Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe
If diplomacy fails, should neighbouring countries like South Africa intervene militarily in Zimbabwe to ensure election results are respected? My instinct is no. I took part twice in demos against the invasion of Iraq. But on the other hand if the MDC declared victory in the election and thus claimed to be the newly-elected government, and then asked for military help to oust Mugabe and his fellow kleptocrats, would they be entitled to it? I'm not sure and would be interested to know what others think. Mugabe may not be as bad as Saddam Hussein, but he is still pretty evil. For instance: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6275152.stm

Unfortunately I think it's got to the stage where someone needs to step in. I would prefer the UN, but if it is SA then so be it. Mugabe has lost the election, but is now using force to try and remain in power. Inflation is rife, and there is growing unrest. The situation as it stands, cannot continue for much longer. My fear is that unless the UN steps in, there will be a bloody civil war, and we all know what they have done in Africa before.

The thing is, we don't know that he has lost the election. It seems extremely likely that he has (hence the delay) but until results are announced we can't know. Constitutionally a clear majority is required for the election of a President. If no majority exists, a run-off must take place. Even if the MDC have a plurality of votes they may not actually have won outright and hence could theoretically still lose. We don't know until the results come in. I strongly suspect that the MDC do have an outright majority of votes and that that is the reason for the delay. I don't know. There might be a point at which intervention was justified, but I don't feel qualified to judge whether Zimbabwe is at that point. It is also absolutely imperative that Britain is not involved in any intervention. That would only bolster Mugabe's support and hence make any intervention extremely difficult to manage.

The situation as it stands, cannot continue for much longer. My fear is that unless the UN steps in, there will be a bloody civil war, and we all know what they have done in Africa before. It could happen. The Zimbabweans have been very patient over the years, but that might not continue. The thing is, we don't know that he has lost the election. It seems extremely likely that he has (hence the delay) but until results are announced we can't know. Constitutionally a clear majority is required for the election of a President. If no majority exists, a run-off must take place. Even if the MDC have a plurality of votes they may not actually have won outright and hence could theoretically still lose. True, but in the last few days there have been newspaper reports of uniformed police cadets filling in thousands of extra voting slips for Mugabe and using them to replace genuine votes for Tsvangirai; of plans to extend the 21 day deadline for the run-off to three months by presidential decree; and of army plans for organised intimidation during that period. Under these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the MDC now say they won't contest any run-off poll that is announced. There might be a point at which intervention was justified, but I don't feel qualified to judge whether Zimbabwe is at that point. Actually, that is my main interest. When is armed intervention justified, if ever? How do we decide that? It is also absolutely imperative that Britain is not involved in any intervention. That would only bolster Mugabe's support and hence make any intervention extremely difficult to manage. I completely agree with you there. Mugabe has consistently tried to paint all his opponents as being in the pay of the evil British colonialists. Any British involvement would let him say that he was right all along, and inevitably some people would believe him. Therefore Britain can't be involved in anything of the sort. That leaves South Africa, but judging by Mbeki's reluctance to say anything even mildly hurtful to Mugabe, I think we can rule them out too. The Zambian government seems to have grasped the seriousness of the situation, but I don't imagine that they are in a position to do anything militarily on their own, even if they wanted to.

The thing is, we don't know that he has lost the election. It seems extremely likely that he has (hence the delay) but until results are announced we can't know. Constitutionally a clear majority is required for the election of a President. If no majority exists, a run-off must take place. Even if the MDC have a plurality of votes they may not actually have won outright and hence could theoretically still lose. True, but in the last few days there have been newspaper reports of uniformed police cadets filling in thousands of extra voting slips for Mugabe and using them to replace genuine votes for Tsvangirai; of plans to extend the 21 day deadline for the run-off to three months by presidential decree; and of army plans for organised intimidation during that period. Under these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the MDC now say they won't contest any run-off poll that is announced. I think I should clarify that I don't believe for a minute that Mugabe hasn't lost. However, outside observers have indicated that they expect a run-off and official figures aren't available. Hence, we don't know whether he has lost outright. There might be a point at which intervention was justified, but I don't feel qualified to judge whether Zimbabwe is at that point. Actually, that is my main interest. When is armed intervention justified, if ever? How do we decide that? It is also absolutely imperative that Britain is not involved in any intervention. That would only bolster Mugabe's support and hence make any intervention extremely difficult to manage. I completely agree with you there. Mugabe has consistently tried to paint all his opponents as being in the pay of the evil British colonialists. Any British involvement would let him say that he was right all along, and inevitably some people would believe him. Therefore Britain can't be involved in anything of the sort. That leaves South Africa, but judging by Mbeki's reluctance to say anything even mildly hurtful to Mugabe, I think we can rule them out too. The Zambian government seems to have grasped the seriousness of the situation, but I don't imagine that they are in a position to do anything militarily on their own, even if they wanted to. Mbeki tends to view Mugabe as a freedom fighter. The one certainty is that he won't bow to British pressure to intervene (other than possibly gunpoint pressure, which certainly isn't on the agenda). Ideally intervention would be organised by the African Union. Failing that, the UN is the obvious body. That raises the question of whether Britain should vote in favour of action or whether it would be better (for the sake of the intervention mission) to abstain.

Mbeki tends to view Mugabe as a freedom fighter. Yes, either Mbeki thinks Mugabe's past record of fighting the Ian Smith regime entitles him to do whatever he likes, or he believes Mugabe's guff about Zimbabwe's problems all being the fault of evil scheming colonialists. If it isn't either of these things, then Mbeki must simply be completely spineless. It is interesting that however broke any country is, its rulers never have difficulty finding the cash to buy weapons. I was very heartened that the shipload of Chinese weapons bought by Mugabe's 'government' has had to sail away from South Africa because (a) the dockworkers refused to unload it and (b) the High Court then ruled that the weapons couldn't be transported across South Africa anyway. It was a reminder that at least in South Africa it isn't just the whims of the President that matter: public opinion counts as well, and so does the law. which docked in South Africa

Zimbabwe
The situation in Zimbabwe has deteriorated seriously in the last few days. As Liberals, we surely must be angered by the latest actions of Robert Mugabe. But what should be done and who should do it? At long last it seems that the patience of African leaders with Mugabe is running out. Surely eventually we can hope that there will be democratic change in Zimbabwe, but what price will its people have to pay to achieve it?

The pressure on Mugabe has to come from African leaders and especially South Africa. There certainly have been signs of this but I think the test of how angry the rest of southern Africa is with Zimbabwe after this fraud of a presidential election is over with. Now that Tsvangirai has pullled out Zimbabweans best hope would be that the result is as ridiculous as possible so that other African countries could never take it seriously.

The pressure on Mugabe has to come from African leaders and especially South Africa. There certainly have been signs of this but I think the test of how angry the rest of southern Africa is with Zimbabwe after this fraud of a presidential election is over with. Now that Tsvangirai has pullled out Zimbabweans best hope would be that the result is as ridiculous as possible so that other African countries could never take it seriously. Mugabe, having been 'inaugurated', has apparently now offered 'serious talks' to the opposition. Nobody in their right mind would believe this for a moment. The best he would offer would be some poweless vice-presidential post to split and neutralise the opposition. However, many of the African Union leaders will probably grasp at the offer as if it Mugabe meant it. They don't know what to do about Zimbabwe, and this offer plays to their desire to be let off the hook. If the MDC have any sense they will forget the AU meeting, and rapidly exploit two assets: (a) the general goodwill of the outside world and (b) the fact that the Presidents of Botswana and Zambia are now seriously anti-Mugabe. 1) The MDC should rapidly establish a powerful radio transmitter within Botswana or Zambia to let people throughout Zimbabwe know what is going on. (One of the main problems for the opposition has been that ZANU-PF controls the state-owned media and the surviving independent papers aren't allowed to be distributed outside the big cities.) 2) The MDC should declare that under the terms of the Zimbabwe constitution Tsvangirai is now President, and hold an inauguration ceremony. (According to a forum I read yesterday a law centre in South Africa has demonstrated this. The constitution says that there must be a run-off election if no candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, BUT that if the run-off isn't held within 21 days then the top-scoring candidate from the first round becomes President anyway.) 3) President Tsvangirai should form an MDC-led government-in-exile in Botswana or Zambia, and invite the recognition of foreign governments. This would ratchet up the pressure on Mugabe.

View Full Version: Zimbabwe