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.

What to do with good ol' Mugabe?

Sorry readers, but you can forget about an introduction for this one. The title says it all. OK OK, maybe a small introduction. The world is at up and arms with regards to the situation in Zimbabwe and Mugabe's 're-election' as president of this crisis ridden country. The G8 has called for stronger sanctions against Mugabe and his Zanu PF leaders. These sanctions would include financial and travelling restrictions.

South Africa, with good reason, disagrees with stronger sanctions against the Mugabe regime. I would be so bold as to presume that the reason why the South African government does not want any sanctions against Mugabe is because it will cause that its proposed unity government (between and Mugabe and Tsvangirai) fail. South Africa proposes that Mugabe remains the president of Zimbabwe, with Tsvangirai as the Prime Minister. This sort of unity government worked for Kenya after its election twists and violence. However, thus far Tsvangirai refuses to speak to Mbeki and Mugabe (M&M?)

Looking at both options (the G8 and UN option of increasing santions and the South African and AU option of a unity government) I am of the opinion that sanctions against Mugabe would not be such a good idea. Mugabe seems to paint the picture that he does not care about the rest of the world out there. His attitude is that Zimbabwe belongs to him and if the rest of the world has a problem with it, its their problem. Sanctions against Mugabe would also not be effective when considering the future of a once prospering country. What the international community (the G8, UN, AU and SADC) should place their focus on is coming a solution that would take Zimbabwe's future into account. A unity government, as proposed by South Africa, could possibly be such a solution.

However, at the same time, I have to portray my disgust and shame in Bright Matonga (Deputy Information Minister of Zimbabwe) for saying that the proposed sanctions by the G8 and UN is racist and a insult to African leaders. This might sound really bad, but some people should just remain quiet and look suspiciously stupid, than say something and confirm the rest of the world's suspicion.

What happens in Africa, stays in Africa

The African Union officially asked the USA and the UN to but out of Africa's business and leave to Zimbabwe alone. This was backed by the South African Department of Foreign Affairs.

I know this is a bad spot to be in, but I find myself somewhere stuck in the middle. Firstly, I do agree that the USA should but out of Africa's business, as (1) they first have to deal with their own matters of national security and (2) Zimbabwe is no threat to their national security. As for the UN butting out? I do not think that this a good idea. The AU does not have a good reputation when it comes to dealing with African issues effectively. SADC neither. South Africa has not suceeded to come to a stable resolution for Zimbabwe. So, when it comes to AU and SADC not being able to effectively dealing with Zimbabwe and the Mugabe regime, then the UN should definitely assist. However, will sanctions against Zimbabwe, Mugabe and Zanu PF officials be effective?

In the public Mugabe seems to be of the attitude that he does not care of sanctions or any interference from the neo-liberal, western capatalist world. Unless, that interference comes from Great Britain. Anyhow, this is a topic for another debate.

Here are the facts: South Africa failed to assist Zimbabwe with the elections and diplomatic negotiations. SADC failed to do the same. If the AU fails, then who will come to the aid of Zimbabwe? The USA will breach the fundamental principles of state sovereignty. The UN perhaps? So, how can the UN just sit back and but out of Africa's business? The UN did that in Rwanda and looked what happened. Zimbabwe is not far away from the same atrocity. So who should deal with Mugabe?? That seems to be the million dollar question!