Is the USA justified in throwing its weight around to impose sanctions against Mugabe?

If you are a true follower of my blog, you would probably think that I have this immense hatred towards the USA. Surprisingly, that is wrong. I consider the USA as my second home. A beautiful country with so much different character. Miami is definitely not the same as Greenfield, NH or even Huddleston, VA. The only 'problem' (this word portrays too much emotion) I have is with the failing foreign policy of the Bush administration and the war on terror, which includes the way in which Guantanamo Bay is run.

After reading an interesting editorial in today's (21 July 2008) New York Times called 'Failing Zimbabwe' I thought about the USA involvement in international peace and security, especially relating to the situation in Zimbabwe. The author of this article states that the USA's suggested sanctions against top officials is definitely the route to go and that although the Bush foreign policy is a failure, that he (Bush) is justified in asking for sanctions against Mugabe and his top Zanu PF officials. I have to admit, that I still do not see how increased pressure for sanctions against Mugabe would aid such a wonderful country like Zimbabwe and its people. Robert Mugabe is really not concerned about Western efforts to put pressure on him. Thus, sanctions might not serve as an effective tool towards getting Zimbabwe out of the crises it is currently in. Even though Mugabe is to blame for the current state Zimbabwe is in, I think that the USA Government and especially the UN should rather place more focus on Zimbabwe and not so much on Mugabe.

The editorial in the NYT also highlighted the 'cunning' ways in which President Bush tried to persuade Russia and China not to veto future resolutions against its proposals to place sanctions against Mugabe. I think that it will take a bit more than getting friendly with Dmitri Medvedev and agreeing to attend the opening of the Beijing Olympics for Russia and especially China not to veto against such proposals. China has more to lose by allowing sanctions against Mugabe, as one of the proposed sanctions include an arms embargo. China provides arms to the Zimbabwe Defence Force, therefore such sanctions would directly affect its dealings with Zimbabwe.

I sometimes wonder what if sanctions from another country in the Security Council, except the USA and the UK, were proposed against Mugabe. A country like Russia for example. Would the reaction have been different? Would Mugabe have responded more positively (not that one can ever respond positively to sanctions against you)? In other words, Mugabe would then not have been abled to justify himself by blaming the West for the situation the country is in. His current reasoning is that its the West's fault for the situation the country is in and therefore he will not consider any proposal coming from West. However, Russia is not governed by a 'neo liberal capitalist' regime. In fact the opposite, Russia is governed by way of Communist principles. So therefore, if the West (the USA and UK) is really to 'blame' (and I mean this in the lightest possible form, as we all know that its not true) for the crises in Zimbabwe, would they be justified in imposing further sanctions against Robert Mugabe?

As the eternal optimist that I am, I do hope for a better outcome after the talks which started this week in Pretoria between Zanu PF and the MDC party leaders. Transition takes place in stages, therefore I do hope that a lot of thought is placed into South Africa's option for the future of Zimbabwe, by allowing for a Prime Minister to be included in the Constitution of Zimbabwe and for Tsvangirai to fill that position. I certainly also hope that by now other regional political bodies (like SADC and the AU) have seen the seriousness of constantly monitoring elections, to make sure that its free and fair. Let us hope that its the case of 'third time lucky' and that the next elections in Africa does not end in violence.

China and Russia says no!

The New York Times reported on the happenings at the UN Security Council [SC] on voting for sanctions against Robert Mugabe and other leaders of his Zanu PF party. Both, China and Russia exercised their veto rights against sanctions for these leaders. They argue that these sanctions would go beyond the SC's prerogative powers and China added that sanctions would impede on South Africa's efforts of negotiation between the two opposing parties.

Needless to say, the USA seemed furious at this decision, as it was the one who proposed sanctions against Mugabe in the first place and worked hard to get the backing of other countries in the SC.

Even though China might have a conflicting interest when voting (as they supply Zimbabwe with arms and ammunition) I have to agree with them and Russia. As I have argued in my previous blog, negotiations for a unity government seems as the better option for Zimbabwe's future. Sanctions only serve as a temporary resolution and does not address the violation of human rights effectively in this country.

Yes, violence has erupted in the country preceding the run off election. This can be addressed in the aftermath of the negotiations either by way of criminal trials or by establishing a truth and reconciliation commission. Yes, the run-off election was highly suspicious and reeked of fraud, but this is currently being addressed by the negotiations in Pretoria.

I also have to admit that the USA government's reactions to Zimbabwe has not surprised me at all. They are the first to call for the international community's aid and the SC's help, because according to them Zimbabwe's situation constitutes a serious threat to "international peace and security". However, when it comes to waging the war against terror (which includes invading Afgahnistan and Iraq) and detaining nationals of other countries in Guantanamo Bay (without any charges), they want to circumvent the international community's involvement. Talk about hyprocracy.