President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, any way out? For some western powers, it would appear that Mugabe is now in a bind, that there is no way out; but Icheoku says don't count your chicken yet! Mugabe is a warrior and will survive!
President Robert Mugabe is not going anywhere soon and the precedents are there for the whole world to understand that African leaders so called do not willingly concede their seats to another. Most recently in Kenya, President Mwai Kibaki stole a freely won election from Odinga and after all said and done an arrangement was reached where he now co-governs Kenya, despite losing the election to the opposition. In Nigeria Olusegun Obasanjo wanted a third term but was frustrated out of his desire, then he turned around and single- handedly picked Umaru Yar'Adua and installed him as president. Despite the lack of any credible election in Nigeria, the many cries and shouting, today, Umaru Yar'Adua is recognized the world over as the President of Nigeria, receiving red carpet receptions whenever he steps into any capital of any country in the world. South Africa Thabo Mbeki tried it but for the powerful Zuma whom the ANC thronged to, and thwarted his planned third term. So the question is
why would Robert Mugabe listen to the world when precedents have shown that after a while the hot air usually blows away?
genome, blood! As Jesus said, he who has no sin should throw the first stone, almost all African leaders are guilty as Robert Mugabe hence do not have the moral high-grounds to look Mugabe in the eye and ask him to do right and respect the wishes of the Zimbabwe people as expressed in the election - the present crossroads! Of the fifty countries/states that make up Africa, about twenty five of them are under the jackboot of very sit-tight rulers, who are ruling their people autocratically; and with tacit approval of the west and for rather too long now. Take for example, Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak who has been in power since 1981. Muammar Qaddafi of Libya has al
so been in power since 1969 and today the west is wooing him because of proven and known oil reserves in the Libyan desert. In Angola, Jose Eduardo dos Santos has ruled the country's 17 million people since 1979. In Cameroon, Paul Biya has presided over the country's affairs since succeeding Ahmadu Ahidjo in 1982 prior to which he was Prime Minister from 1975 until his succession. In Burkina Faso, Blaise Campore assassinated former head of State Sankara and has remained the country's despotic leader since 1987. In Cape Verde a country of just about 530,000 people their President Pedro de Verona Rodriguez Pires has been in power virtually since 1975. In Republic o
f Congo, Denis Sassou-Nguesso has presided over this country of 3.8million people since 1979 and same longevity goes with Obiang Nguema of Equatorial Guinea. Eriterea's Isaias Afewerki has been in charge of his tiny country since 1993. Gambia's Yahya Jammeh also has seen the greater 14years since he rose to power in 1994. In Guinea Bissau President Joao Bernardo Vieira has presided over his country since 1980 with a little break for only four years. Chad's Idriss Deby has been running the game-show in N'Djamena since 1991. Mali's Amadou Toumani Toure has been in
power since 1991. Mauritius Prime Minister Navim Ramgoolam first came to power in 1995. Tunisia's Zine El Abidine first came to power in 1987; Uganda's Yoweri Museveni in 1986. Gabon's Omar Bongo has been in power since 1967 and this is a man who has dined and wined all the presidents of the West including President Bush. Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia has been in power since 1991 and same goes with Guinea's Lansana C
onte since 1984. In Morrocco, King Mohammed VI has ruled since 1999; Lesotho's King Letsie III has been in power since 1990 and King Mswati of Swaziland since 1986. Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe's 1980 ascension to power, although very long, is not the longest ruler-ship in Africa as Omar Bongo of Gabon holds that "ignoble" title. The question now is why single out Robert Mugabe? Why should Robert Mugabe 
be asked to give up his power? Is it because he has no power guaranteed security insurance of OIL flowing under the grounds of Zimbabwe to mortgage or serve as his collateral?
ry.
President Robert Mugabe is not going anywhere soon and the precedents are there for the whole world to understand that African leaders so called do not willingly concede their seats to another. Most recently in Kenya, President Mwai Kibaki stole a freely won election from Odinga and after all said and done an arrangement was reached where he now co-governs Kenya, despite losing the election to the opposition. In Nigeria Olusegun Obasanjo wanted a third term but was frustrated out of his desire, then he turned around and single- handedly picked Umaru Yar'Adua and installed him as president. Despite the lack of any credible election in Nigeria, the many cries and shouting, today, Umaru Yar'Adua is recognized the world over as the President of Nigeria, receiving red carpet receptions whenever he steps into any capital of any country in the world. South Africa Thabo Mbeki tried it but for the powerful Zuma whom the ANC thronged to, and thwarted his planned third term. So the question is
why would Robert Mugabe listen to the world when precedents have shown that after a while the hot air usually blows away?Africa it would seem was not tailored for a democratic governance! Before the advent of the Europeans Africa were merely kingdoms, fiefdoms and empires being ruled by various kings, rulers, emirs and emperors! So the sit-tight tendencies in their present day leaders so called run in their body
genome, blood! As Jesus said, he who has no sin should throw the first stone, almost all African leaders are guilty as Robert Mugabe hence do not have the moral high-grounds to look Mugabe in the eye and ask him to do right and respect the wishes of the Zimbabwe people as expressed in the election - the present crossroads! Of the fifty countries/states that make up Africa, about twenty five of them are under the jackboot of very sit-tight rulers, who are ruling their people autocratically; and with tacit approval of the west and for rather too long now. Take for example, Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak who has been in power since 1981. Muammar Qaddafi of Libya has al
so been in power since 1969 and today the west is wooing him because of proven and known oil reserves in the Libyan desert. In Angola, Jose Eduardo dos Santos has ruled the country's 17 million people since 1979. In Cameroon, Paul Biya has presided over the country's affairs since succeeding Ahmadu Ahidjo in 1982 prior to which he was Prime Minister from 1975 until his succession. In Burkina Faso, Blaise Campore assassinated former head of State Sankara and has remained the country's despotic leader since 1987. In Cape Verde a country of just about 530,000 people their President Pedro de Verona Rodriguez Pires has been in power virtually since 1975. In Republic o
f Congo, Denis Sassou-Nguesso has presided over this country of 3.8million people since 1979 and same longevity goes with Obiang Nguema of Equatorial Guinea. Eriterea's Isaias Afewerki has been in charge of his tiny country since 1993. Gambia's Yahya Jammeh also has seen the greater 14years since he rose to power in 1994. In Guinea Bissau President Joao Bernardo Vieira has presided over his country since 1980 with a little break for only four years. Chad's Idriss Deby has been running the game-show in N'Djamena since 1991. Mali's Amadou Toumani Toure has been in
power since 1991. Mauritius Prime Minister Navim Ramgoolam first came to power in 1995. Tunisia's Zine El Abidine first came to power in 1987; Uganda's Yoweri Museveni in 1986. Gabon's Omar Bongo has been in power since 1967 and this is a man who has dined and wined all the presidents of the West including President Bush. Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia has been in power since 1991 and same goes with Guinea's Lansana C
onte since 1984. In Morrocco, King Mohammed VI has ruled since 1999; Lesotho's King Letsie III has been in power since 1990 and King Mswati of Swaziland since 1986. Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe's 1980 ascension to power, although very long, is not the longest ruler-ship in Africa as Omar Bongo of Gabon holds that "ignoble" title. The question now is why single out Robert Mugabe? Why should Robert Mugabe 
be asked to give up his power? Is it because he has no power guaranteed security insurance of OIL flowing under the grounds of Zimbabwe to mortgage or serve as his collateral?Aside from Nelson Mandela of South Africa who stepped down from power in 1999 and Sam Nujoma of Namibia who stepped down in 2005, virtually no other African leader has voluntarily conceded his office to another person in recent recorded histo
ry. It may be a tradition after-all, Africa is used to having kings, rulers, emperors and Supreme heads before the advent of the white-man; so the idea of a rotational head of governments is anathema and an alien culture which Africa is yet to get used to! Each serving African Head of State or President sees himself as the absolute king or ruler or emperor, supreme head or potentate and any idea of leaving for another is unthinkable until death otherwise decrees; before which they usually would have primed one of their sons to carry on their assumed mandate - Togo's Faure Gnassingbe and Democratic Republic of Congo's Joseph Kabilla readily exemplifies this talking point. Moreover all Af
rican heads of States and governments are inco-hoot with one another and are corroborators as each is as guilty as the other. Take for example President Paul Kigame of Rwanda who used to be the security chief for Yoweri Museveni of Uganda had helped him as a fighter during his guerrilla war fare in Uganda. As a return of favor, Museveni encouraged and sponsored 
Kigame's take over of the government house in Kigali. So how can an East African regional power like Uganda effectively urge Kigame to do right if he goes astray since both of them are co-travelers in the journey of infamous political mercenary in Africa? As a one time guerrilla, the now President Bashir of Sudan once fought alongside the Egyptians in the war against the Israelis in 1973 and yet you wonder why the Darfur crisis has not been resolved! Couldn't Mubarak put pressure on Bashir to do right if he chooses to, but no, he owed him that favor to do whatever and however he pleases in his own fiefdom? They owe each other one form of favor or the other. ZANU-PF's Robert Mugabe and ANC's Mandela, Mbeki and Zuma waged resistance fight together against white oppressive rules in Southern Africa, which explains the
difficulty of a buddy going against another buddy by condemning his actions publicly. Furthermore, most of these African leaders were guerrilla fighters who fought their way from the forest and jungles of Africa to their respective government houses hence they see governance as the trophy for their effort and theirs for keeps. Their perception of governance as their war spoil makes it very difficult for them to voluntarily and peacefully transfer authorities to another person. They see it as a sell out to hand over what "belongs" to them to another and hence very unimaginable. Their attitude then becomes, if you want it so badly, come and get it. This is the reason 
why change of government or succession in Africa is usually through counter insurgency or out right coup de tat's forcible change of government which sometimes is very bloody in Africa. Moreover because of the power over life and death which governance bequeaths on the governor in Africa, many of their minions including their wife/wives find it absolutely a no brainier to loose their position of authority and hence dissuade emphatically a willing president from conceding authorities. Additionally, the western powers are very selective in their decisions as to who goes and who stays in power both in Africa and the world at large, thus have lost their moral authority to effectively broker a resounding resolution in Africa's numerous political conflicts. In Russia, Vladimir Putin single handedly put Medvedev in power, locking away all oppositions in the process, what did the west do? Nothing because energy guarantees to Europe means more than some few disgruntled oppositions in Russian jails/prisons. Nigeria's Olusegun Obasanjo did similar thing with Umaru Yar'Adua but because Nigeria has power guarantee security insurance of OIL, the west is today working together with an illegitimate Umaru Yar'Adua's government. It is this attitude of "whenever the shoe fits" hypocrisy of the west that is the bane of Africa and many other places in the world. Take for instance, Hosni Mubarak who has been a despotic maximum ruler of Egypt for over 27 years now; despite all agitations for a true democracy therein and evidence of his lost elections and intimidation of opposition including the banned Muslim Brotherhood, he is still 
doing business with America - the democracy crusader! Icheoku will like to ask, despite his flagrant violations of human rights, who is America's most beloved African leader? Hosni Mubarak! And this position has not changed or waiver despite recorded human rights violations and his maniacal zero tolerance of opposition activities in the land of the Pharaohs! Another despot in Africa is President Omar Bongo of Gabon who has been in power in Libreville since 1967; yet this midget dines and wines with all the Western leaders because he has power guarantee security insurance of oil and you wonder are the 
Gabonese not suitable for democracy? Why has the Western powers not raised an eye brow about this entrenched ruler of Gabon all these years (41 in total)? For Robert Mugabe to be singled out as "the MUST GO candidate" is not understandable to many African leaders in view of what is prevalent throughout the continent. Icheoku opines that this singular vindictive attitude towards Mugabe smacks of a somewhat pay-back day for Robert Mugabe for humiliating the British colonial powers out of the then Rhodesia and for most recently redistributing lands that were illegally appropriated by the white settlers in now Zimbabwe. Was Mugabe the first African leader to annul an election? Where is Nigeria's MKO Abiola today, a victim of an annulled election? How many times did Mubarak of Egypt cancel elections that were clearly won by the opposition? Who elected Omar Bongo for forty one years in Gabon? It is all a smoke screen for some uterior agenda which an election, boycotted by the opposition has provided a way and means of accomplishing in Zimbabwe! How can you come to one's land and take for yourself all the choice areas therein while the native inhabitants have virtually nothing? Which leader so called will not take exact same action as Mugabe took to redress an apparent injustice? Now the heavens will fall because some people lost a piece of property? These were the same white settlers who fed live Africans to their lions and tigers and no eyelid was batted by the West. The same white settlers whose oppressive apartheid government was acco
mmodated by the West for a long period of time. The same west that designated Nelson Mandela and his compatriots' freedom fighters as terrorists until very recently! The gist of the matter is that there is no existing moral authority to make Robert Mugabe to relinquish office voluntarily; and he being a freedom fighter will not be easily intimidated into a retreat, more-so since South Africa still backs him! They were fellow freedom fighters who dodged bullets together as well as lived guerrilla jungle life together while fighting for their people's freedom. The bonding developed over the years is such that cannot be just thrown overboard because Washington, Paris or London said so. The memory of the oppressive apartheid regime is still too 
fresh in the minds of these resistant hero-Presidents of South Africa and Zimbabwe for them to embrace the West so fully as to now turn against one of their own. A time like this call for a show of leadership by African leaders so called and urge the west to put some brakes; the west should show caution in the present fanned-crisis in Zimbabwe! Let an African solution be allowed to prevail - even if this means letting the 80years old grandpa Robert Mugabe live out his very limited time on earth, in view of his very advanced age, as life president of Zimbabwe, so be it; provided anarchy is avoided in Zimbabwe at all cost. The whole African continent is festooned with wars and mayhem strewn across the continent from Congo to Darfour to Rwanda to Somalia to Western Polisario Front to Uganda and the list goes on and on. Why add more instability to the already instabilized Africa? If America could tolerate Cuba's Fidel Castro for over fifty years until he retired recently, why not extend the same courtesy to Robert Mugabe? If the west is looking for some state building role in Africa, Darfour is waiting for them; so does Somalia, th
e Congo as well as the unfinished business in Liberia etc.
The only meaningful thing anybody can do is to try and be an honest broker and be seen to be really one by every concerned party with interest; otherwise it will be a hot air that will soon blow away. In Kenya the West agreed to let Kibaki steal an election won by Odinga because Odinga had some communist background and so they cannot fully trust him to be president of Kenya; hence they settled for a shared mandate! Maybe if Kibaki had been forced out and made to concede an election which he lost to Odinga in Kenya, Robert Mugabe would have seen a precedent to follow. Robert Mugabe probably asked him
self, "but Kibaki had his way in Kenya so why not Mugabe in Zimbabwe? Such arranged governance in Kenya will surely be the fate of Zimbabwe; after-all Mugabe was even "honorable enough" to organize an election in the first place; which African leaders usually do not do. Remember the case in Nigeria where the former President Olusegun Obasanjo imposed a president on Nigeria without any credible election whatsoever. The West threw tantrums but today are cavorting Umaru Yar'Adua because of Nigeria's oil. It is called condonation and corroboration as a result of power guarantee security insurance of OIL! This is the bane of the neo-colonial societies foist on Africa by the lopsidedness of western policies therein. If the West seriously wants to make an impact in African democracy, they must stand firmly against any African dictator whomsoever! Whether it is Hosni Mubarak of Egypt or Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, whom President Bush most recently praised very highly (during the last time he was in Africa) and yet this is a dictator who has ruled Uganda by fiat for over 21years now. Justice must not onl
y be done but must be seen to be done! It is called fairness! Icheoku does not carry water for Robert Mugabe but strongly opposes the current arm-twisting by the west because it has the semblance of their seeking a pound of flesh in the guise of upholding an election result. The west does not love the Zimbabwe people more than Robert Mugabe and they cannot be seen now to be crying more than the "bereaved" people of Zimbabwe. How can the west be more catholic than the pope, for crying out loud? If Robert Mugabe must go, then show some examples where it has been done before in Africa. Where has it happened before in Africa that a "leader" voluntarily conceded his office to another or a successor? Who has ever told Hosni Mubarak of Egypt to go? Who has said that Omar Bongo of Gabon should vacate the seat of power in Libreville since 1967, being the longest sit-tight head of 
State in Africa? The charade in Nigeria that put Umaru Yar'Adua in power since May 2007, which western leader has challenged it with every sinew in him/her; yet they are spitting fire because a similar exercise took place in Zimbabwe? The genocide in Darfur when will it be resolved and yet the government of Bahir is sponsoring the Janjaweeds death merchants! Where are the sanctions on Khartoum? WHY THEN ROBERT MUGABE?
rican heads of States and governments are inco-hoot with one another and are corroborators as each is as guilty as the other. Take for example President Paul Kigame of Rwanda who used to be the security chief for Yoweri Museveni of Uganda had helped him as a fighter during his guerrilla war fare in Uganda. As a return of favor, Museveni encouraged and sponsored 
Kigame's take over of the government house in Kigali. So how can an East African regional power like Uganda effectively urge Kigame to do right if he goes astray since both of them are co-travelers in the journey of infamous political mercenary in Africa? As a one time guerrilla, the now President Bashir of Sudan once fought alongside the Egyptians in the war against the Israelis in 1973 and yet you wonder why the Darfur crisis has not been resolved! Couldn't Mubarak put pressure on Bashir to do right if he chooses to, but no, he owed him that favor to do whatever and however he pleases in his own fiefdom? They owe each other one form of favor or the other. ZANU-PF's Robert Mugabe and ANC's Mandela, Mbeki and Zuma waged resistance fight together against white oppressive rules in Southern Africa, which explains the
difficulty of a buddy going against another buddy by condemning his actions publicly. Furthermore, most of these African leaders were guerrilla fighters who fought their way from the forest and jungles of Africa to their respective government houses hence they see governance as the trophy for their effort and theirs for keeps. Their perception of governance as their war spoil makes it very difficult for them to voluntarily and peacefully transfer authorities to another person. They see it as a sell out to hand over what "belongs" to them to another and hence very unimaginable. Their attitude then becomes, if you want it so badly, come and get it. This is the reason 
why change of government or succession in Africa is usually through counter insurgency or out right coup de tat's forcible change of government which sometimes is very bloody in Africa. Moreover because of the power over life and death which governance bequeaths on the governor in Africa, many of their minions including their wife/wives find it absolutely a no brainier to loose their position of authority and hence dissuade emphatically a willing president from conceding authorities. Additionally, the western powers are very selective in their decisions as to who goes and who stays in power both in Africa and the world at large, thus have lost their moral authority to effectively broker a resounding resolution in Africa's numerous political conflicts. In Russia, Vladimir Putin single handedly put Medvedev in power, locking away all oppositions in the process, what did the west do? Nothing because energy guarantees to Europe means more than some few disgruntled oppositions in Russian jails/prisons. Nigeria's Olusegun Obasanjo did similar thing with Umaru Yar'Adua but because Nigeria has power guarantee security insurance of OIL, the west is today working together with an illegitimate Umaru Yar'Adua's government. It is this attitude of "whenever the shoe fits" hypocrisy of the west that is the bane of Africa and many other places in the world. Take for instance, Hosni Mubarak who has been a despotic maximum ruler of Egypt for over 27 years now; despite all agitations for a true democracy therein and evidence of his lost elections and intimidation of opposition including the banned Muslim Brotherhood, he is still 
doing business with America - the democracy crusader! Icheoku will like to ask, despite his flagrant violations of human rights, who is America's most beloved African leader? Hosni Mubarak! And this position has not changed or waiver despite recorded human rights violations and his maniacal zero tolerance of opposition activities in the land of the Pharaohs! Another despot in Africa is President Omar Bongo of Gabon who has been in power in Libreville since 1967; yet this midget dines and wines with all the Western leaders because he has power guarantee security insurance of oil and you wonder are the 
Gabonese not suitable for democracy? Why has the Western powers not raised an eye brow about this entrenched ruler of Gabon all these years (41 in total)? For Robert Mugabe to be singled out as "the MUST GO candidate" is not understandable to many African leaders in view of what is prevalent throughout the continent. Icheoku opines that this singular vindictive attitude towards Mugabe smacks of a somewhat pay-back day for Robert Mugabe for humiliating the British colonial powers out of the then Rhodesia and for most recently redistributing lands that were illegally appropriated by the white settlers in now Zimbabwe. Was Mugabe the first African leader to annul an election? Where is Nigeria's MKO Abiola today, a victim of an annulled election? How many times did Mubarak of Egypt cancel elections that were clearly won by the opposition? Who elected Omar Bongo for forty one years in Gabon? It is all a smoke screen for some uterior agenda which an election, boycotted by the opposition has provided a way and means of accomplishing in Zimbabwe! How can you come to one's land and take for yourself all the choice areas therein while the native inhabitants have virtually nothing? Which leader so called will not take exact same action as Mugabe took to redress an apparent injustice? Now the heavens will fall because some people lost a piece of property? These were the same white settlers who fed live Africans to their lions and tigers and no eyelid was batted by the West. The same white settlers whose oppressive apartheid government was acco
mmodated by the West for a long period of time. The same west that designated Nelson Mandela and his compatriots' freedom fighters as terrorists until very recently! The gist of the matter is that there is no existing moral authority to make Robert Mugabe to relinquish office voluntarily; and he being a freedom fighter will not be easily intimidated into a retreat, more-so since South Africa still backs him! They were fellow freedom fighters who dodged bullets together as well as lived guerrilla jungle life together while fighting for their people's freedom. The bonding developed over the years is such that cannot be just thrown overboard because Washington, Paris or London said so. The memory of the oppressive apartheid regime is still too 
fresh in the minds of these resistant hero-Presidents of South Africa and Zimbabwe for them to embrace the West so fully as to now turn against one of their own. A time like this call for a show of leadership by African leaders so called and urge the west to put some brakes; the west should show caution in the present fanned-crisis in Zimbabwe! Let an African solution be allowed to prevail - even if this means letting the 80years old grandpa Robert Mugabe live out his very limited time on earth, in view of his very advanced age, as life president of Zimbabwe, so be it; provided anarchy is avoided in Zimbabwe at all cost. The whole African continent is festooned with wars and mayhem strewn across the continent from Congo to Darfour to Rwanda to Somalia to Western Polisario Front to Uganda and the list goes on and on. Why add more instability to the already instabilized Africa? If America could tolerate Cuba's Fidel Castro for over fifty years until he retired recently, why not extend the same courtesy to Robert Mugabe? If the west is looking for some state building role in Africa, Darfour is waiting for them; so does Somalia, th
e Congo as well as the unfinished business in Liberia etc.The only meaningful thing anybody can do is to try and be an honest broker and be seen to be really one by every concerned party with interest; otherwise it will be a hot air that will soon blow away. In Kenya the West agreed to let Kibaki steal an election won by Odinga because Odinga had some communist background and so they cannot fully trust him to be president of Kenya; hence they settled for a shared mandate! Maybe if Kibaki had been forced out and made to concede an election which he lost to Odinga in Kenya, Robert Mugabe would have seen a precedent to follow. Robert Mugabe probably asked him
self, "but Kibaki had his way in Kenya so why not Mugabe in Zimbabwe? Such arranged governance in Kenya will surely be the fate of Zimbabwe; after-all Mugabe was even "honorable enough" to organize an election in the first place; which African leaders usually do not do. Remember the case in Nigeria where the former President Olusegun Obasanjo imposed a president on Nigeria without any credible election whatsoever. The West threw tantrums but today are cavorting Umaru Yar'Adua because of Nigeria's oil. It is called condonation and corroboration as a result of power guarantee security insurance of OIL! This is the bane of the neo-colonial societies foist on Africa by the lopsidedness of western policies therein. If the West seriously wants to make an impact in African democracy, they must stand firmly against any African dictator whomsoever! Whether it is Hosni Mubarak of Egypt or Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, whom President Bush most recently praised very highly (during the last time he was in Africa) and yet this is a dictator who has ruled Uganda by fiat for over 21years now. Justice must not onl
y be done but must be seen to be done! It is called fairness! Icheoku does not carry water for Robert Mugabe but strongly opposes the current arm-twisting by the west because it has the semblance of their seeking a pound of flesh in the guise of upholding an election result. The west does not love the Zimbabwe people more than Robert Mugabe and they cannot be seen now to be crying more than the "bereaved" people of Zimbabwe. How can the west be more catholic than the pope, for crying out loud? If Robert Mugabe must go, then show some examples where it has been done before in Africa. Where has it happened before in Africa that a "leader" voluntarily conceded his office to another or a successor? Who has ever told Hosni Mubarak of Egypt to go? Who has said that Omar Bongo of Gabon should vacate the seat of power in Libreville since 1967, being the longest sit-tight head of 
State in Africa? The charade in Nigeria that put Umaru Yar'Adua in power since May 2007, which western leader has challenged it with every sinew in him/her; yet they are spitting fire because a similar exercise took place in Zimbabwe? The genocide in Darfur when will it be resolved and yet the government of Bahir is sponsoring the Janjaweeds death merchants! Where are the sanctions on Khartoum? WHY THEN ROBERT MUGABE?
COLONIALISTS’ DENOUEMENT IN ZIMBABWE
ReplyDeleteAFRICANS who have experienced or can recall the documented history of the pain and humiliation of being in the shackles of colonialism must be aghast at the horrendous attempt by Western nations, at the instigation of that foremost colonial era empire, Britain, to demonise the current political leadership in Zimbabwe and precipitate an illegal regime change in the government of that country. It is, therefore, imperative that all opponents of colonial oppression must today stand against resurgent neo-colonialists who, in this 21st century, use the banner of democracy as a weapon to bludgeon those who disagree with them to submit to their whims, and declare their support for the people of Zimbabwe as they go to the poll to choose their president in a run-off election ill-advisedly boycotted by the main opposition party, Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). Britain never really and wholeheartedly accepted the Lancaster House accords that led to the independence of Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia) in 1980, after a long, tortuous and bloody civil war that eventually ousted the hated white supremacist government backed and subsidized by Britain, the United States, the so-called keepers and defenders of democratic ideals, and much of the rest of the Western world.
It is no secret, therefore, that the relationship between the leadership of the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) that emerged as post-independence power brokers and the British government, then headed by Mrs Margaret Thatcher, was turbulent from the outset. With the hero of the independence struggle, Dr Robert Mugabe, named Prime Minister (he later became president under a new constitution), that relationship never attained an even keel. This was further buffeted by Britain reneging to match its agreement with action to provide money in a land redistribution scheme that would see the ownership of vast tracts transferred from white minority land owners, who owned most of the productive land of Zimbabwe, to the majority black population, who hitherto squatted on patches of parched strips. Unable to co-opt Mugabe’s rival, Joshua Nkomo’s Patriotic Front (PF) movement, in their campaign, the West was forced to accept the emerging, and still enduring, ZANU-PF alliance as a fait accompli. The stalemate over land matter meant that the Zimbabwe government had to introduce legislation to forcibly acquire a percentage of whites owned land and distribute it to its people in fulfilment of a pre-independence pledge. The outcry from Britain, and the campaign against Mugabe and the government, has since not ceased.
The current Western-orchestrated histrionics over the “Mugabe dictatorship” should be framed in this context. Britain’s (and other Western countries’) reaction to the elections in Zimbabwe and their aftermath have, in fact, nothing to do with any notion of the need to respect democratic tenets. If that were to be the case, why did they conspire to deny the Palestinian Hamas group that won widely-acclaimed free and fair elections in 2006 on the untenable excuse that they refused to renounce violence as a weapon against a harsh and unremitting Israeli occupation? The answer is that their motive in the Zimbabwe case clearly indicates yet another conspiracy to get rid of a leadership that has refused to kowtow to them in the manner of bona fide African dictators like Mobutu Sese Seko of former Zaire, whose iron grip on the country and bloody reign were legendary, and who was an honoured guest in Western capitals. Their role in enabling a young Colonel Joseph Desire Mobutu to murder, in cold blood, the elected President Patrice Lumumba in 1960 is a historical fact, to the abiding shame of the West. Western deviousness in protecting what it sees as its interests is deep and typically covered in universal-sounding values. We can see its worst manifestation in the unfolding ‘crises’ over Zimbabwe.
True, there are some electoral hitches in what has taken place there; and we are confident that even under some of the most severe economic sanctions ever imposed on any country in peace time, there are adequate legal instruments and robust political will to tackle them. It is unfortunate that rather than avail himself with instruments provided by the Zimbabwe electoral laws to stay on in the race – after all, he won the first round of voting – the presidential candidate of the MDC, Mr Morgan Tsvangirai, instead veered from taking one strange position to another, perhaps an indication that he listened to the dictates of outsiders who obviously lacked a clear understanding of Zimbabwe’s electoral laws. How, for instance, can one explain Mr Tsvangirai’s sudden flight to take refuge in the Dutch Embassy in Harare in response to an alleged threat to his life? The hint of that ‘threat’ came, of course, from a Western embassy. More bizarre is his call, in tandem with what Britain has been urging, for an armed foreign intervention? The attempt by Britain and other countries to force such a change in Equatorial Guinea is at the moment unfolding.
Mugabe has his faults and these are many. For instance, his messianic fervour holds that without him on the scene the gains of the independence struggle would unravel. He must understand that there are capable Zimbabweans equally, if not more, capable of consolidating those gains.
The first place to begin is to review the constitution and impose term limits on holding the office of president. We encourage Western countries to emphasize this path of reforms in their interventions in that country if they are genuine in their desire to see a workable plan that ensures the outcome of a stable Zimbabwe. If there is a crisis in Zimbabwe today, it was precipitated by the West, with their engineered decade-old sanctions that have all but crippled the economy: restricted international travels for senior government officials, limited investments in productive sectors which have impoverished a large part of the populace. Yet, those at whose behest those sanctions were imposed would demand to have the right to measure whether electoral contests in Zimbabwe, by Zimbabweans that have endured economic and social deprivations, have attained the standard that they, the sanctions approvers, have set for that country. Zimbabwe, as a sovereign, independent country, must be allowed to choose its leadership in the manner laid down only by the country. If need be, but never intrusively, other countries can help, not hinder, that process.
New Nigerian supports the view that the run-off election should go on as scheduled today. It’s amazing that the West has already prejudged the outcome of the election and has threatened not to recognise the results. The latter is for the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission and the people of Zimbabwe alone to decide. It behoves the world, particularly Britain and the United States, to honour them by respecting their judgement.
G8 Threatens Action against Mugabe, Others
ReplyDelete•Leaders reach deal on halving gas emissions by 2050
From Paul Ibe in Tokyo in Japan, 07.09.2008
Add To Favorites
Print This Article
Post Comment
The Group of Eight (G8) wealthiest nations yesterday said it may seek financial actions against all those involved in election-related violence in Zimbabwe even as it expressed "grave concern" about the violence in the Southern African country.
Also, the group reached a deal on halving global greenhouse emissions by 2050 while advocating increased crude oil production to stem the soaring oil prices. Environmental campaigners, however, scoffed at the deal, saying it fell short of requirement for stemming global warming.
These were the highpoints of the communique issued at the 34th G8 Summit, which winds up in Hokkaido, Toyako, Japan today.
The G8 , on the opening day of the summit on Monday, had met with African leaders during which they expressed their irritation with Robert Mugabe's "illegitimate" government and urged African leaders to renew their commitment to democracy and good governance as the surest way of eradicating the pervasive poverty on the continent .
The group also assured the leaders including Nigeria's President, Umaru Musa Yar'Adua, that they will deliver on pledges of aid to Africa.
"We deplore the fact that the Zimbabwean authorities pressed ahead with the presidential election despite the absence of appropriate conditions for free and fair voting as a result of their systematic violence, obstruction and intimidation," the G8 leaders said in a statement yesterday.
The leaders recommended the appointment of a special envoy of the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon "to report on the political, humanitarian, human rights and security situation and to support regional efforts to take forward mediation between political parties."
And to further isolate Mugabe's government and all those who support it, the G8 said it "will take further steps, (by, among other things,) introducing financial and other measures against those individuals responsible for violence," in Zimbabwe.
Also yesterday, the G8 leaders reached a deal to halve greenhouse gases emission by 2050 as they called on all major economies to join in stemming the potentially dangerous rise in global warming.
Zimbabwe sanctions vetoed at UN
ReplyDeleteThe resolution called for sanctions on Mugabe and 13 other officials
A draft resolution to impose sanctions on Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe and a number of his key allies has been vetoed at the UN Security Council.
China and Russia both rejected the proposed measures, including a freeze on their financial assets and travel.
There has been growing international criticism of Zimbabwe since the re-election of Mr Mugabe in a run-off boycotted by the opposition.
The UK foreign secretary called China and Russia's stance "incomprehensible".
David 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 G-8 group of industrialised nations.
Cannot play media. You do not have the correct version of the flash player. Download the correct version
Britain's ambassador to the UN 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".
A BBC correspondent at the UN 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.
Zimbabwe's ambassador told the BBC the vote should that "reason has prevailed".
"People have been able to see the machinations of Washington, London and France," said Boniface Chidyausiku.
South Africa voted against the sanctions resolution. It has promoted a power-sharing arrangement between President Mugabe and the opposition.
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
Mugabe survives despite pressure
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, and both China and Russia voted against.
Zimbabwe has become a matter of increasing international concern, as violence increased after disputed presidential elections.
The leader of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, 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.
Since March, the opposition says 113 of its supporters have been killed, some 5,000 are missing and more than 200,000 have been forced from their homes.
Campaign Fails To Dislodge Mugabe
ReplyDeleteBy Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent, BBC News website
"Robert Mugabe has to go," declared the British Minister for Africa Lord Mark Malloch Brown on BBC TV on 30 June.
Robert Mugabe has not gone. So by that benchmark the diplomatic campaign led by Britain and the United States against President Mugabe has not (so far, at least) achieved its goal.
The diplomatic effort encountered a major setback on Friday when the Russians and Chinese vetoed the sanctions proposed by the US and UK.
To suffer one veto might be regarded as unfortunate. To suffer two looks like carelessness - and over confidence.
There will have to be some heart-searching in London and Washington about their tactics. Not only have they failed to bring South Africa and the African Union fully on board over Zimbabwe, they have now endured what has to be regarded as the humiliation of a double veto from Russia and China. And China normally abstains when there is a difficult vote.
It tells us a lot about the state of relations between the major powers at the moment. They have been precarious with Russia for some time. Now China might be flexing its own muscles.
The US and UK failed to convince Russia and China that Zimbabwe had graduated from an internal and regional tragedy into a threat to international peace and security - the touchstone for Security Council action.
It seems that both Moscow and Beijing felt they were being bounced into action and the conclusion must be that they will be reluctant to have the Council intervene in other areas of concern to the West.
Perhaps they do not want the Council to be used for what they see as Western purposes and priorities.
The US and the UK perhaps assumed too easily that the criticism of Zimbabwe made at the G8 summit recently could be translated into a Security Council resolution. After all the G8 statement did say that "steps" would be taken "introducing financial and other measures against those individuals responsible for violence."
But getting an actual resolution was another matter.
The sanctions were aimed not against the ordinary people but against President Mugabe and 13 of his closest associates. Their assets abroad were to be frozen and they faced a travel ban.
There was also to be an arms embargo on Zimbabwe, supporting the previous arms ban imposed by the European union.
And there was a call for the UN to appoint its own mediator, to work alongside the South African president Thabo Mbeki - who is regarded by the US and UK to have been too conciliatory to Mr Mugabe.
Mr Mbeki told G8 leaders recently that tough sanctions on Zimbabwe could ignite a civil war there.
Even the more modest ambition of denying President Mugabe a seat at the African Union (AU), suggested by the same Lord Malloch Brown at an earlier briefing for the media, has not been reached.
The AU might have been a bit embarrassed by President Mugabe's appearance, but it gave him his seat. The campaign has not been without some results.
The EU and individual member states have made strong statements denying recognition to President Mugabe as Zimbabwe's president. That means it will be hard for him to attend future EU-Africa meetings as he did last year in Portugal.
But the African Union, while calling for a national unity government, refrained from saying anything really critical, though some individual countries did so.
The G8 meeting statement expressing "grave concern" stopped short of denying recognition, saying in a slightly ambiguous way: "We do not accept the legitimacy of any government that does not reflect the will of the Zimbabwean people."
All this helps to isolate President Mugabe but it does not remove him. He seems set to remain in power for the foreseeable future.
But even if South Africa and its fellow members of the Southern Africa Development Community had more openly condemned President Mugabe, it must surely be doubtful if that would have had much effect.
There comes a time in the life of an entrenched regime when it knows that its back is against the wall but it chooses to fight on anyway.
In such conditions, sanctions usually have little effect in the short-term.
Zimbabwe hails sanctions failure
ReplyDeleteZimbabwe has hailed the failure of a UN Security Council resolution to impose new sanctions on the country's leaders.
Russia and China vetoed the resolution, saying the situation in Zimbabwe posed no threat to international security.
The UK said it was incomprehensible, while the US said the veto brought into question Russia's reliability as a G8 partner.
But South Africa said sanctions would interfere with attempts to form a national unity government.
The measures proposed in the draft UN resolution had included an arms embargo and a travel ban for President Robert Mugabe and 13 of his key allies.
There has been growing international criticism of Zimbabwe since the re-election of President Robert 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.
Zimbabwe's Information Minister Sikhanyiso Ndlovu described the resolution as an attempt to make the people of Zimbabwe suffer so they would turn against their government.
Britain, he said, "wanted 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".
Mr Ndlovu thanked Russia and China for upholding, as he put it, the United Nations principle of non-interference with member states.
"We... would like to thank those who helped defeat international racism disguised as multilateral action at the UN."
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 - which include Russia and China - is enough to defeat a resolution.
South Africa - which is hoping that President Mugabe and the opposition can reach a deal on a power-sharing - voted against sanctions, leading to accusations from the US that it was protecting President Mugabe.
South Africa's representative, Dumisani Kumalo, said sanctions would interfere with dialogue that would lead to improvements in the humanitarian and economic situation.
Russia's ambassador Vitaly Churkin said sanctions would have taken the UN beyond its mandate.
The Russian foreign ministry added later that the sanctions 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 UN Charter".
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.
The US ambassador to the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad, said Russia's veto raised "questions about its reliability as a G8 partner". Russia later said this criticism was "unacceptable".
UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband said Moscow and Beijing had sent mixed signals about their intentions - with Russia using 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.
Lion death S African is released
ReplyDeleteMPs and trade unions have condemned Scott-Crossley's release
The South African man convicted of feeding one of his ex-workers to the lions has been freed on parole, after three years in jail.
Mark Scott-Crossley was originally given a life sentence for murder but this was reduced after a judge said there was no proof the man was alive.
The remains of Nelson Chisale's body were found in a Limpopo lion enclosure, causing a national outcry.
Trade unions, MPs and right groups have condemned Scott-Crossley's release.
The case has highlighted the racial tensions in rural South Africa.
Scott-Crossley's lawyers says the release comes after he served two-thirds of his sentence.
Family welcome
Sarie Peens, the area's correctional services co-ordinator, said Scott-Crossley was moved on Thursday morning from a correctional facility in Barberton, where he was serving his sentence, to Bushbuckridge.
It is clear... that those who are rich and white will continue to be treated differently to those who are poor
Cosatu statement
"He is now being placed under strict conditions on parole until completion of his sentence," Ms Peens told the South African Press Association (Sapa).
Scott-Crossley's family was at the reintegration office to welcome him, Sapa reported.
Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) official Jan Tsiane said the case shows that, 14 years after the end of apartheid, the criminal justice system remains biased towards the rich.
"It is clear... that those who are rich and white will continue to be treated differently to those who are poor," said Cosatu in a statement.
The chairperson of the parliamentary Correctional Services Committee, Dennis Bloem, says he will be writing to demand an official explanation for Scott-Crossley's early release, the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) reports.
The South Africa's Prisoners Organisation for Human Rights (SAPOHR) was similarly angered by the move, saying the "sudden release of a violent and racist offender... cannot be left unchallenged".
'Mass action'
SAPOHR President Miles Bhudu called for the release of all non-violent first time offenders, as well as prisoners who have served more than half their sentences, those older than 60, and the terminally ill.
Nelson Chisale was thrown into a white lion breeding ground
He threatened "rolling mass action in prisons countrywide" by SAPOHR supporters in seven days if the government did not take action.
South Africa's Young Communist League said it was "deeply disturbed and outraged" by the release of "this monstrous killer".
Mr Chisale was beaten up by Scott-Crossley and another worker having returned home to collect belongings after being dismissed from his work on a farm in the Limpopo province in 2004.
The Appeals Court last year found there was no evidence that Mr Chisale had been alive when thrown into the lion enclosure, so Scott-Crossley could only be convicted of being an accessory to murder after the fact.
The other worker, Simon Mathebula, is serving a 15-year sentence for murder.