Regardless of what happens next this is a powerful image.

Senior negotiators from Zimbabwe's main opposition MDC and the ruling ZANU-PF party began talks on Thursday and a report indicated they were close to reaching a deal on forming a unity government.

The talks were under way on Thursday, President Thabo Mbeki's spokesman Mukoni Ratshitanga said. Senior Movement for Democratic Change officials and two Zimbabwean cabinet ministers were leading the rival negotiating teams meeting at an undisclosed venue around the South African capital Pretoria.

Preliminary talks began on Tuesday after Mbeki secured a framework deal between President Robert Mugabe and MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai on Monday for talks to end the deadlock over Mugabe's re-election on June 27 in a poll boycotted by the opposition because of violence.

Ratshitanga said even if negotiators missed a two-week deadline set under the framework agreement, it did not mean the end of talks.

"It does not mean if the talks are not done in two weeks, that the talks will collapse," he said.

The main aim of the Pretoria talks will be the creation of a government of national unity, but the two sides differ on who should lead it and how long it should stay in power.

South African financial daily Business Day reported on Thursday that the two sides are close to reaching a deal but still need to iron out the final details.

Business Day, citing sources in both parties and people familiar with the talks, said a final settlement can be reached soon as the parties had already agreed on many issues.

"They have agreed on most of the issues, except mainly the framework for a new government. The deal is basically done, but what remains are a few issues of detail, implementation and logistics," Business Day quoted a source as saying.

Zimbabwean political analyst Eldred Masunungure said a breakthrough in talks was possible as the rival parties had been talking under mediation led by South African President Thabo Mbeki since March last year.

"A breakthrough is a reasonable possibility, even in two weeks. This is essentially the second phase of the SADC-mediated process, the first phase having started in March 2007," Masunungure said...

Click for more

Will ZANU-PF release all the MDC officials and members that are currently in custody?  Will the violence against Zimbabweans stop?  What about the reported use of mercenaries to brutally kill people that Mugabe's regime consider to be a threat?  Is that now going to stop?

Unless there is an immediate and meaningful change in the behaviour of the ZANU-PF militias and the government forces, we ought to question Mugabe's motives in signing the MOU.  He might very well be using it as a means to reduce the pressure on him and his colleagues while they continue to eliminate the MDC opposition's key people and to punish the Zimbabwean people for not voting for ZANU-PF.

The parties to the talks should not start dealing with any sort of "power sharing" arrangement until the political prisoners are released and the army and militias are confined to barracks or disarmed and sent to their homes.  Mbeki can start by insisting that Mugabe issues the necessary orders and publishes proclamations to that effect in the Government Gazette.  The State media, radio and television stations must publish the orders to release the political prisoners and for the military and militias to stand down.

In addition, since food is so scarce in Zimbabwe, Mugabe must be told to remove restrictions on NGO's and Aid agencies that are involved in food distribution.

The talks that are slated to start in Pretoria today are welcome, but Tsvangirai in particular should not allow the other parties to pressure the MDC into a deal that in any way waters down the basic principles of democracy.  A deal that leaves the status quo in place and offers cushy jobs to the top echelon of the MDC factions amounts to the death of democracy in Africa.

Although it will suit Mbeki to be able to tell the other SADC leaders that he has brokered a deal for a Government of National Unity when that body meets next month, MDC should not cave in to pressure to sign any deal or participate in anything that does not give effect to the expressed will of the Zimbabwe voters on March 29.  Mbeki persuaded Mugabe in previous talks to effect the changes in electoral procedures that made the March 29 elections so different from previous elections.  The new procedures made it far more difficult for ZANU-PF to fudge the results and thus losing so comprehensively to the MDC clearly caught the regime in Harare by surprise.  Mbeki deserves the credit for the March 29 elections resulting in a meaningful expression of the will of the Zimbabwe voters, although he dropped the ball by not immediately insisting that the results be published without embellishment and that the losers accept their loss and stand down.

The MDC is all that stands between the people of Zimbabwe and total capitulation to ZANU-PF and all that they stand for.  A principled stand by MDC is required to prevent Zimbabwe from remaining a one-party state run by a committee of self-serving criminals.  If the MDC caves in in Pretoria during the next ten days or so, it will be a mortal blow to democracy in Africa that may set us back decades.

If the talks do not result in a substantive implementation of the results of the March 29 elections, then MDC should refuse to be railroaded into an arrangement that ignores the will of the Zimbabwe people.  If the result of the talks is not an arrangement that will lead to real democratic elections and an inclusive constitutional assembly similar to the one that was convened in South Africa, then MDC should declare the talks a failure and set up a government in exile and continue the struggle to liberate Zimbabwe from tyranny from outside the country, just as the ANC did in the case of South Africa.

Although the MDC has many faults and Tsvangirai is not the sort of leader that many people would like him to be, the fact remains that the MDC was the only option to ZANU-PF on offer to the Zimbabwe voters on March 29, and the people of Zimbabwe gave a clear indication that they have had enough of ZANU-PF and want to give others a go at governing Zimbabwe.  Given that Zimbabwe is in effect held captive by a military junta, a straightforward handover of control to the MDC is unlikely.  However, any sort of deal that does not give effect to an arrangement that will lead to fully inclusive constitutional reform and a definite timetable for truly democratic elections at some future date that is acceptable to the people of Zimbabwe should be rejected.

More than just the future of a few dozen politicians is at stake here; the lives of Zimbabwean citizens are on the line, as is the future of African Democracy.

It is possible to accept the reality of this long-running impasse and the need for negotiations between the major political parties and yet still have very mixed feelings when those long-called for talks seem like they are finally, actually about to get underway. One of the reasons for this is accepting the need for negotiation is to accept that one will have to give up some things one considers fundamental to one's position, to compromise on even those things that one considers of immutable principle.

Another reason why accepting negotiation as a way out of a deep conflict such as Zimbabwe's political divide is because of how either part has to "give" in its sense of whether justice has been achieved or not.

It is the nature of politics for its most aggressive 'professional' practitioners to be egotistical and to a large extent motivated by personal visions of grandeur and the desire to exercise control over others. There is no reason to believe MDC politicians are fundamentally different from ZANU-PF politicians in this regard. But aside from the selfish personal motivations of their officials, there is also a broad difference in national vision between ZANU-PF and the MDC.*

This substantive difference means the MDC is extremely reluctant to sit at the same table with a party that has countenanced the beating, torture and killing of its members, and who they believe to be illegitimately occupying power. For its part, there are many ideologues in ZANU-PF who are offended by the very idea of negotiating with what they genuinely consider an upstart group of 'sell-outs' who do not 'deserve' to rule the country even if they got the majority of votes! Both sides would have preferred some sort of winner-take-all resolution in which they came out on top, but this is precisely what successive messy elections have failed to achieve, and why there is any talk of talks!

The fact that no one has been able to devise and enforce an easy way out of this impasse is presumably why both sides have reluctantly agreed to hold their noses in each others' presence but agree to try to panel beat an accommodation for the sake of a country that is battered and down on its knees.

Everybody will have to swallow very hard for the talks to be seen to be successful, and then will come the even harder job of implementing what would have been agreed.

But there is a precedent in Zimbabwe for putting aside hard-headedness to try to stop the country from sliding backwards. Ian Smith's government and Mugabe's ZANU-PF and Joshua Nkomo's ZAPU provided that precedent at the Lancaster House talks that led to the birth of Zimbabwe. They had no particular love for each other and tens of thousands of civilians had perished before they agreed to negotiate. "Never ever" for all  of them became doable and necessary because the situation forced that upon them.

To many white Rhodesians Smith was a hero who was keeping the African barbarians away from the gates of their fairy tale existence. To many Africans he was a racist war criminal, even if "the trains ran on time and inflation was low" under him. To Africans Mugabe and/or Nkomo were towering African revolutionaries who gave them pride, dignity and hope, to most whites they were 'communist terrorists.' Still they had to talk and bitter, impassioned loose talk of retribution had to be put aside.

Thirty years later, Zimbabwe is at a pass requiring similar compromises between bitter enemies.

But into this mix is thrown the interfering calculations of those who have bestowed on themselves the right to try to influence events in Zimbabwe in certain ways, not necessarily to support whatever consensus the Zimbabweans decide is in their own best interests.

David Blair, the UK Daily Telegraph's resident "Africa expert" very nicely shows this potential spanner in the Zimbabwe works with his article A Mugabe deal could land Britain with a dilemma.

Blair worries what Britain would do if the current talks ended up in a 'Kenya scenario" in which Mugabe held effective power and Tsvangirai was given the consolation prize of Chief Window Dresser. What on earth would Britain do if Tsvangirai as prime minister came knocking on Bwana Gordon Brown's door asking for the release of aid to help begin reviving Zimbabwe's economy?

If a negotiated resolution of the crisis which Zimbabweans themselves can live with is all that Britain wants, as it insists, Blair should not need to worry about what difficult compromises the Zimbabweans agree to make to reach that resolution. But things aren't that simple, are they? Blair ever so delicately tiptoes around the issue of why, well, even if the Zimbabweans were willing to accept a 'Kenya settlement' that Britain would not be able to consistently oppose, the ex-colonial master might decide to not play ball.

The issue for the British, you see, isn't so much just the 'resolution' of the crisis, but the exit of the bitterly hated Mugabe! No, you see, Zimbabwe is completely different from Kenya: both sitting presidents might have stolen the elections they use to justify holding on to power, but Kenya's Kibaki is clearly a gentleman and a Good African while Mugabe is clearly a Bad African! Surely the world would not expect civilised Britain to continue to live and do business with such a monster!

Even if the Zimbabweans, including the British-friendly MDC, have reluctantly accepted Mugabe's continuing presence as the price they must pay for moving on? Which consideration would be uppermost in Britain's course of action: respect for the decision of the Zimbabweans to proceed as they deem fit, or pique at the fact that the all-important goal of Mugabe's immediate exit from the scene would not have been achieved?

Mr. Blair ends his article with:

Britain endorsed this subversion of democracy and, astonishingly, senior officials cite Kenya as a recent success story. If the same unfolds in Zimbabwe, the Foreign Office will have no grounds for indignation. If prime minister Tsvangirai shows up at Downing Street, he will doubtless ask: "If this was good enough for Kenya, why not Zimbabwe too?"

Blair coyly avoids answering his own question but we all know why for the British, Mugabe is the Irredeembaly 'Bad African' Who Must Be Deposed At All Costs.

As so often happens, it was a reader responsdig to Blair's article that spoke that which Blair left unsaid:

Kibakism, as atrocious as it seems, does not compare to the entrenched evils of Mugabism: Kenya didn't expel British farmers, confiscate their land and property or terrorize them as Mugabe and his Zimbabwean gendarmes did.

Kibakism, unlike Mugabism, did not mastermind, orchstrate and execute large-scale ethnic cleansing of  minority opposition leaders, members, tribesmen and women. Ethnic conficts broke out to protest election
results supposedly rigged by the Kikuyu-tribe-dominated government; using instruments and powerful
infrastuctures of ethnic-electoral majoritarianism. Zimbabwe's bloody xenophobic, tribalistic machinery is
a year-round operation, unlike Kenya's seasonal rage.

The attempted distinctions between why Kibaki should be considered so much better than Mugabe are almost funny. The "large-scale ethnic cleansing of minority opposition leaders, members, tribesmen and women". the reader offers for the particular un-acceptability of Mugabe were official policy under Smith's Rhodesia and apartheid South Africa, but everyone gushed that the Africans were ever so incredibly noble for reconciling with their tormenters in a way the British would have us believe should now not at all be possible in Zimbabwe!

But I give the reader responding to Blair credit for being honest about why Mugabe is British Public Enemy Number One. Its not the usual sentimental fare of 'oh, those poor African oppressed and impoverished by one of their own, how terrible.'

Blair's article and the reader reaction to it are a refreshingly revealing and honest insight into just why Britain is so emotional about Zimbabwe, and about Mugabe in particular.

It ain't about human rights or democracy!

MT: “Mhoro Gushungo” RG: Mhoroi Save” MT: “Zvarema ka izvi?” RG: “Rume rimwe harikombi churu” MT: “Chara chimwe hachitswanyi inda” RG: “Waita basa wasaina” MT: “Ndanga ndichida kumbokupfidzisa” RG: “Usadaro mumwe wangu mangwana ndiwewo” MT: “Saka unoda package here?” RG: “Chero zvamareva, Save” MT: “ Ko Dynamos wakaiwona here?” RG: “Bhora futi mazuvano?” MT: “Eeh?” RG: “Kuona bhora rugare” MT: “Kuti zvasvika kupi? RG: “Vhunza mai Bona.” MT: “Zvichapera hazvo.” RG: “Ndinovimba kudaro” MT: “Ko Passport yangu?” RG: “Uchapuwa hako kana wotonga.” MT: “Nemhaka yei?” RG: “Ndaitya kuti unozonditiza wondisiira nyika iyi ndoga.” MT: “Iwe zvawakainda muMoza wakainda nepassport?” RG: “Hee hee! Unoti guma-guma Tangwena taimudii?” MT: “Eeh” Mbeki: “Gushungo, I told you he will sign.” RG: “Thanks Thabo. I owe you a farm.” MT: “Chinja Maitiro Gushungo.” RG: “Chakabaya chikatyokera.” MT: “Manje isu kuMDC, tinoti: mhunzwa unotumburwa nomumwe munzwa!” RG: “ Ngatiite braai ka paweekend.” MT: “Ndichaiziva here nyama?” Mbeki: “I will send some chakalaka wors!” Archbishop Ndlovu: “Ngatitsunzunyei tinamate” MT: “Handitsunzunyi kana Gushungo vari padhuze” Mbeki: “Wait bishop. I can draft another MOU for them to pray.” Archbishop: “Eeh. Zvakaoma sokunamata!”

Mugabe looked even more surly than usual. It seemed clear he had been brought there kicking and screaming by the circumstances of his own awkward and embarrassing recent self-coronation and the disgust of even many who have been his knee-jerk sympathisers. Mr. Mugabe did not at all look like a man who was in a triumphant or celebratory mood over the recent election which he "won" by being the only candidate. He was a sorry, sulky sight.

Tsvangirai was pictured grinning from ear to ear, not seeming to believe he was there at all and finally having to be taken seriously by a Mugabe he knows has utter contempt for him.

Arthur Mutambara was pictured in one of his usual bombastic poses, trying a little too hard to look powerful and dynamic. Here is a man who has done little or nothing to justify being taken seriously as a political player, but he somehow worked himself there. The handful of MPs of his small faction of the opposition are how he found himself there of course, but they do not offer any vision or ideological differences from Tsvangirai's MDC faction. Their participation in the talks will be mostly about making sure they are included in whatever spoils are parceled out: positions, cars and the other normal perks of the parasitic political class.

Poor Simba Makoni couldn't talk his way there, not helped by the poor showing of his upstart, formed-just-before-the-election political movement. Yet Makoni has been  insisting to anybody who would listen that he was central to the resolution of The Crisis. An AFP report:"I cannot explain my absence from that signing ceremony," the former finance minister told South African public radio, saying "many Zimbabweans" believed his movement should have a role in both the current talks and the future of the country.

"Many Zimbabweans" possibly being his family and hangers on who would have liked to have been there to simply be in the receiving line for any goodies that may be given out.

Thabo Mbeki played it surprisingly cool for a man seemingly on the brink of vindication after years of quietly suffering vilification for his insistence on "quiet diplomacy."

It was conspicuously an all-African affair despite the valiant failed efforts of Britain and the US to work their way to the center of determining how The Zimbabwe Crisis is resolved. They have all been calling for some kind of negotiated settlement, but it will be interesting to see if they will be happy with a settlement in which they do not dictate the terms!

Gordon Brown, the EU & Co. have also insisted they would not be happy with any deal in which Mugabe remained in power. There is approximately zero prospect of Mugabe agreeing to step down unceremoniously, or even to accept a window-dressing role, so it will also be interesting to hear what sputtering comes from those foreign quarters to a Zimbabwean-negotiated, South African-aided deal that offers much less than they hope: the final exit of a Mugabe who has been a thorn in their flesh, with what kind of ruler he has been for Zimbabweans being a very distant second consideration in their raw, emotional distaste of him. It would be entirely excusable to them if he was merely a despot but who did as he was told, but the man insists on hurling the Anglo-American foreign policy and historical hypocrisies in their faces.

But the worst panic and disappointment at even the slightest hint of moves to resolve The Zimbabwe Crisis will surely be felt by the British media. What on earth would The Daily Telegraph, The Times of London and the Guardian have to write about if Mugabe was taken away from them as a target of their hysteria? Where on earth would they find another such perfect villain to serve as the object of their deeply racial, post-colonial angst? That hysteria is not for the stated reason that Mugabe has become a repressive despot, which he is. His greater sin is being an African native who dares to speak and act towards the Western world like an equal of theirs!

The Western world has insisted their targeted sanctions against Mugabe and his henchmen have been to moderate their behaviour, a claimed goal that over the years has failed miserably. But just when for the first time Mugabe has felt the heat of world pressure and economic trouble at home to come to the negotiating table, the EU under Gordon Brown's pressure ups the sanctions ante! If sanctions are part of why Mugabe feels under pressure to now talk, how is increasing those sanctions at the point of

Talks don't mean mean Zimbabwe is out of the words. Many have mentioned how Mugabe's does not have a good record of negotiating in good faith, how he is accustomed to conceding little or nothing and why Tsvangirai should be on the alert for simply being co-opted as Mugabe has done with other opponents after first softening them up with ferocious violence.

There is also the considerable issue of the genuinely deep ideological divide between Mugabe and ZANU-PF on one hand and Tsvangirai and the MDC on the other. Kenya's coalition government may be an uneasy one, but there are at least no ideological differences between the two main partners the way there are in Zimbabwe. Nothing is impossible, but even if the two parties agree to give it a try, it is hard to imagine they could really live together for long as co-governing coalition. The many differences between them are vast, deep and wide.

But Zimbabwe is on its knees and desperately needs to stop the bleeding. Any chance to do that must be explored, no matter how great the obstacles to success seem.

Mugabe about to enter into a two week discussion with Morgan Tsvangirai, two weeks which Mugabe will no doubt drag out six months all the while dictating the actions of the stormtroopers out to crush the opposition. A great deal of almost nervous perhaps hysterical laughter accompanied the handshaking at the press conference a definite fearful edge to it all. Not I think a sign of a good start. Perhaps it was just nerves but Mugabe's body language certainly made me think of the story of the scorpion and frog, as the frog ferried the scorpion across the river the scorpion turned on the frog and stung him. As the frog was dying he asked "why"? pointing out the scorpion would die too. "It's my nature" replied the scorpion, and the body language and look of Mugabe gave off that same evil intent as though he was simply waiting to entrap Tsvangirai.

I've looked at the memorandum of understanding and have added it at the bottom of this article, there does seem to be some contradictions. Mugabe's insistence that he is legally ratified as the democratically elected president and allowed to keep the powers of the presidential office appeared to be a major stumbling block. Perhaps all he is now looking for is a dignified and safe way out, no doubt taking with him a few trillion Zimbabwean dollars.

Let's hope we are now witnessing the endgame and the once fertile breadbasket of Africa will soon be on its way to recovery. Somehow I doubt that Mugabe will let go of power so easily.

Memorandum of understanding

The deal says power-sharing talks between President Robert Mugabe's Zanu-PF and the opposition MDC should be completed within two weeks.

South African officials said the talks would begin immediately.

Meanwhile, EU officials said they were extending sanctions against allies of Mr Mugabe, adding 37 names to the list of 131 people subject to a travel ban and assets freeze.

The signing ceremony, which MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai described as "historic", was the first time he had met Mr Mugabe in a decade.

On Tuesday, he said in a statement that the deal "offers the most tangible opportunity in the past 10 years to improve the lives of our fellow citizens".

"But our signatures alone do not guarantee that we will be able to make the most of this opportunity," he warned...

Click for more info

Finally - some movement in Zimbabwe. The Mugabe regime has agreed to substantive talks in Harare over the next two weeks with the opposition MDC. A key issue on the table is reportedly a power sharing agreement.   President Thabo Mbeki appears finally to have achieved something.

But let's not all get too excited.

A lot of work needs to be done.

Top of my list is Mugabe's recognition of the MDC's parliamentary majority. Also important is the role of the AU and UN in assisting Mbeki mediate the talks.

I'd also like the AU and SADeC to state on record that rejection and/or manipulation of  the process and results of democratic elections will not be tolerated. The farce of Kenya's and Zimbabwe's recent polls is a blight on the reputation of Africa and specifically the AU. 

Hold thumbs everyone - the future of the region is at stake.

Zimbabwe's principal political protagonists, Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai, have signed an agreement which establishes a framework for substantive negotiations to end the country's political crisis.

South African foreign affairs spokesman, Ronnie Mamoepa, confirmed this in a statement issued from Harare Monday.

But there is some encouraging news about if you look hard enough. My landlord's wife, Gill, told me this morning that they'd been to Imire Game Park near Marondera over the weekend to see their son who is managing the game and lodge. A power that is had been recently to assure them that the negative publicity about Imire (slaughtered rhinos etc.) had to stop and actually saw off some "war vets" (hired thugs) whilst he was there. By all accounts the training camps for the youths who terrorized the rural areas before the last election have also been disbanded.

I must admit that this is the furthest down a negotiated settlement road that we have ever been but we have seen our hopes dashed too many times to get excited just yet. We'll just have to wait and see.

Das Mediatorenteam besteht aus dem südafrikanischen Präsidenten Thabo Mbeki, einem Vertreter der UN, einem der Afrikanischen Union (AU) sowie einem der regionalen Staatengemeinschaft (SADC). Kofi Annan, ehemaliger UN Generalsekretär, der bereits in Kenia in der Nachwahlkrise erfolgreich vermittelt hatte, bot sich „als Afrikaner“ an, auch hier seinen Beitrag zu leisten. Ursprünglich sollte der Präsident Südafrikas alleiniger Mediator sein. Doch die MDC hatte Angst, Mbeki würde zu einseitig für Mugabe Stellung beziehen.

Es ist nicht unüblich, daß eine Mediation nicht nur von einem Mediator, sondern von einem Mediatorenteam geleitet wird. Typisch sind besonders schwierige Fälle oder solche, bei denen mehrere Medianten verschiedene Positionen einnehmen (etwa wenn sich die Kommunalverwaltung, Anwohner, Geschäftsinhaber, Bauern, Umweltgruppen, etc. über die Frage einer neuen Umgehungsstraße streiten).

Unüblich ist es jedoch, daß eine Mediation durch einen für parteiisch gehaltenen Mediator durchgeführt wird. Es darf bezweifelt werden, daß niemand anderes als Präsident Mbeki für die Aufgabe geeignet und bereit gewesen wäre. Offenbar aber hat sich die MDC mit der neuen Konstellation von Mediatoren abgefunden. Es bleibt allen Beteiligten zu wünschen, daß die Mediation erfolgreich verlaufen und am Ende nicht an der Frage der möglichen Parteilichkeit des Mediators scheitern wird.

Quelle: Tages Anzeiger

GNUs can work to the benefit of the country involved if they are an intentional result of democratic elections.  For instance, in South Africa, after the first inclusive election where the ANC won overwhelming support, they chose to appoint some former Apartheid Government representatives as Cabinet Ministers and included the Inkatha Freedom Party leader, Mangosutho Buthelezi too.  That worked well enough, but there was no dispute about the election results in that case.  It did not take long for the remnant of the white National Party to throw in the towel and join the ANC or other parties.  The former whites-only National Party no longer exists in South Africa.

In Kenya, the incumbent, Mwai Kibaki was accused of rigging the election.  He won, but the opposition took to the streets and in bloody violence, more than 1000 people died.  Kofi Annan negotiated a deal where Kibaki stayed as President and his rival, Raila Odinga was made Prime Minister and the Cabinet was more or less doubled to allow for all the top echelon of both parties to "share power".

It's wasteful to double up the number of Cabinet Ministers, and poor countries like Kenya can ill afford the luxury.  Every sitting Minister must be provided with staff, cars, houses and so forth.  The situation lends itself to the elite living the high life at the expense of the poor, and does not lead to good or efficient governance.

In Zimbabwe, the situation is not like Kenya in that the dividing line between the parties is not along tribal lines.  Both Mugabe and Tsvangirai are Shonas, and both the ZANU-PF and MDC parties have members from all ethnic and racial groups.

For Robert Mugabe and the ZANU-PF party, the writing has been on the wall for nearly a decade.  ZANU-PF has been holding elections on a regular basis, but their conduct has become increasingly questionable, and finally it has become obvious that the electoral process is just a sham to keep Mugabe and ZANU-PF in power.  Even according to the official results, ZANU-PF lost to the MDC party, and Tsvangirai garnered more votes than Mugabe for President.  The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission held back the results of the March 29 election for so long that most commentators consider it obvious that behind the scenes the results were being doctored.  Eventually they released the result that Tsvangirai had indeed won more votes than Mugabe, but that neither candidate had won the 50% plus one vote needed for outright victory.  MDC claims that that is untrue and that Tsvangirai won around 70% of the vote.

There are several reasons why ZANU-PF wants to hang on to the Presidency and has accepted that they lost their majority in Parliament.  Firstly, the President gets to appoint a number of unelected members of the Senate.  Secondly, it is relatively easy to change the balance of power in Parliament via by-elections.  It's easy enough to arrange for 10 to 20 MDC MPs to disappear, hold by-elections and ensure that the results are in favour of ZANU-PF.

So, Mugabe has been sworn in as President of Zimbabwe for the sixth time.  This time, however, is different.  A number of African countries have stated outright that his Presidency is illegitimate.  The EU, USA, UK and many other countries have not recognised Mugabe or ZANU-PF as the legitimate, duly elected representatives of the Zimbabwe people.  The Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the Pan-African Parliament election observers have unequivocally stated that the elections were not free or fair.  The African Union has made their boldest statement yet against Mugabe and ZANU-PF, although the wording of their statement was insipid by most standards.  Nevertheless, Mugabe knows that he does not enjoy the unconditional support and adulation from the rest of Africa that he formerly enjoyed.

Hopefully, Zimbabwe is the turning point for African Democracy.  Hopefully, this time there will not be compromise at all points.  According to Zimbabwe law, Tsvangirai should have been sworn in as President when no run-off had occurred within 15 days of the original election.  A GNU is a poor result for the people of Zimbabwe who have had enough of Mugabe and ZANU-PF and want them out of power.  One can argue that Tsvangirai isn't up to the job and that without Mugabe and/or various other ZANU-PF people in positions of power that the military and militias will not accept a change in government.

Well, Nelson Mandela made the point recently that the military forces are there to serve the country, not to be involved in politics.  Settling for a GNU in Zimbabwe because the Generals have made claims that they will never server anyone but Mugabe is a poor show for Democracy in Africa.

Rather than settle for some sort of "power sharing" the MDC would do better to continue to occupy the high moral ground, set up a government in exile, and take the struggle for democracy to the countries surrounding Zimbabwe, and the capitals of the world.  It's only a matter of time before the harsh economic realities cause ZANU-PF to implode, break up into smaller factions and cease to be a force in Zimbabwe politics.  The support, real or imagined, that ZANU-PF currently gets from Pretoria will evaporate in 9 to 10 months.  The collapse of the Mugabe regime is only a matter of time, and Mbeki's time is up in April 2009, so the intransigence of South Africa in the UN and elsewhere is likely to end then, or even earlier.

There are two opinions about whether Mugabe and other top ZANU-PF people should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.  The one argument is that they should be granted immunity and allowed to retire with handsome pensions.  The other is that they should be hauled off to The Hague and brought before the International Court.  The proponents of the first approach claim that it is pragmatic and will lead to a quicker resolution of the Zimbabwe situation and lead to earlier relief of the suffering of the ordinary Zimbabwean.  Those who favour the second approach claim that leaders who brutalise their fellow humans should not be allowed to get away with it.  The second approach does seem to be gaining ground in Africa, and former dictators are getting tickets to The Hague.  Should expedience triumph over justice?  What will stop future leaders from doing the same?  There are thousands of young Zimbabweans who have been conscripted to do the dirty work of the ZANU-PF leaders who are now damaged by their involvement.  What is going to turn them around and help them to deal with their violent past?  Certainly not seeing their leaders get away scot free.  Accountability is going to be a big part of the rehabilitation of Zimbabwe.  Some form of Truth and Reconciliation process will be necessary to re-integrate the lowest levels of militia thugs into society.  Those higher up the command chain ought to be held accountable for their actions and dealt with accordingly.  What happens in Zimbabwe will affect the progress of Democracy in Africa.  If we allow crimes against humanity to go unpunished, when will the brutality ever stop?

Click on to hear my opinion and a video of the UK ambassador's statement.

I feel like a veto is a sign of failure within the Security Council. I am most surprised at the veto on Russia's part due to President Medvedev's overwhelming support for the G8's position on the situation. I am not entirely surprised by China, but still support in the time of dire consequences would have been noted by the international community. Their basis of their veto on the situation not being a threat to international security is a grave misunderstanding seeing as similar situations in the past have frequently proved to threaten the stability of the sub-region. The need for removal of Mugabe's government or a joint government with the winner Mr. Tsvangirai of a fair election in March is an immediate concern. Also the need for an arms embargo and the unblocking of humanitarian supplies is on the forefront in this draft resolution. I hope that a resolution will be a approved very soon to stop the humanitarian crisis and illegitimate government in Zimbabwe.

Here is a link to the UK ambassador's statement to the Security Council and one that I feel is very well said even if it might step on a few toes it needed to be said.

Russia and China vetoed proposed sanctions on Zimbabwe's leaders Friday, rejecting U.S. efforts to step up punitive measures against the authoritarian regime after a widely discredited presidential election.

Western powers mustered nine votes, the minimum needed to gain approval in the 15-nation council. But the resolution pushed by the Bush administration failed because of the action by two of the five veto-wielding permanent members.

The other three states with veto power - the U.S., Britain and France - argued that sanctions were needed to respond to the state-sanctioned violence and intimidation against opponents of President Robert Mugabe before and after Zimbabwe's recent presidential election.

The proposal would have imposed an international travel ban and freeze on personal assets of Mugabe and 13 key officials.

Russian U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said sanctions would have taken the U.N. beyond its mandate in trying to punish political disputes by "artificially elevating them to the level of a threat" to international peace and security.

Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya, whose nation is one of Zimbabwe's major trading partners, also expressed fears of nation-tinkering and said Zimbabwe was should be left to conduct its own talks on how to resolve its political crisis.

"The development of the situation in Zimbabwe until now has not exceeded the context of domestic affairs," Wang said. "It will unavoidably interfere with the negotiation process."

South Africa, a Zimbabwe neighbor that holds one of the council's non-permanent seats, led the opposition to the sanctions, arguing that Zimbabwe is not a threat to international peace.

Supporters of the resolution had counted Burkina Faso's Ambassador Michel Kafando as the crucial swing vote. "As a means of exerting pressure, it could help," he said of the sanctions resolution before the vote.

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad expressed disappointment and said he found it "disturbing" that China joined with Russia.

In London, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband criticized the veto, saying that "it will appear incomprehensible to the people of Zimbabwe."

The action put an end for now to efforts to apply more international pressure on Mugabe's regime and force it to share power with the opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai.

Both sides say they are willing to share power, if only during a transition to new elections, but differ on who should lead it. The long-ruling ZANU-PF party wants Mugabe at the head, something the opposition and Mugabe's critics in the West have rejected.

Article by John Heilprin

iNPLACENEWS

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

So, what will happen to the economy when either a transitional government is formed, or the MDC gains effective control of Zimbabwe? 

The MDC has already indicated that they will engage the IMF and World Bank to help Zimbabwe out of the economic doldrums.  Britain, the US and the EU have all promised "massive" aid to Zimbabwe conditional on Mugabe and Zanu(PF) stepping down.

The question, "What strings are attached?" should be asked.  As soon as Mugabe retires, dies or is pushed out, there will be a rush of speculators wanting to make a quick buck in Zimbabwe.  In fact, Lonrho has already started a new fund based on buying commercial property in Zimbabwe.  Mining companies already have plans to expand their operations in Zimbabwe.

During the Cold War era, Africa was the playing ground of the Superpowers.  They jockeyed for influence and did deals with dictators who make Mugabe look like a Sunday School teacher.  After the 1970s oil crisis, the West was awash with cash, and huge loans were made to African countries with few questions asked.  In many cases, the money went directly to Swiss bank accounts belonging to the corrupt rulers of various Africa countries.

Eventually, the original despots, like Mobutu Sese Seko and Idi Amin were deposed, and the lenders came looking for repayment of their loans.  Even though the countries involved received little benefit from the loans, they have been forced to repay enormous amounts of interest.  Loans have been hugely inflated over the years by rollovers and interest on interest.  Some African countries spend up to 60% of their GDP servicing loans.  Since the 1980s, the IMF and World Bank have forced their "structural adjustment" programmes upon debtor nations, in the process further impoverishing Africa's poor people.  Before these programmes were implemented, most African countries operated according to a form of benign socialism and their industries were mostly driven by import-replacement strategies.  The average African's per-capita income was steadily increasing.  Since the structural adjustment programmes, the value of currencies has plummeted, per-capita income has dropped to pre-1960s levels and life expectancy has also been drastically reduced.

Of late, meetings of the G8 result in a great deal of hand-wringing over Africa's woes, and promises of increased aid for African countries are made.  Of course, it's one thing to make promises, and quite another to pay over the cash.  Only a tiny fraction of the promised aid ever reaches the poor nations of Africa.

The total amount of economic aid to Africa is only a fraction of the total amount of debt repayments that African nations are making to the IMF, World Bank, foreign governments and private companies for loans incurred decades ago by the likes of Idi Amin.  Rich nations seem to be blind to the hypocracy of bleeding poor nations to death (literally in many cases) by demanding repayment of loans that in fact have already been repayed many times over in real terms while making empty promises of "aid" to alleviate the human suffering that is directly caused by the debt repayments.

Whomever takes over from Mugabe and regardless of which political party or parties are tasked with ruling Zimbabwe, they should strenuously avoid accepting any loans that have onerous strings attached.  At this point, few Zimbabweans have anything to lose, and incurring debt that future generations will be forced to repay just perpetuates the injustices of colonialism.  Those who wish to assist Zimbabwe to rebuild itself as a democratic nation should be willing to give generously without imposing self-serving conditions to their donations.  Any loans that are arranged should be realistic and directly beneficial to Zimbabwe's citizens.

The future rulers of Zimbabwe would be well advised to take no responsibility for any debt incurred by the Mugabe regime and to insist on starting with a clean slate.  They will be well advised to steer clear of World Bank and IMF advisors that try to force them to adopt Milton Friedman's Big Business-friendly economic theories that have so clearly failed to lift any Third World country out of poverty.  Instead of co-opting the economic failures of the Western World, they should adopt a "Zimbabwe First" economic policy that leverages Zimbabwe's rich natural resources to create wealth for Zimbabwe's citizens, and no longer for the wealthy former colonial powers and particularly the corporate interests that are the de-facto governments of those former colonial powers.

All indications so far are that Morgan Tsvangirai is somewhat naive about matters of economics and somewhat ignorant of how the Global Village is run.  Hopefully this will be rectified if the MDC rises to power in Zimbabwe.

While that might suit Mutambara and Zanu(PF), it ignores the reality that the larger MDC led by Morgan Tsvangirai won 99 of the 210 seats in the Zimbabwe parliament and Tsvangirai won the most votes in the March 29 presidential election.

Clearly, Tsvangirai's MDC has the support of a majority of Zimbabwe's voters.

What are the MDC's options?

They can choose to flounder around and hope that Zanu(PF) regime collapses soon.  They can hope that a negotiator other than South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki is appointed soon.  They can try to survive for the next ten months or so until a new Parliament and President are sworn in in South Africa.

What does appear to be happening is that Zanu(PF) is quietly going about executing a plan to neutralise MDC as a viable opponent.  It's not necessary to round up all the MDC elected officials and party leaders and kill them, although some of them will probably be eliminated that way.  All that Zanu(PF) has to do is imprison and harrass MPs so that they are unable to put in an appearance in Parliment for more than 21 days.  That will result in the absent MP being automatically unseated and a by-election held in the vacant constitution.  Zanu(PF) can then concentrate their efforts on winning the by-election.

The indications are that Zanu(PF) wants to ensure that if and when any future elections are held, that the MDC will be a spent force and no threat to the re-election of the incumbent party.

While it is possible that Thabo Mbeki's intentions are entirely honourable and that he will do his level best to broker an inclusive deal with all the Zimbabwean parties, it's also possible that his game plan is to drag things out for long enough for Zimbabwe to drop off the radar.  Once Zimbabwe is not longer a front page story, the world's interest will soon enough dissapate.  Since this is a black versus black issue, the same moral indignation that kept the anti-apartheid activists going just isn't there.

Perhaps the MDC should learn from the South African experience.  The African National Congress (ANC) was opposed by a hostile and well armed regime in South Africa.  The whites-only National Party did their utmost to wipe out the ANC.  Some were killed by undercover agents of the state, some were imprisoned, tortured, subject to house arrest and some were slapped with banning orders that restricted their rights to travel and attend meetings and the like.  The ANC's response was to set up a government in exile and to establish and support resistance groups within South Africa's borders.  The Trade Unions were mobilised against Apartheid and the United Democratic Front (UDF) was launched.  The ANC set up offices in various Western and former Soviet Union countries and mobilised support for their cause.

The ANC and the MDC causes share other similarities.  The ANC sought to bring democracy to South Africa.  The MDC is faced by a ruling party that does not care about the democratic rights of the people and uses elections just to give it a democratic facade.  The ANC fought to bring democratic rights to all South Africans and negotiated a new constitution to facilitate that.  The process followed in South Africa was to set up an interim government, engage in formal negotiations with all parties to draw up a constitution and hold credible, inclusive elections that were monitored by both civil society and foreign observers.

With the ongoing violence being perpetrated on the people of Zimbabwe, and the unlikeliness of South Africa putting meaningful pressure on Mugabe and Zanu(PF) to stop the violence any time soon, perhaps the MDC should consider the ANC model.

That would involve setting up a government in exile.  Lusaka comes to mind as a suitable venue, and Zambia has been one of the few African countries that has declared Mugabe's presidency to be illegitimate.  They could send delegates to the AU and the UN and set up offices in London, Washington DC, Stockholm, Brussels, The Hague and other strategic cities.  Then they can lobby for support in Africa and the rest of the World and organise resistance to the Zanu(PF) regime both outside of Zimbabwe and within her borders.

Given the intransigence of Mugabe and his allies, the ANC model might be the best option that the MDC has.

Then there is candidate number 2, Morgan Tsvangirai who 'represents' Zimbabwe's future. But I do not trust him! Here is the man who went to Western leaders and begged them to put sanctions on his own people in order to put the pressure on the Zimbabwean government, inadvertently leading to tougher times for ordinary Zimbabweans. He claims any murder person as being a MDC supporter who was murdered by Mugabe's people. It is a great time to commit murder in Zimbabwe, we will just blame it on 'Mugabe's hooligans'. Sure some are true stories but I believe Tsvangirai is a sociopath and knows how to play with peoples emotions because he knows they will believe anything that he says. Then he goes and runs to the Dutch embassy and makes a scene while leaving about how the reason why he seeked refuge there was because he feared for his safety. Im pretty sure if Mugabe or his supporters didn't kill him for treason after a tape was recovered that showed Tsvangirai discussing getting rid of Mugabe, if you know what I mean, I am pretty sure he is as safe as anyone in Zimbabwe.

Then comes the stunt where he pulls out of the run-off elections because he feared the safety of his supporters. I almost fell for that one until he refused to be involved in talks with Thabo Mbeki and Mugabe to form a unified government with Tsvangirai but he refused. Mbeki then had talks discussing the next solution which was to allow Mugabe to stay as the head of nation and allow Tsvangirai to be the Prime Minister and have more power than Mugabe until a new constitution was formed and new elections were held... but guess who wasn't there again, Tsvangirai but someone else was there, someone who hasnt been in the public eye for quite some time, Arthur Mutambara. And no, I am not related to him!

Arthur Mutambara, the leader of a faction of the MDC seems like a good option at the moment despite him not progressing in the election process. He is simple, reader to embrace national unity, something we trully need right now, not scared to compliment and criticize the other candidates. He was a student leader in the 1980's and he seems like the only person who is not playing games with Zimbabwean people. There is still much to be seen from him because he is not a very high profile person and seems to always be behind the scenes and maybe that is what Zimbabwe needs at the moment, someone who is too busy working hard for his people to be infront of the camera's playing games and making false promises and hopes.

Having said all this, would I vote? No, Zimbabwe is in a temperamental state and people like me who are outside should get off their high horses and let the people who are actually in Zimbabwe to have the last say.

Da die Inflation dort zwei Millionen Prozent beträgt und täglich weiter steigt, ist das Geld in kürzester Zeit nichts mehr wert. Das bedeutet Hunger, Elend und Armut für die Bevölkerung in dem einst so reichen Land.

Mugabe hat es gründlich herabgewirtschaftet und sich selbst dabei maßlos bereichert. Auch seiner verschwendungssüchtigen Frau und seinen Getreuen dürfte es ziemlich gut gehen.

Und sie meinen, dass es ihnen zusteht, sie sind die Herrschenden, sie haben die Macht. Es ist ihnen egal, welches Leid das einfache Volk ertragen muss, dieses hat zu dienen und zu gehorchen.

Die Lektion der letzten Wahl will Mugabe nicht lernen, wozu auch, er hat jahrzehntelang das Zepter geschwungen und wird dies weiterhin tun, er kann nicht mehr anders, denn er hätte alles zu verlieren. Das Land gehört ihm, daran zweifelt er nicht, die letzte Wahl ist für ihn inakzeptabel, dieser Tsvangirai ein Aufrührer, der nur seinen Platz will, ein Zerstörer seiner Geltung und Autorität.

Und das Volk wagt es sogar noch, Tsvangirai zu wählen, also muss es zu seinem Schiedsspruch gezwungen werden. Mit Milizen wurden die Einwohner erneut zu den Urnen geprügelt, Banden gingen von Haus zu Haus und bedrohten diejenigen, die Mugabe nicht wählen wollten.

Angst und Schrecken hat Mugabe verbreiten lassen, nicht nur seine Militärs, auch von ihm bezahlte Jugendliche marodieren durch die Städte und Dörfer, misshandeln die Menschen, schikanieren und jagen sie, peinigen und vertreiben sie. Ihre Häuser werden zerstört und niedergebrannt, ein würdiges Leben ist unmöglich. Etliche wurden inhaftiert und in den auf die Schnelle errichteten Folterlagern gequält, auch vor Morden schreckt man nicht zurück. Zanu-Anhänger und MDC-Anhänger sind nun verfeindet und bekriegen sich. Auf allen Seiten wird es immer martialischer.

Verwüstet und kaputt sind die alten Seelen, zu lange haben sie gelitten und erduldet, enthemmt und hitzköpfig die jungen, sie kennen nichts anderes als Gewalt, Zwang und Rechtlosigkeit. Zudem haben die Leute im Land kaum Arbeit und auch Aids ist zu einem erheblichen Problem geworden.

Und jede Hoffnung auf Besserung und Frieden rückt in weite Ferne.

Welch ein Trauerspiel und die Welt schaut zu.

Die Afrikanische Union schafft es leider bisher nicht, sich gemeinsam dieser Verantwortung zu stellen. Sie wären in der Lage, die Tragödie in Simbabwe mit kluger Diplomatie zu beenden und einen unblutigen Kompromiss zu finden.

Der afrikanische Kontinent hat eine solche Energie und Kraft. Wenn sie nur wollten und alles endlich in eine konstruktive Richtung lenken würden. Aber sie legitimieren Mugabe immer noch als Staatschef. Anscheinend wollen sie seinen Wandel vom Freiheitskämpfer zum Diktator nicht wahrhaben, die Kolonialzeit steckt ihnen verständlicherweise immer noch in den Knochen.

Eine komplizierte Situation für den Westen und Sanktionen würden natürlich zum größten Teil die Bevölkerung treffen.

Aber dieser Schwierigkeit zum Trotz wurde für Mugabe pausenlos und zuverlässig frisches Geld nachgedruckt und geliefert, damit er seine Schergen für ihre repressiven Handlungen und den Terror entlohnen, sich Waffen besorgen und Loyalitäten erkaufen kann.

Und ausgerechnet aus dem beschaulichen München kommt das Geld.

Geschäftspartner dieser deutschen Firma genießen ein unbegrenztes Vertrauen und das Geschäft floriert zu allen Zeiten, mit jedem, der bezahlt. Außerdem druckt niemand so viele Euros wie dieser diskrete Banknotenhersteller.

Erstaunlich, dass es Mugabe überhaupt so willkommen war, hatte doch neulich einer seiner Regierungssprecher verlauten lassen, der Westen kann sich tausendmal aufhängen.

Oder sollen wir uns deshalb aufhängen?

Vor ein paar Tagen hat das Unternehmen Giesecke und Devrient die Lieferungen von Banknotenpapier nach Simbabwe gestoppt, auf Forderung der Bundesregierung, aber erst nachdem dieser Fall publik wurde.

Ein schaler Beigeschmack von Heuchelei bleibt.

]]> http://socialeanimale.wordpress.com/?p=159 Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:28:40 +0000 umanesimo http://socialeanimale.wordpress.com/?p=159 Durante il summit tenutosi a Sharm el-Sheikh i leaders dell'Unione Africana hanno approvato una risoluzione che chiede alle parti in causa di trovare un accordo per un governo di unità nazionale nello Zimbabwe.
Il portavoce di Mugabe ha respinto l'invito dicendo che non vi sarà alcuna soluzione della crisi sul modello keniano ( lì si è formato un governo di unità nazionale) e che nonostante l'Occidente dica il contrario le elezioni sono state regolari.
Anche il segretario generale del partito d'opposizione (l'Mdc) Tendai Biti, che nel suo paese deve far fronte alle accuse di tradimento, ha detto che dopo le false elezioni della settimana scorsa , deve considerata eliminata ogni prospettiva di un accordo tramite negoziato.
Appare chiaro che ci vorrà ben altro che una risoluzione dell'UA per trovare una soluzione alla crisi.

Gli Stati Uniti hanno proposto una bozza di risoluzione al Consiglio di Sicurezza dell'ONU che chiede di imporre sanzioni allo Zimbabwe, mentre l'Italia ha richiamato il proprio ambasciatore per consultazioni.

vedi anche il forum Storia e politica

Why Robert Why Please go, you have proved that you can be tough one to crack but your time is nigh.