"ITS UP TO AFRICA TO ASK FOR HELP OVER ZIMBABWE!!!"

LINK!!!!!

It's Up To Africa To Ask For Help Over Zimbabwe

The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, writes in the Guardian about how "saving Zimbabwe is not colonialism, [but] Britain's duty":

In one of his last actions as Prime Minister, Tony Blair visited Africa to defend his 'thoroughly interventionist' foreign policy towards the continent. At the end of his trip, at a press conference with South African President Thabo Mbeki, the Prime Minister admitted that when it came to the issue of Zimbabwe, only local pressure would do the job. 'An African solution,' he said, 'is needed to this African problem.'
Yet... Zimbabwe cannot any more be seen as an African problem needing an African solution - it is a humanitarian disaster....
The time has come for Mr Brown, who has already shown himself to be an African interventionist through his work at the UN in favour of the people of Darfur, finally to slay the ghosts of Britain's colonialist past by thoroughly revising foreign policy towards Zimbabwe and to lead the way in co-ordinating an international response.
The time for 'African solutions' alone is now over...(The Guardian)

Yes, Zimbabwe needs international intervention - but it is up to Africa to invite us in. Until they accept that Mugabe is "the worst kind of racist dictator" and has "enacted an awful Orwellian vision", there is nothing that can be done. As it is, Brown's refusal to even potentially have a "Straw moment" with Mugabe has led to African nations refusing to go to a summit, so how much worse a reaction would be received if he - or any other non-African nation - suggests direct intervention?

In this article, Sentamu has a weird argument with regards to colonialism, using it as a basis of both intervening and not intervening in Zimbabwe. He says that "saving Zimbabwe is not colonialism, [but] Britain's duty", that "the time has come for Mr Brown... to slay the ghosts of Britain's colonialist past by thoroughly revising foreign policy towards Zimbabwe and to lead the way in co-ordinating an international response" and also that "Britain needs to escape from its colonial guilt when it comes to Zimbabwe." All of these cannot be true. I don't think that Britain's colonialist history is anything to be ashamed of or to feel guilty for. To start with, it happened in a different time and culture, and we were by no means the worst perpetrators of the bad aspects. If anything, we should feel more guilty for ending colonialism in much of Africa when we did than for doing it in the first place.

When it comes down to it, I think that we do need into intervene in Zimbabwe, but in the current political climate, we can't until Africa - or at least much of Africa - asks for us to do so. Whilst they stand beside Mugabe and his dying Zimbabwe, there is nothing that the rest of the world can do. Zimbabwe may not be a problem that Africa alone can fix, but no-one else can do anything to help until Africa asks for it.

 

ZIMBOS "BANKING ON A FALSE PREGNANCY?"

LINK!!!!!

Banking on a false pregnancy?

 

By Joram Nyathi

 

 

Last updated: 09/14/2007 14:20:05

 

THE talks between Zanu PF and the MDC are becoming a veritable conundrum. South African president Thabo Mbeki told the recent Sadc summit in Lusaka that there was progress in the talks.

 

Zanu PF's pointman at the talks, Patrick Chinamasa, trashed the subject at the same summit, saying there was no need for constitutional changes because "Zimbabwe is a democracy like any other democracy".

 

The MDC had made a new constitution one of its key demands at the talks although no one seriously believed they would get one before next year's synchronised presidential and parliamentary election. It was a demand with more tactical value than electoral advantage.

Then on Friday it was reported that the Zanu PF politburo was happy with the progress of the talks. They were responding to a report on the issue by the same Chinamasa.

 

While they were patting Chinamasa on the back, MDC faction leader Morgan Tsvangirai was thanking Australia's John Howard for a job well done in piling pressure on the Zanu PF government to change, and for expelling the children of government officials studying in that country. Is there any sense that these people share a common vision for the future of Zimbabwe?

 

Closer to home, Mbeki insisted from the onset that he would not be discussing anything with MDC "factions". So the two pointmen, Welshman Ncube and Tendai Biti, go to South Africa as representatives of the MDC. But back home the two MDCs can't sit around the same table. So what do they tell Mbeki when they meet in Pretoria? What do they talk about when they meet Zanu PF's Nicholas Goche and Chinamasa?

 

But that is not the end of the jigsaw. It is common knowledge that Mbeki and Howard don't see eye to eye because of Mbeki's sin called quiet diplomacy, which in part explains why Tsvangirai said what he said to Howard.

 

Howard wants President Mugabe out yesterday while Mbeki and his Sadc comrades prefer a well-managed transition. So what is the substance of the "progress" in the talks, especially on the MDC's part?

 

Then Tsvangirai reports that he has postponed the launch of his presidential campaign pending the outcome of the talks. I don't know what this means in terms of election strategy. Perhaps he will soon elaborate.

 

What is evident though is that time is not one of Tsvangirai's allies. What is it to be this time? To vote or not to vote, depending on what it is hoped Mbeki can wring out of a false pregnancy? The more tactical blunders the MDC leaders commit, the more reckless Zanu PF seems to get, seeing there is no imminent threat to its hold on power.

 

Why should Zanu PF negotiate to share power with the MDC when the MDC is too arrogant to talk to itself? Pressure for Zanu PF to change needs to come from a united MDC, not from Australia, the UK or Sadc. A fractured MDC is unlikely to get any significant concessions from Zanu PF. They should not expect Mbeki to tell them this elementary reality.

 

Why should it be Mbeki's unenviable burden to parachute the MDC to power through a new constitution when the party can't decide whether it wants to get there through the ballot or jambanja? When is the momentous decision going to be made? We know Zanu PF is already in campaign mode, with chiefs and war veterans at the forefront — something not even a new constitution can change.

 

In short, it is not Mbeki who will decide the outcome of next year's elections through a new constitution, but those Zimbabweans who are registered to vote. Is this banal fact beyond the MDC's grasp? How does it hope to win the election if it is still wedded to the myth that communal areas are Zanu PF strongholds?

 

Which leaves the MDC leadership in a fine dilemma: to take part in the election with little preparation and lose the vote or to continue its national boycott and lose both relevance and credibility.

 

The MDC will have to make the best of a terrible situation, making late electoral preparations with many odds stacked against it; the biggest being a penchant for fighting itself instead of the foe.

 

It's a pity that the faction leaders are too arrogant to acknowledge this fact and they have surrounded themselves with insecure sycophants who see the MDC as the only sure way to power and wealth.

 

In this they believe that foreigners, in this case Thabo Mbeki and John Howard, are better placed to pave the way.

 

All said, if the MDC decides to fight the election as factions, the outcome is a foregone conclusion, itself rendering an unflattering verdict: that they are unworthy of the presidency of this nation, a nation in sore need of a leader to move it from liberation war politics to accountable governance.

 

So far, unfortunately, Zanu PF has no more than spineless schemers; the MDC pretenders who have atrophied before maturity. The best determination that the MDC/Zanu PF talks can give us though is that the elections are conducted in peace and that the parties abide by the outcome of the vote.

 

We have had the longest electoral dispute of any country not in a civil war: which should be cause for grievous shame to any leader.

 

RECENT OPINION ARTICLES

• Time to pursue politics of engagement • Zimbabwe: challenges of a democratic transition • MDC unity bid doomed from the start • MDC in danger of missing the freedom train • Leadership contests define 2008 electoral fortunes • Sodom and Zimbabwe • A New Agenda for Zimbabwe • Zimbabwe: exchange rate targeting or inflation targeting? • Zim opposition on self-destruct mode • Zimbabwe: the abuse of police powers • Mugabe rules by diversion • Zimbabwe beyond March 2008 • How Zimbabwe's opposition falters and deceives • Discussion silent on common man interests • Zimbabwe under sanctions: the inconvenient truth • Are we a country hosting undesirables? • Are we a country hosting undesirables? • Mbeki has failed Zimbabwe • Let's look beyond MDC, Zanu PF • Luxury goods duty directive illegal? • Amnesty for Mugabe out of question • Without option of force, dialogue is only way • Big Brother gone mad • Let Mugabe keep his honorary degrees • Emotional blackmail will not solve our problems • MDC: a failure to oppose • MDC must renounce sanctions • Thanks for liberating us, now let's move on • SADC leaders don't like Mugabe, but they hate West more • Of flawed analysis and a 'tipping point' that never was

 

MBEKI MISLEADING WORLD OVER ZIM ELECTION SCENARIO!

LINK!!!!Analysts challenge Mbeki over free and fair election forecast

Constantine Chimakure


ZIMBABWE cannot have free and fair polls next year if there are no radical political and electoral reforms in line with Sadc election guidelines, analysts said this week.

The analysts argued that last week’s pronouncement by South African President Thabo Mbeki that Zimbabwe would have free and fair polls ignored the political situation on the ground where the ruling Zanu PF has an upperhand against the opposition.

Zanu PF has unfettered access to state resources and public media for a glitzy campaign, while the majority of the opposition survives on shoe-string budgets.

Mbeki told his parliament that he was assured by the Zimbabwean leadership, civil society and non-governmental organisations of a free and fair poll.

"Now I believe the Zimbabweans about their own country," Mbeki said.

Mbeki was appointed by Sadc in March to mediate between Zanu PF and the main opposition MDC in a bid to find a solution to Zimbabwe’s political and economic crisis.

In his report to Sadc heads of state and government in Lusaka, last month, Mbeki said there was progress in his mediation efforts and that he was optimistic of a pact between Zanu PF and the MDC in the near future.

However, political analysts said it was day dreaming for Mbeki that there would be free and fair polls next year.

"President Mbeki’s pronouncement was off the mark," said David Chimhini, executive director of the Zimbabwe Civic Education Trust.

"We cannot have free and fair elections when we have failed to adopt the Sadc election guidelines of which we are a signatory."

Chimhini argued that there was need to level the playing field, which is currently tilted in favour of Zanu PF.

"We have to start from the basics — the electoral process. We are already gearing for the elections, but there is insufficient voter education. Next year’s election results have already been predetermined with Zanu PF insisting that it will have to win at all costs. How then can one say the polls will be free and fair?" questioned Chimhini.

He said reports from rural areas throughout the country were that Zanu PF has since politicised food relief using traditional leaders.

"Chiefs were recently in Victoria Falls and they pledged their support for President Robert Mugabe. These are opinion leaders in rural communities and are charged with the responsibility of distributing food. Obviously, food will be given to those who support the ruling party and, likewise, they will be expected to vote with their stomach," Chimhini added.

Political scientist Michael Mhike said Mbeki’s pronouncement was ill-timed since Zanu PF and the MDC were still engaged in negotiations.

He argued that the outcome of the negotiations should be the barometer of whether or not Zimbabwe would have free and fair polls.

"It was wrong for Mbeki to suggest that next year’s polls would be free and fair when the main parties are still in negotiations. We have to await the outcome of the negotiations to see if we can have free elections," Mhike said.

However, he added that the course of the talks was heading nowhere given what Zanu PF chief negotiator, Justice minister Patrick Chinamasa, said at the sidelines of the Sadc summit in Lusaka.

"Chinamasa told the whole world that there was no need for the current talks because Zimbabwe is a democracy. From his statement, one can be excused for drawing the conclusion that the government wants the status quo to remain and that means there will not be free and fair polls," Mhike said.

In Lusaka, Chinamasa ruled out political reforms in the country.

"Political reform is not necessary in my country because we are a democracy like any other democracy in the world," he said.

He also suggested that the talks were irrelevant.

Chimhini said from a Zanu PF perspective, Chinamasa was partially correct to suggest that the talks were of no consequence to the ruling party.

"It is the MDC and the people of Zimbabwe who need the talks more than Mugabe and Zanu PF," Chimhini said.

"Zanu PF cannot negotiate itself out of power and that is why it continues to sell the ruse that MDC is Western-funded and has called for the imposition of sanctions."

Pro-Zanu PF analysts argued that the recent visit to Australia by leader of the other formation of the MDC, Morgan Tsvangirai, was meant to cajole Canberra to tighten sanctions on Zimbabwe.

Further, they argued that Tsvangirai’s visit compromised the Mbeki-mediated talks.

Tsvangirai met Australia Prime Minister John Howard and Foreign minister Alexander Downer.

Speaking at the Australian Institute of International Affairs’ Victorian branch in Melbourne, Tsvangirai hailed Canberra for doing more than any other country to force Mugabe out of power.

"Australia, I think, has moved far ahead of other countries in ensuring that at least pressure is applied through multilateral interventions, than any other country so far," Tsvangirai said. "So in my communication to him (Downer) I am going to congratulate Australia …there are many measures that have been taken by Australia that I admire and that I think are on the right path."

Tsvangirai said he was supportive of Australia’s intentions to revoke visas and deport children of ministers and government officials studying in that country.

He also supported the Australian government’s decision to ban its national cricket team from visiting Zimbabwe this month.

In response to Tsvangirai’s utterances in Australia, the permanent secretary in the Ministry of Information, George Charamba, said the MDC leader had sacrificed ongoing negotiations under "the aegis of President Mbeki by patronising white Australia".

He said keeping foreigners out and respecting Zimbabwe’s sovereignty was a clearly "spell out precondition" for talks from Mbeki to the MDC.

Other conditions set by Mbeki include that the negotiations should not be through the media and that there should be no calling for sanctions because they were hurting the economy and ordinary Zimbabweans.

At a Sadc extraordinary meeting in March in Tanzania, the regional bloc condemned economic sanctions against Zimbabwe and foreign interference in the country’s affairs.

Sadc reiterated this position at the Lusaka summit last month.