South Africa Flinches as Zimbabwe Gets Worse

[Sefarst]

Robert Mugabe continues to destroy his country. Tendai Biti, deputy leader of the opposition party, has been brought into court, charged with treason, carrying the death sentence. The irony of it all? He is charged, among other things, with election rigging! Florence Ziyambi, the prosecutor against him has said, "The onus is on the accused to prove that he has no connection with the public violence that is happening in the country." Prove a negative, in other words. Four more supporters of the MDC have been found beaten to death and individuals in Matabeleland have started arming themselves as the police refuse to respond to politically motivated violence against opposition members.

And, for the first time, South Africa has flinched. Mugabe has vowed that any armed opposition or popular vote against him will be met with violence by his self-proclaimed "war veterans." It seems South Africa, sensing the likelihood of a civil war, has decided that "[they] will do everything possible, first to deal with all the reports of the escalating violence and second to make sure that [they] never reach the possibility of a civil war because that would be a disaster not only for Zimbabwe but for all [of them]."

I guess we'll see if they are serious about this statement. It's time to heed Rice's call and stop blocking US led action against Zimbabwe in the UN.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2008/06/2008619185828697780.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/now-the-opposition-takes-up-arms-in-zimbabwe-846947.html

[a_unique_person]

Mugabe is trying to see if he can go down in history as one of the most pathetic, incompetent yet blood thirsty tyrants.

[DarthFishy]

http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/Zimbabwe/0,,2-11-1662_2343374,00.html

Some more info.

ANC president Jacob Zuma was quoted by South African media on Wednesday as saying the run-off was unlikely to be free.

Its a sad day when Jacob Zuma is talking sense. :jaw-dropp

ETA: As opposed to Mbeki:

Mbeki, who has steadfastly refused to publicly rebuke Mugabe, left late on Wednesday without speaking with reporters. His spokesperson did not respond to calls seeking comment on Thursday.

[Darth Rotor]

Mugabe is trying to see if he can go down in history as one of the most pathetic, incompetent yet blood thirsty tyrants.

He has already left Idi Amin in the dust. I'll bet the over on Mugabe winning that palm and keeping it for the ages. The nitwits in Burma are giving it a run, but I don't think they have the staying stupidity Mugabe has.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Somebody's going to end up killing that crackpot Mugabe.

[jj]

Mugabe will continue to get support from the extremist islamic factions, simply because he brings the world closer to chaos.

[dudalb]

Mugabe is trying to see if he can go down in history as one of the most pathetic, incompetent yet blood thirsty tyrants.

Maybe he wants Forrest Whittiker to play him in a movie......

[Verde]

He has already left Idi Amin in the dust. I'll bet the over on Mugabe winning that palm and keeping it for the ages. The nitwits in Burma are giving it a run, but I don't think they have the staying stupidity Mugabe has.

staying stupidity? I'll grant you the staying part; he's been at this for over two decades now. I worked in southern Africa during the mid and early eighties, including quite some time in and around Harare. It was clear back then that the country was heading rapidly downhill.

A terrible shame; a beautiful and rich nation totally destroyed.

I will disagree with the 'stupidity' part. Also AUP's use of the term 'incompetent'.
Mugabe knows what he is doing, and he is very good at it. Wrecking a country, and killing untold thousands in the process, that is just the cost of doing business as far as he is concerned.

[Verde]

Somebody's going to end up killing that crackpot Mugabe.

If it were an easy thing to do, it would have happened a long time ago.

[petra10]

Breaking news; Mbeki calls on Mugabe and Tsvangirai to negotiate.!!!!!!

Unbelievable, is that the best he can do. The MDC have decided to pull out of the "election" due to the farce that everyone can see it is.
Mugabe says its because they dont want to face a humilating defeat.

What can be done? nothing, I think the country will just have to wait until Mugabe dies before anything can change in Zimbabwe.

[fuelair]

Somebody's going to end up killing that crackpot Mugabe.
Very slowly, I sincerely hope!:):mad:

[bobrayner]

What can be done? nothing, I think the country will just have to wait until Mugabe dies before anything can change in Zimbabwe.

Either that, or other countries decide to prioritise "human wellbeing" over "national sovereignty".

unlikely, eh? ;)

[richardm]

I can't think of anything much that other countries can do that would result in anything other than a continuing loss of "human wellbeing".

[Darat]

I can't think of anything much that other countries can do that would result in anything other than a continuing loss of "human wellbeing".

Given the basket-case Zimbabwe is these days effective sanctions could of course make a huge negative impact on "human wellbeing" very quickly and perhaps that would result in a civil uprising that Mugabe and his supporters would not be able to suppress.

However I do wonder whether the short and longterm costs that would impose means that the best approach is actually to simply continue doing what is being done now - which is very little and seems to have very little chance of removing the corrupt power structure controlling Zimbabwe at the moment.

[bobrayner]

Given the basket-case Zimbabwe is these days effective sanctions could of course make a huge negative impact on "human wellbeing" very quickly and perhaps that would result in a civil uprising that Mugabe and his supporters would not be able to suppress.

What would further sanctions do? At the moment there are sanctions against the ruling clique. Presuming you mean sanctions against the whole country, they would:
1. Cut Zimbabweans' access to foreign goods & services;
2. Cut Zimbabweans' access to foreign payment for exports.
Mugabe's policies have already achieved this, to a large extent.

However I do wonder whether the short and longterm costs that would impose means that the best approach is actually to simply continue doing what is being done now - which is very little and seems to have very little chance of removing the corrupt power structure controlling Zimbabwe at the moment.

Suppose, hypothetically, that a wellwisher rolled in with (a) a thorough plan for free & fair elections, (b) some aid, and some reconstruction experts, and (c) sufficient rifles & blue helmets to stop the current dictatorship interfering.

Presumably there'd be some unrest; even some civilian deaths. How much unrest would it take to say "OK, this isn't worthwhile, let's just leave Mugabe's thugs in power indefinitely".

The do-nothing option leaves millions of people suffering for years; at the risk of sounding cold or machiavellian, I think localised short-term pain in an intervention would be more than offset by a country-wide long-term gain.

[DarthFishy]

The do-nothing option leaves millions of people suffering for years; at the risk of sounding cold or machiavellian, I think localised short-term pain in an intervention would be more than offset by a country-wide long-term gain.

As a South African this has been a topic that has been raised a couple of times, informally anyway, in conversation with friends and acquaintances. Unfortunately I don't think its that easy to do, or that it will be that effective, for some of the following reasons:

- Outside interference will just confirm Mugabe's paranoid idea of "The West is out to get me"
- Interference will destabilize the whole Southern African region (refugees fleeing into other countries as an example).
- Mugabe does have a lot of armed militia support. An intervention could very easily lead to a similar type of "insurgent" war as what is happening in Iraq.
- It would be extremely difficult to get enough support from SADC (the Southern African Development Community) to go through with something like this. Support from SADC will be essential in handling this kind of intervention.

What should be done? I'm really not sure, but I would like Mbeki publicly denounce the violence and unrest caused by Mugabe's Zanu-PF. That'll be a good start for me as a South African.

[Octavo]

What should be done? I'm really not sure, but I would like Mbeki publicly denounce the violence and unrest caused by Mugabe's Zanu-PF. That'll be a good start for me as a South African.

Agreed, however simply denouncing the violence isn't really going to help very much. The time for subtle, tentative diplomatic solutions is well over.

This is one of the few instances where I think the best solution may in fact be a quiet, quick assassination. Of course, the mad scramble for power that will inevitably follow may be even worse than the current situation, but it doesn't look like Mad Bob is about to hand over power peacefully.

[Darth Rotor]

A terrible shame; a beautiful and rich nation totally destroyed.
I will disagree with the 'stupidity' part. Also AUP's use of the term 'incompetent'.
You say the above.
Mugabe knows what he is doing, and he is very good at it. Wrecking a country, and killing untold thousands in the process, that is just the cost of doing business as far as he is concerned.
Then you say that.

Seem to have contradicted yourself.

DR

[Skwinty]

Headlines in Sunday papers

Mugabe says only god can remove me.

My question is does god have an AK47, if so please god use it now.

[richardm]

This is one of the few instances where I think the best solution may in fact be a quiet, quick assassination. Of course, the mad scramble for power that will inevitably follow may be even worse than the current situation, but it doesn't look like Mad Bob is about to hand over power peacefully.

Problem with this seems, to me, to be that Mugabe is propped up by a collection of similarly-minded people. When the election results first came in, it looked for a while as though he was going to stand down, then was persuaded to stay on. I'd presume that the people who did this persuading would not give up the struggle just because Mugabe was gone. If anything, all the more reason to keep a tight grip - "Emergency powers, don'cha know".

Mind you I don't really know how much persuading was required, or otherwise. Just my impression from what I read at the time.

[Solus]

It must be much harder to assassinate some two bit 3rd world African dictator then I imagined. Just handout some highpowered sniper rifles, a few rocket launchers, and Mugabe's travel schedule for the week. Problem sloved! :cool:

[luchog]

You say the above.

Then you say that.

Seem to have contradicted yourself.

I don't see any contradiction. Killing thousands of those who oppose his rule, without substantial direct effort and while keeping the majority of the opposition too poor and week to engage in effective resistance, living an extremely self-indulgently luxurious life with no care about what happens to the region after he's gone, and at the same time spewing enough anti-caucasian/anti-semitic racism and recycled Marxist propaganda to keep the substantial liberal factions in Europe and America dithering and blocking any kind of effective action against him...

It's clear that Mugabe isn't really all that interested in his country, only in his own personal living conditions, and those of his cronies and supporters as long as he can use them to maintain his power. He cares about power, nothing else matters and he'll do what he can to maintain that power.

Sounds like he does know what he's doing, and is pretty effective at it.

[BPSCG]

It must be much harder to assassinate some two bit 3rd world African dictator then I imagined. Just handout some highpowered sniper rifles, a few rocket launchers, and Mugabe's travel schedule for the week. Problem sloved! :cool:I suggested something like that in another Mugabe thread. Stop sending food and medicine and stuff, and start doing air-drops of crates of automatic weapons and ammo all over the country. If the Zimbabweans take matters into their own hands, then hooray! and if not, we just shrug our shoulders and say, "Well, we did what we could, what's on TV tonight?"

[Miss_Kitt]

The news from Zimbabwe continues to get worse, even when I think that it's approaching the limit of how bad things can be. I would certainly shed no tears if Mugabe were to suddenly become dead--but the resulting power-struggle would be another bloodbath.

African nations almost without exception are unwilling to condemn the actions of another African head of state, because their own regimes are crooked. They don't know when they will need the passive support of the very nation whose goverment they are criticising.

With the almost unimaginable inflation rate, famine, lack of services, lack of infrastructure, government thuggery and HIV/AIDS at epidemic levels, Zimbabwe is a horrifying lesson in how little separates a healthy country from a hellhole. All that has to happen if for the rule of law to be superceded by a personality cult; and for reason to be supplanted by superstition. (Or for the reasonable people to flee, leaving only the superstitious behind.)

The time to send in the Blue Helmets was as soon as the election results showed that the opposition had either won, or forced a run-off; now Mugabe will have his thugs imprison, intimidate, or kill enough opposition members to hold a sham election he can "win". As long as the governments in Africa insist in denouncing any UN, EU, or US intervention as colonialist--though they lack the manpower and/or the willpower to intervene themselves--the situation will continue to get worse. It may already be too late to prevent the complete collapse of the state, with the domino effect of destabilizing a good chunk of southern Africa. You think Myanmar and North Korea are bad? What is coming in Africa is worse, and on a larger scale.

I weep for the thousands of innocent victims this stubborn stupidity has claimed already, and the millions more to come. I wish I had an answer, but the answer MUST come from within Africa. They have made it diaphanously clear that no white-majority country or organization is welcome. So be it! And sadly, we can do nothing but watch the graveyards fill.

Sorry to be such a downer, but I've been watching this go on for years now,

Miss Kitt

[Octavo]

I wish I had an answer, but the answer MUST come from within Africa. They have made it diaphanously clear that no white-majority country or organization is welcome. So be it! And sadly, we can do nothing but watch the graveyards fill.


Your sweeping (and inaccurate) generalizations noted.

[richardm]

Your sweeping (and inaccurate) generalizations noted.

Sweeping it may be, but is it entirely inaccurate? Tsvangirai has been heavily criticised for taking refuge in the Dutch embassy, rather than an African one, and it seems to be widely recognised that Mugabe will only heed other African leaders.

[BPSCG]

Sweeping it may be, but is it entirely inaccurate? Tsvangirai has been heavily criticised for taking refuge in the Dutch embassy, rather than an African one...Perhaps he thinks he has reason to believe he'd be safer in the Dutch embassy than an African one.

...and it seems to be widely recognised that Mugabe will only heed other African leaders.:confused:

Are "other African leaders" advising him to round up and crush the opposition?

Did "other African leaders" advise him to throw all the white farmers off their land and hand it over to his cronies?

As far as I can see, the only thing "other African leaders" have done is to cluck in disapproval whenever he does something brutal. Which, in all fairness, doesn't seem to be much different from what the rest of the world has done.

The world hates to confront thugs. Better to cluck disapproval, spend years drafting a series of semi-tough-sounding U.N. resolutions, and then ignore the problem until the refugees start pouring over your border.

[richardm]

Any European criticism of Mugabe is immediately represented by him as white people being the colonial oppressors again, which is a resonant idea in Zimbabwe. He doesn't have that line of defence if the criticism comes from African leaders. Some African leaders are beginning to make that criticism now - the ANC has just made a statement. It remains to be seen whether it'll make any difference.

Other than making disapproving noises and drafting tough-sounding UN resolutions, what would be your solution?

Edit: I see you've already suggested something above! I do like the idea that if your solution fails at the first hurdle then you stop caring and return to your TV.

[BPSCG]

I do like the idea that if your solution fails at the first hurdle then you stop caring and return to your TV.Sarcasm noted, as is your inappropriate use of the term "first hurdle." Let's look at the hurdles we've already deemed insurmountable, in no particular order:

Military intervention by non-African countries, because they're a bunch of racist colonialists.
Military intervention by African countries, because... well, who knows what their reasons are?
Embargo/sanctions only hurt the people Mugabe is oppressing, not Mugabe himself, because he can live perfectly comfortably by raping his own country.
Diplomacy? Yeah, right. Let me know the next first time a despot is sweet-talked into becoming a nice guy.
Praying to an omnipotent being in the sky.
So it all falls on the people of Zimbabwe. If we drop weapons all over the country and they're too feckless to pick them up and use them, then what other options are there?

[Darth Rotor]

If we drop weapons all over the country and they're too feckless to pick them up and use them, then what other options are there?

Send in crateloads of condoms. The people will be so happy having safe sex, and thumbing their noses at the Pope, that Mugabe's excesses will no longer bother them.

Better than bread and circuses, from where I sit.

DR

[egslim]

The do-nothing option leaves millions of people suffering for years; at the risk of sounding cold or machiavellian, I think localised short-term pain in an intervention would be more than offset by a country-wide long-term gain.
"Localised short-term pain in an intervention" sounds awfully much like Iraq. There is just no guarantee whatsoever that the painful effects of any intervention will be short-term.

[richardm]

Sarcasm noted, as is your inappropriate use of the term "first hurdle." Let's look at the hurdles we've already deemed insurmountable, in no particular order:


What you mean "We", white man?





Military intervention by non-African countries, because they're a bunch of racist colonialists.
Military intervention by African countries, because... well, who knows what their reasons are?

This is where a UN intervention could be useful. By being a joint effort we could overcome these objections. Of course even mentioning the UN around here brings on more eye-rolling than a visit to an old jokes' home, and in fairness the UN's track record in Africa isn't stellar. But it's what Tsvangirai wants, at least.

Embargo/sanctions only hurt the people Mugabe is oppressing, not Mugabe himself, because he can live perfectly comfortably by raping his own country.
Well, this is true isn't it? Their ineffectiveness of sanctions was certainly one of the reasons we were told that invading Iraq was our only option. In fact we were told that a nice quick decapitation would remove the need for sanctions and rapidly improve the lot of the average Iraqi.


Diplomacy? Yeah, right. Let me know the next first time a despot is sweet-talked into becoming a nice guy.
Can never say who'll be next, but it has happened in the past. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_al-Gaddafi)


Praying to an omnipotent being in the sky.
I tried that with my last lottery numbers and it didn't do a damned bit of good.


So it all falls on the people of Zimbabwe. If we drop weapons all over the country and they're too feckless to pick them up and use them, then what other options are there?So we give a bunch of half-starved farmers weapons they are unfamiliar with and expect them to stand up against an army of battle-hardened veterens? Come on. What would be the likely result of this?

Given the lack of any options that aren't likely to end in mass bloodshed, what else do we have to offer? Not much, really, other than diplomatic efforts (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7472565.stm) to convince others in Mugabe's government that the status quo will not do, and try to get change from within.

[bobrayner]

"Localised short-term pain in an intervention" sounds awfully much like Iraq. There is just no guarantee whatsoever that the painful effects of any intervention will be short-term.

I'd agree, to an extent. However, the painful effects of non-intervention are assured for the long-term.

The Iraq invasion was rather badly conceived; there was no doubt that the superior military power would prevail quickly, but little thought seems to have been put into what would come next. It's as though decisionmakers thought flag-waving Iraqis would line the streets to cheer their liberators, then hold free & fair elections; the troops could dismantle Saddam's WMDs and be home before they got tired of the food.

A plan which aims for a good outcome for the population rather than a specific military victory, and which actually plans for building a better country after the dictatorship falls, and which is based on real intelligence rather than wishful thinking, is likely to have a far better outcome.

There have been other interventions apart from Iraq in the last few years. I won't pretend that they're all painless, but many have delivered much better outcomes, and that's why we don't see them on television every day.

[BPSCG]

This is where a UN intervention could be useful. By being a joint effort we could overcome these objections. Of course even mentioning the UN around here brings on more eye-rolling than a visit to an old jokes' home, and in fairness the UN's track record in Africa isn't stellar. Winner of the "Understatement of the Week" award. How would a UN intervention be useful? Do you envision blue-helmeted troops rolling into Zimbabwe and capturing Mugabe?

Well, this is true isn't it? Their ineffectiveness of sanctions was certainly one of the reasons we were told that invading Iraq was our only option.If I didn't think it was true, I wouldn't have mentioned it.


Can never say who'll be next, but it has happened in the past. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_al-Gaddafi)
Gaddafi got sweet-talked into being a nice guy? Or did he give up his nuclear designs when he saw what happened to Saddam?

So we give a bunch of half-starved farmers weapons they are unfamiliar with and expect them to stand up against an army of battle-hardened veterens? Come on. What would be the likely result of this? They'd be slaughtered. It would all be over in five minutes, and they would never cause any trouble ever again.

Just like in Iraq.

Given the lack of any options that aren't likely to end in mass bloodshed, what else do we have to offer? Not much, really, other than diplomatic efforts (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7472565.stm) to convince others in Mugabe's government that the status quo will not do, and try to get change from within.Ah, the sweet-talk option, directed at Mugabe's henchmen instead of teh boss himself. "Could you kindly overthrow your despot and hang him, and then promise that after you kill him, you won't turn into bloody despots yourselves? Thank you very much."

[I Ratant]

Headlines in Sunday papers

Mugabe says only god can remove me.

My question is does god have an AK47, if so please god use it now.

Drop a space anvil on him.
No need to "claim responsibility", just off the bastard!

[Sefarst]

Regarding the situation and the position of other African leaders, Paul Wolfowitz has an editorial in The Wall Street Journal today about it:

...

This horror recalls the slaughter of more than 10,000 members of the Ndebele tribe in the 1980s by the notorious North Korean-trained Fifth Brigade, headed by Col. Perence Shiri. He is now head of the Zimbabwean air force and one of six men recently named by the British government as responsible for the current "campaign of terror." Against this background, and with the security forces providing clubs and machetes to large number of unemployed young men, Mr. Tsvangirai had every reason to fear a repetition of that slaughter, or worse.

...

But breaks in this silence are starting to appear. The leaders of Botswana and Zambia have now criticized Mugabe strongly and publicly. Forty African civil society leaders, including 14 former presidents, issued a call for Zimbabwean authorities to allow a free and fair election. The foreign minister of Tanzania, one of Mugabe's traditional allies, has denounced the pre-election violence. Kenya's prime minister, Raila Odinga (a victim of election fraud in his own country), has called Mugabe "an embarrassment for Africa." In South Africa itself, Jacob Zuma, a populist who defeated Mr. Mbeki for the leadership of the African National Congress, has been openly critical. And last month, South African labor unions refused to unload a Chinese ship bearing arms for Mugabe, forcing the Chinese to beat a retreat.

...

Words of condemnation help to deny Mugabe's claims of legitimacy, but words alone are not enough. Specific sanctions against some of the leaders of the violence may also be useful, but their impact will be limited. Broad economic sanctions will only increase the suffering of Zimbabwe's people, whose misery has already been increased by Mugabe's refusal to accept emergency food assistance from the U.N.

There is also talk about U.N. peacekeeping forces or other forms of military intervention, but this does not seem to be what the people of Zimbabwe want. What the people of Zimbabwe clearly do want is to maintain the pressure on Mugabe and his cronies for peaceful, democratic change.

I haven't decided yet how I feel about Wolfowitz's opinion. It seems hard to believe that the people of Zimbabwe, faced with murder and intimidation by their own government, don't want any kind of UN or military intervention.

[Octavo]

So we give a bunch of half-starved farmers weapons they are unfamiliar with and expect them to stand up against an army of battle-hardened veterens? Come on. What would be the likely result of this?

hoooo boy. AK 47's would not be unfamiliar weapons, nor are they particularly difficult to use. Secondly, what is this "army of battle hardened veterans" you speak of? I'm sure you don't mean the remnants of the guerrilla forces who fought for independence nearly 30 years ago and haven't seen a day of fighting since? Mugabe's "army" is a badly trained, ill-disciplined group of terrorists who haven't ever had any real resistance. The original guerrilla forces who fought for independence all those years ago, are now the poor half-starved farmers who thought they were fighting for a better future. There are few if any "battle hardened veterans" left at Mugabe's beck and call.

[a_unique_person]

http://www.theage.com.au/world/outrage-grows-over-zimbabwes-sham-elections-20080626-2x23.html



Outrage grows over Zimbabwe's 'sham' elections



June 26, 2008 - 8:39AM
Page 1 of 2 | Single Page View (http://www.theage.com.au/world/outrage-grows-over-zimbabwes-sham-elections-20080626-2x23.html?page=-1)

Nelson Mandela and US President George Bush led mounting world outrage over Zimbabwe, where veteran leader Robert Mugabe is pressing on with what is seen as a "sham" presidential run-off vote.
As pressure on the octogenarian Mugabe ratcheted, Zimbabwean opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai called for armed peacekeepers to be sent to the country to stop terror attacks on his supporters.
The world's favourite elder statesman Mandela, an African liberation icon like Mugabe, spoke of a "tragic failure of leadership in our neighbouring Zimbabwe" during a celebrity fundraising dinner in London to mark his 90th birthday.
"We look back at much human progress, but we sadly note so much failing as well," Mandela lamented.
"Friday's elections, you know, appear to be a sham," Bush said, referring to Mugabe's insistence to press on with the vote despite Tsvangirai's withdrawal due to attacks on his supporters and intimidation.
"You can't have free elections if a candidate is not allowed to campaign freely and his supporters aren't allowed to campaign without fear of intimidation," Bush said.




If enough momentum grows from enough quarters, then it would be possible to have a military intervention, or even the threat of one could be enough. Mugabe has effectively destroyed Zimbabwe, and most of the population clearly want him out, as they showed at the recent election. The vote against Mugabe was so big, even he couldn't stuff enough ballot boxes. The only issue would be as in Iraq, how to deal with any ethnic tensions.