elected as the sole
candidate in a run-off presidential ballot on June 27.
In
Zimbabwe, Anglo-American Mining Says It's Held Hostage, Defends
Investing
InnerCityPress
Byline: Matthew
Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News
Analysis
UNITED NATIONS, July 12 -- A mining
company under fire for its investments in Zimbabwe, Anglo-American, has
defending itself against concerns raised at the UN by saying it's held
hostage by Robert Mugabe's "use it or lose it" laws.
If Anglo-American does not continue
investing in Zimbabwe, it argues, Mugabe could seize the Unki mine and profit
from it. So it is more moral, Anglo-American's Mark Moody-Stuart argues, to
proceed with the platinum mine than for example to sell it to another operator
which might not have the same claimed social responsibility concerns. By this
logic, it seems, all business would continue in apartheid South Africa, Pol
Pot's Cambodia, even Nazi Germany.
In fairness, Sir Mark
Moody-Stuart's six-paragraph response to Inner City Press' questions raised to
UN Deputy Secretary General Asha Rose Migiro, UK Ambassador to the UN John
Sawers and to the UN Global Compact, on whose board of directors Moody-Stuart
serves, describes steps Anglo-American has taken to try for example to deny
foreign exchange to Mugabe's Zimbabwe. It also notes the 650 people employed at
the Unki mine, and implies that a post-Mugabe Zimbabwe might be glad that
Anglo-American did not discontinue the platinum mine. The latter two arguments,
again, would apply to apartheid, the Nazis and Khmer Rouge.
The denial of foreign
exchange is particular interesting in light of an expose this week, also by
Inner City Press, that the UN in Myanmar has allowed the Than Shwe government to
profit for exchanges of dollars into "Foreign Exchange
Certificates" at the Myanmar Foreign Trade Bank, click
here for that.
Anglo-American Mining, either because
of its chairman's position with the Global Compact or otherwise, has with its
six paragraph answer been more forthright than the UN or UN
Development Program, which is also involved in mining in
Zimbabwe.
The Global Compact, a
UN mechanism for dealing with corporations, seems to be in between the model of
UNDP's stone-walling and Anglo-American's belated but well-crafted
rationalizations.
Once Inner City Press
asked Deputy Secretary General Migiro to explain how a business executive with a
prominent position with the UN Global Compact could run a company investing in
Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe, which Ms. Migiro had just denounced, Migiro said the
Compact should pay attention, that is has rules and standards. Inner City Press
e-mailed the Director and Spokesman of the Compact asking "on deadline" for
their response, and if possible for a response from Sir Mark Moody-Stuart. Some
six hours later, the spokesman said the response would have to wait for the next
day. Inner City Press held its story for 24 hours reporting on the
But the
Compact, even 24 hours later, did not provide any response. Inner
City Press ran an interim story based on the comments of
Ms. Migiro, and those of UK Ambassador John Sawers, that companies could not
accurately predict the future of today's Zimbabwe (and therefore should not be
investing there). The Compact bristled, for example that Moody-Stuart is not the
CEO but the "non-executive chairman" of Anglo-American Mining -- a distinction
not made in Moody-Stuart's own letter -- and that using the time stamp of the
receipt and not sending of the Compact's interim response made the Compact look
two hours slower than it was. Both are noted here, though it would seem that a
UN office like the Global Compact should be able to provide at least a one
sentence response when the UN Deputy Secretary General is asked and comments
about the Compact and investment in Zimbabwe.
In light of the
heated comments of the Ambassadors to the UN of the UK, France and U.S. about
Robert Mugabe and investment in Zimbabwe last week, Sir Mark Moody-Stuart's
rationalization, below, is certain not to convince all or even most of its
critics. But the response is appreciated, as it may move the debate forward. We
will continue reporting on these issues, watch this
site.
The
response
Dear Mr.
Lee
Matthias Stausberg of the
Global Compact Office has sent me a transcript of questions you asked in a press
conference with the Deputy Secretary General and has also forwarded to me the
questions you subsequently sent to the Global Compact Office. I understand that
you are questioning the basis for Anglo American's investment in building a
platinum mine in Zimbabwe and asking what posture a company should adopt in
dealing with a government which many people regard as
illegitimate.
On the first issue, I
suspect that you have seen reports originating with ‘The Times’ (of London)
suggesting that Anglo was about to embark on a $400 million new investment in
Zimbabwe and supported by a (unsurprising) chorus of disapproval from those who
had been told this as fact. In fact in your own question you referred to the
"recent announcement" announcement of an investment. The reality is that the
investment is not new - we have been quite transparently building this mine for
the last five years, based on many years of previous exploration in long held
permits. The Unki mine is probably still two years from going into production.
Indeed 'The Times' has reported on it twice before and we have referred over the
years to our operations in Zimbabwe in our "Report to Society" which constitutes
our "Communication on Progress" to the Global Compact Office.
Bearing in mind the
difficult operating conditions in Zimbabwe we have proceeded relatively slowly.
We have developed our project in such a way as to avoid
‘propping-up’ the Government since we have gone out of our way to fund the
in-country costs of the project from substantial sums that have already been
trapped under Zimbabwean jurisdiction. We have also funded the purchase of
capital equipment offshore so that foreign exchange has not been introduced by
us into the country and we have thus not reduced those constraints on the
government that flow from lack of foreign exchange. Moreover, since the mine is
not yet in production we are not paying substantive taxes. Were we, on the other
hand, to suspend the project then the Government could be expected to invoke
their 'use it or lose it' legislation and potentially on-sell the asset to
operators who are unlikely to observe the same sorts of social and environmental
standards as Anglo American. At the same time, the Government could thus raise
substantial sums in cash through this sale process. I should note that the
Government has often complained of the slow progress of the mine development and
made plain the actions that they could take if development was not
progressed.
It is certainly not clear
to me or the board of Anglo American that it would be a net gain for human
rights if we were to abandon the 650 people who currently work at Unki, their
dependents and the surrounding communities in relation to measures like food and
diesel distribution, improving access to water and support for health and
education services. At the same time, as explained, a withdrawal is in fact
likely in the present circumstances to be of direct financial benefit to the
government.
Turning to your more
general question about what a company should do if it finds itself in a country
where there is what is argued to be an illegitimate government. I find this
difficult to answer on a theoretical basis since a lot will depend upon the
nature of the business and the hope of redemption that exists for the country.
Economic sanctions, for example, rarely bring about change by themselves. I
think the key test that a company as to apply to its operations is whether it
can do business whilst continuing to observe international norms and its own
business principles. An alternative question might be whether it can – despite
wider circumstances – do good in its immediate sphere of influence and, if it
does, is its presence causing damage on other fronts through, for example,
enabling the very survival of a Government which is guilty of serious abuses?
Extractive businesses are,
of course, peculiarly vulnerable to these sorts of controversies. They have to
go where the resources are and some of these countries are lacking any
alternative catalyst for development. Moreover, for these resource to be brought
to account and to generate wealth for a range of stakeholders (including
investors, employees, communities, suppliers etc) requires significant up-front
investment. This makes extractive investors comparatively immobile and choices
are difficult if, for example, in the middle of the development a political
crisis breaks out and things go wrong for five years of a potential mine life of
50 years. Is it more moral for a company with a commitment to human rights and
decent standards to flee such country in order to avoid challenges to its
reputation and to sell its assets or to allow them to fall into the hands of the
regime? These things are not simple and any company operating in
such circumstances must review its position on a regular basis. At the same time
it is important that a company be open and transparent in reporting on all its
activities, allowing its shareholders and other stakeholders to draw their own
conclusions and, if need be, express disagreement or disapproval.
I trust that this clarifies
Anglo American’s position. I believe our approach is fully consistent with our
commitments to the principles of the Global Compact.
Best
wishes,
Mark
Moody-Stuart
Anglo American
plc
Registered in England and
Wales under the Companies Act 1985 | Registered Number 3564138
One final note, for now, on
Moody-Stuart's letter -- it amplifies an argument advanced by Anglo-American's EVP for external relations to
GlobalCompactCritics.net's story (to which we
credit the photo above) about Inner City Press' questions. Next time
Moody-Stuart is at the UN he should take questions, without benefit of an
External Relations staffer, on these questions. Watch this
site.
And this.... http://bloggingheads.tv/nyt_clips/12577?in=00:00&out=NaN:NaN
Mugabe should go, a better alternative for us all
African Path
July 12,
2008 02:38 PMBy
Trust Matsilele
Losing candidate of the parliamentary
elections, Professor Arthur Mutambara
wrote a piece last week about possible
scenarios Zimbabweans have in bid to
solve the political impasse.
He
noted that it's either a negotiated settlement or a civil war .President
Morgan Tsvangirai winner of the 29 March polls have thrown his support
behind a negotiated settlement so is the AU, SADC and South Africa's ruling
party ANC.
For losers like Mutambara, Robert Mugabe, Patrick
Chinamasa and Welshman
Ncube a negotiated settlement that produce a
government of national unity
will be a positive development and a bonus
indeed not so for true victors.
A Government of National Unity that is
backed by South Africa's Mbeki
rewards losers' more than true victors. This
is an emerging phenomenon in
African politics that in the long run will
compromise democratic order.
President Morgan Tsvangirai and the people
of Zimbabwe who won the 29 March
polls tend to lose in a GNU as losers will
ultimately posses more share than
that which they deserve.
Chameleon
characters like Professors Welshmen Ncube and Jonathan Moyo who
single
handedly destroyed the information department and the MDC in 2005
stand to
benefit from any arrangement even though they have less than ten
thousand
supporters combined.
President Morgan Tsvangirai has stressed that no
negotiations are taking
place.. This is a relief for the people of Zimbabwe
who are enduring
brutality and a plethora of heinous
crimes.
Negotiations should follow an immediate disbanding of militia
camps,
demobilizations of partisan forces from both rural and urban areas
and also
should come after humanitarian organizations have been allowed
access to
most affected areas.
ZANU PF and Robert Mugabe have reached
their climax; their political careers
were terminated on the 29th of March
.Beyond that, their survival depends on
the military, President Mbeki and
MDC.
Military: Since the 29th of March Zimbabwe has been under a military
government/junta which has been presiding over the state with hard boiled
hawk Emmerson Mnangagwa presiding over that junta as its chair and Mugabe as
the patron.
The army has waged a brutal war against defenseless and
unarmed citizens
whose crime was voting for Morgan Tsvangirai and the
MDC.
President Mbeki: The South African President has failed to find a
lasting
solution on the Zimbabwean crisis mainly because he is part of the
crisis.
In his pseudo mediations he has been strongly backing Mugabe's
dictatorship
undermining wishes of ordinary Zimbabweans.
Mbeki who
has been bankrolling Mugabe's external propaganda and public
relations
affairs has to date managed to sustain Mugabe from a total
isolation from
Africa through lies among other that suggested the two rival
parties were
engaged in talks.
His latest bid was on his way to the G8 summit in Japan
where he tried to
cheat President Tsvangirai into attending a meeting with
Mugabe at the
Zimbabwe House meant to misinform world leaders that a
comprise government
was nearing.
MDC: ZANU PF has lost legitimacy to
govern and legitimacy to even survive.
Its failure to manage the economy and
promote basic human rights has dealt
it a major blow. Its survival now rests
on both successes and failures of
the MDC.
If given the next six
months to continue governing, ZANU PF will face
resistance from its
hooligans whom it fed in the built up to the abandoned
run-off elections. In
six months the country's inflation will be above 20
million and living wage
will be above 100 trillion.
To reverse these trends ZANU PF needs a
business friendly face like Morgan
Tsvangirai, Thokozane Khupe Tendai Biti,
Nelson Chamisa and Elias Mudzuri.
This is the moment for the MDC to detect
pace and direct negotiations; ZANU
PF needs these negotiations than anyone
else.
Dangers of a GNU: Mugabe cannot control himself and his surrogates
who are
used to looting and pillaging of resources. Mugabe cannot control
himself
and followers from further feeding on MDC blood through violence. A
GNU will
be artificial not only to ordinary Zimbabweans but to democracy
world over.
In order for Mugabe to sustain his patronage state, he pans
to incorporate
the MDC leadership into a kleptomaniac state were just like
ZANU PF, the MDC
would be allowed to steal and kill without anyone asking
questions.
Through a sustained terror campaign Mugabe plans to compromise
MDC's
legitimacy as a democratic party in the long run the octogenarian
leader (or
his successor) will merge these two formations and end any
opposition to his
hegemony hence establish a patronage state once and for
all.
Mugabe can only sustain this kind of a state through legalized
thievery
(kleptocracy), pillaging, looting and organized
violence.
Alternatives for the MDC
Total Disengagement: Engaging
ZANU PF is not only morally corrupt but is
also dangerous. ZANU PF soon
after dealing with the current wave of
establishing a possible Government of
National Unity (GNU) plans to destroy
the MDC once and for all through
infiltration.
Currently ZANU PF is planning to coerce MDC into a
pseudo-GNU so that MDC
lose not only international credibility but
international sympathy as well
so that when ZANU starts eliminating the MDC,
the party will have been
deserted by all democrats world
over.
Painful as it may look total DISENGAGEMENT seems the most perfect
path. If
Mugabe won the election let him govern. The people of Zimbabwe have
lost
everything under Mugabe's dictatorship. There is nothing more to lose;
they
are geared to fight for democracy till the end.
Total
disengagement will expose first the failure of Africans to solve their
own
problems as is being currently demonstrated by Mbeki and his partisan
SADC
mediations. It will also expose ZANU PF's failure to govern as the
situation
is going to deteriorate more.
Total disengagement will also cement
relationships between the movement
(MDC) and its support base as getting
into a GNU will alienate the MDC from
supporters as it will be coerced into
elitists' structures of the
establishment that cares less of the
people.
The current Zimbabwean economy is unsustainable and whoever
becomes a state
leader until such a period when the economy start
normalizing will see a
decline not only in his support base but is likely to
face a fierce
rebellion. Mugabe of such a possibility and that is why he is
fighting so
hard to have Tsvangirai and the MDC in any arrangement so that
the attacks
and blame can be evenly distributed between the MDC and ZANU
PF.
Transitional Authority: The second and last alternative in this
presentation
is the transitional authority. This will not go down well with
ordinary
Zimbabweans who have been brutalized in the recent past seeing
their leaders
dining with ZANU PF, their killers.
This is a
compromise worth trying. President Morgan Tsvangirai has expressed
support
for such an arrangement as will help in demilitarizing the state,
normalizing state institutions and prepare ground for a free and fair
elections.
Under the transitional authority Zimbabweans will be
accorded an opportunity
to write their own laws, a new people driven and
democratic constitution and
will pave way for the dictator to have an
honorable exit that will give
Zimbabweans a soft landing.
A
transitional authority unlike a GNU will send a clear message to the
entire
world that Mugabe is not a legitimate leader of Zimbabwe hence the
presence
of a transitional authority that will pave way for free and fair
elections.
Trust Matsilele is an Independent journalist and writes in
his personal
capacity. He can be contacted at, trust.matsilele@gmail.com
Ecumenical leaders: Zimbabwe crisis needs 'courageous
faith'
Christian Today
Posted: Saturday, July 12, 2008, 8:25 (BST)
Church and
community leaders from across Africa and beyond will come
together next week
in Johannesburg for an international ecumenical summit on
Zimbabwe.
Entitled "Overcoming Fear by Faith: Churches in Solidarity
with the People
of Zimbabwe", the meeting will be hosted by the United
Congregational Church
of Southern Africa and the Uniting Presbyterian Church
in Southern Africa,
in cooperation with the Council for World Mission (CWM)
and the South
African Council of Churches (SACC).
The summit is an
expression of the Churches' "profound" concern about the
deepening
political, economic and humanitarian crises in Zimbabwe.
"It reflects not
only a recognition that fear and intimidation have become
alarmingly common
features of Zimbabwe's political landscape, but it also
demonstrates the
hosts' shared conviction that God calls Christians not to
be overcome by
fear, but to overcome fear through the exercise of a
courageous faith," said
organisers.
The 14 - 17 July gathering will therefore explore ways in
which churches can
bring their faith to bear on the quest for justice, peace
and reconciliation
in Zimbabwe in practical ways.
The programme will
commence with an ecumenical service of worship at St
Andrew's Presbyterian
Church, Benoni. The Moderator of the Council for World
Mission, the Rev Dr
Roderick Hewitt, will preach at this service.
Following the opening
worship, participants will meet at Willow Park
Conference Centre in Benoni.
The summit will feature keynote addresses by
dedicated human rights activist
Prof John Mkumbe, Associate Professor of
Political Science at the University
of Zimbabwe, and the Rev Dr Allan
Boesak, one of the region's most prominent
theologians and a Fellow of the
Beyers Naudé Centre for Public Theology at
the University of Stellenbosch.
Prof Tinyiko Maluleke, President of the
SACC and Executive Director of
Research at the University of South Africa,
will lead morning Bible Studies,
and the Rev Susan Matale, General Secretary
of the Council of Churches in
Zambia, will conduct the closing worship
service on Thursday afternoon.
UK hopeful on Zimbabwe sanctions
Press Association
2 hours
ago
Downing Street said that it had not given up hope of securing
international
sanctions against Robert Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe, despite
the shock
defeat in the United Nations.
There were angry
recriminations after Russia and China used their vetoes in
the Security
Council to block a sanctions resolution tabled by Britain and
the United
States.
Foreign Secretary David Miliband rejected claims that Britain's
diplomacy
had been "ill-judged" and accused Moscow and Beijing of sending
mixed
signals about their intentions.
However, his deputy, Foreign
Office Minister Lord Malloch-Brown, admitted it
had been a "high-stakes
gamble" to go to a vote, amid fears that defeat will
have strengthened Mr
Mugabe's determination to hang on to power.
The sanctions, including an
arms embargo and individual measures against Mr
Mugabe and 13 other leading
regime figures, were intended to put pressure on
Mr Mugabe following the
brutal suppression of the opposition in last month's
disputed run-off in the
presidential election.
No 10 said that it had not ruled out a fresh
attempt at a Security Council
resolution if efforts at mediation between Mr
Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai's
opposition Movement for Democratic Change
failed to make progress.
"It is disappointing that the Security Council
failed to stand up for the
democratic rights of Zimbabweans. But it was
right to push for a tough
Security Council resolution, and those who stood
in its way must now take
responsibility for the failure of the Security
Council to act," a spokesman
said. "We will continue to stand firmly for
human rights and democracy, and
will return to the Security Council in the
absence of early progress on
mediation, humanitarian access, and an end to
violence."
Earlier, Mr Miliband dismissed claims that it had been a
mistake to go to
vote. "I don't accept that it was ill-judged," he told the
BBC Radio 4 Today
programme. "It is right that in the end people have to
show their cards and
the vote yesterday showed that, in the end, the
Russians and the Chinese - I
wouldn't quite say put two fingers up - but
effectively they blocked action.
The Russians and the Chinese were briefing
in all sorts of directions. You
have to get people to front up because in
the end there was hiding going on
behind the nods and the
winks."
However, Lord Malloch-Brown said that it had been apparent that
the Russian
position was changing: "It was a high stakes gamble which
earlier in the
week looked promising because the Russian president had made
commitments at
the G8 to go along with financial sanctions," he told Channel
4 News.
"During the week it became clear that Russians were having a change
of
mind."
It appeared that British and US diplomats were hoping that
Russia and China
would abstain rather than use their vetoes as permanent
members of the
Security Council to block the resolution altogether.
Billion-Dollar Poverty in
Zimbabwe
Institute for War & Peace Reporting
As the national currency continues to plummet in value, the real
business is
done in foreign banknotes.
By Nonthando Bhebhe in Harare
(ZCR No. 154, 12-Jul-08)
The Zimbabwean dollar's headlong devaluation has
proved impossible to halt
despite all efforts by the central bank. With the
exchange rate now close to
20 billion to the United States dollar, traders
are sticking to foreign
currency to preserve a measure of sanity in their
prices.
In early May, Reserve Bank governor Gideon Gono that the Zimbabwe
dollar,
ZWD, would no longer be held to a fixed exchange rate but would be
allowed
to float freely. The immediate result was that Zimbabweans flocked
to the
banks to offload their foreign currency at the new, more realistic
rate.
Since then, the bank has stuck to its guns and allowed the exchange
rate to
move with the market, but any hope that the devaluation would
eventually
bottom out has been dashed.
Instead, the hyperinflation
gripping the economy - estimated at estimated at
nine million per cent
compared with last year - has made it impossible for
the ZWD to
stabilise.
The central bank has been printing banknotes in larger and
larger
denominations, but never fast enough to increase their purchasing
power.
When the largest denomination yet, the 50 billion ZWD note, came
out about a
month ago, it could buy five loaves of bread. Today it takes two
notes - 100
billion dollars - to buy one loaf.
Gono's announcement
meant that commercial banks were able to buy foreign
currency from the
public at a more competitive rate than the black-market
currency dealers
could offer. That worked for a while, and temporarily wiped
out the illegal
currency trade.
However, as the ZWD became more worthless than ever,
people went back to the
US dollar and South African rand, even for purchases
of the most basic
foodstuffs.
The gap between what the banks and the
street traders are offering is no
longer so huge as it was before the ZWD
was allowed to float, but the black
market is still very healthy because
demand for strong foreign currencies is
so high.
"Even though we peg
our rates slightly higher than the banks, the public
still flocks to us,"
said currency dealer Edmund Dube.
Nobert Ganyani, a manager at a
commercial bank, told IWPR that street
traders had "outsmarted" the banks,
and unless further measures were put in
place, the Reserve Bank was unlikely
to "win this war".
Abel Mhofu, a chicken farmer in Wedza, some 100
kilometres south of the
capital Harare, is among the many Zimbabweans who
have lost all respect for
the national currency.
Every weekend, Mhofu
brings about 50 chickens to town and sells them for
four American dollars
each.
"I buy my fuel in foreign currency and import almost all my stock
feed from
Zambia, so for me selling in the Zim dollar is not an option," he
explained.
Mhofu was pleasantly surprised by the response from his
customers when he
began to demand foreign currency only.
"I thought
there would be resistance but I find that many people, including
those in
what we called ordinary households, have foreign currency in their
possession," he said.
Some of the foreign banknotes come from the
many Zimbabweans who have turned
into cross-border traders, going to
neighbouring countries but also as far
afield as Singapore and China to buy
things to sell at home. But the main
source of foreign currency continues to
be the Zimbabwean diaspora, with
relatives abroad send back money to keep
their families going.
"Every family now has at least one member in the
diaspora or who travels
regularly in the region in search of money," said
Dube.
With Zimbabwe's economic crisis now in its eighth year, an
estimated 85 per
cent of the population are unemployed, while many of those
in formal
employment earn less than 300 billion ZWD a month, or about 15 US
dollars.
The Reserve Bank has restricted withdrawals to a maximum of 100
billion ZWD,
and anything left in a bank account loses value on a daily if
not hourly
basis.
"All Zimbabweans now understand why they should
keep their money in foreign
currency," said Dube. "People from across the
economic divide have now
turned into forex dealers. Even vendors are now
selling their wares in other
currencies."
Dube plies his trade at the
Roodepoort bus terminal, which is better known
as the "World Bank" these
days because various foreign currencies are so
freely available.
The
marginalisation of the national currency could have a further
destabilising
effect on the economy as President Robert Mugabe tries to
consolidate his
grip following the June 27 presidential run-off election, in
which he was
the sole candidate.
According to an economist with Barclays Bank of
Zimbabwe, the country has
defied all economic wisdom by staying afloat for
so long.
"Many have predicted Zimbabwe's collapse and President Mugabe
and his
government have described the predictions as the work of prophets of
doom,"
said the economist, who did not want to be named. "But now they may
just
have run out of time."
Aggravating the problem is the fact that
the Reserve Bank might soon have
nothing to print its banknotes on,
following a decision by the Munich-based
company that supplied the paper to
stop doing business with Zimbabwe.
For Zimbabweans, the stalled political
process and the leadership's apparent
inability to reverse economic decline
mean the future looks bleak.
Takudzwa Nyauchi, a professional in Harare,
cares less about politics than
his monthly salary of 300 billion
ZWD.
"I can't keep on surviving like this. I have a wife and three
children to
look after and also the extended family back in the rural
areas," he said.
IWPR caught up with Nyauchi as he was starting home
after work, on foot. He
cannot afford public transport, which would cost
between 20 and 30 billion
ZWD a day, so he walks the 20 km to work and the
same distance home.
He is not alone - continual increases in petrol
prices mean many people now
walk up to 40 km to reach their
jobs.
"Money devalues at the blink of an eye," said Nyauchi. "With my
paltry
salary I have to do other things to survive."
"Other things"
includes getting his workmates to buy the doughnuts that his
wife bakes each
night. They pay in ZWD, which he quickly takes down to the
"World Bank" at
Roodepoort to exchange for rands.
"Even ten rands makes a great
difference to me," he said. "If I am able to
make 100 rands a week, I can
buy basic foodstuffs - most traders now prefer
to deal in foreign
currency."
He explained that meat, cooking oil, maize meal, salt, eggs,
soap, rice,
flour and other basic items are now available only on the black
market, and
only for South African or American banknotes.
"It is not
enough to have a job any more. The focus now is on surviving each
day. So I
am now forced to sell whatever I come across to survive. Besides
the
doughnuts, I sometimes sell other people's goods for a commission or
help
source foreign currency and add my own mark-up," he said.
"I am doing
whatever I can to survive, but it is still not enough."
Like most
Zimbabweans, Nyauchi has dropped eggs, milk, meat, margarine and
even bread
from his daily diet, as these now count as luxuries.
"I skip breakfast
and lunch - I only have one meal a day. If I am lucky, I
have maize-meal
porridge - that is if we have sugar. It makes me want to cry
when I look at
my children," he said.
Zimbabwe's cities are quickly becoming open-air
markets, with roadside
stalls popping up everywhere stocked with vegetables
from vendors' gardens
or goods from their homes, as they strive to earn
enough to survive.
On the streets of Harare, one banana now costs 10
billion dollars. At 50 US
cents, that is quite expensive.
Nonthando
Bhebhe is the pseudonym of a journalist in Zimbabwe.