Before the African Union made its call, both Mr. Mugabe and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change had ruled out a negotiated settlement based on power-sharing of the kind that emerged from Kenya’s post-election violence earlier this year.
“Kenya is Kenya; Zimbabwe is Zimbabwe,” George Charamba, Mr. Mugabe’s spokesman said. “We have our own history of evolving dialogue and resolving political impasses the Zimbabwean way. The Zimbabwean way, not the Kenyan way. Not at all.”
African Union Calls for Settlement in Zimbabwe
By KENNEDY ABWAO and ALAN COWELL
SHARM EL SHEIK, Egypt — The African Union Tuesday urged the creation of a government of national unity in Zimbabwe to heal the nation’s deep political wounds following President Robert Mugabe’s triumph in a one-candidate election widely condemned as a sham.
The 53-nation body, Africa’s most authoritative group, made the call after a two-day gathering of African leaders marked by divisions over the handling of the crisis in Zimbabwe. While President Omar Bongo of Gabon endorsed Mr. Mugabe’s presidency, Botswana urged the suspension of Zimbabwe from African forums because its participation would ‘’give unqualified legitimacy to a process which cannot be considered legitimate.”
The African Union resolution also urged the continuation of regional mediation efforts, which, to the frustration of the opposition in Zimbabwe, have been led by President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa.
Mr. Mbeki has been widely criticized as been too soft on Mr. Mugabe, an ally of nearly 30 years. The union urged both the opposition and the Mugabe government to avoid moves that “may negatively impact on the climate of dialogue.”
While the document was far less critical of Zimbabwe than some African nations had wished, it represented an unusual readiness to break the continent’s reluctance to intrude into other nations’ business.
It also represented another departure from the continent’s resistance to treating Mr. Mugabe as anything less than a hero of the struggle for liberation, expressing concern about the political violence in Zimbabwe and the inadequacies of last Friday’s vote.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
without firing a single bullet
This is a classic case of White Supremacy. Check out this article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-zunes/washingtons-hypocrisy-ove_b_110179.html
I have to presume that the White Supremacists are giving something to the president of Botswana with his game parks and all. Oh, poor white farmers.
Counter racism
Frankly I don't think we do enough on this site to counter the narrative that has developed that Mugabe is to blame for all of the problems in Zimbabwe. Now many people are to blame, but the people who are most to blame are ALL White Supremacists.
Sall, we're running into my
Sall, we're running into my limitations. My focus has been on Black Americans, and though I check in I don't know a lot about African conditions. It's hard for me to discount all the folks who chose the other guys, and even harder to ignore the violent repression I just saw. That's what I, personally, need justified.
Tell you what, though...I
Tell you what, though...I intend to watch this because it's one of those moments. If the African Union resolves this, it's one thing. If anyone else does it's another. And either way it'll stay like that for a while.
I have a couple of African news links...I'll make a point of using and linking them.
got it
Well, we definitely have enough to worry about here at home, that's true. This is probably one of my favorite sites, and I appreciate the great lengths you go to to maintain this quality site. There is no excuse for violent repression. My link was just pointing out the hypocrisy from the administration. We are constantly seeing in the MSM how there is crawl at the bottom of the t.v. screen detailing how bad Mugabe is. The demonization all happens to coincide with him kicking off white farmers. If he was friendly to the administration, they'd be saying good things about him, and he wouldn't be facing sanctions and so forth. It was interesting that the Russian PM spoke out today about how this country is in a depression, and is in no position to give advice, or condemnation for that matter to other countries about how to conduct their affairs:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/02/new-russian-president-us_n_110592.html
My link was just pointing
True. Even his most ardent opponents would admit that. But that redistribution of land had to take place. And given that we are territorial, hierarchical creatures, there's no way it could go easily. Mugabe definitely could have done it better, but you get bad press for doing it at all.
It's selfish. P6 is good for me...the comments keep me in an interesting balance of pride and humility.
No such luck...I's what I am seeing
South Africa called on Zimbabwe’s ruling and opposition political parties June 30 to begin talks to form a transitional government that would lead to new elections. Indirect talks might occur, though neither new elections nor a substantive shift in executive power held by the Robert Mugabe government are likely.
Analysis
South African Foreign Minister Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma called June 30 for talks to begin between Zimbabwe’s ruling Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) to form a transitional government that would lead to new elections. The call comes a day after Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe was sworn in for a sixth term.
Mugabe’s re-election was a certainty after MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai decided June 22 to withdraw from the runoff, citing ruling party intimidation and the unlikelihood that the ZANU-PF would permit him a credible chance of contesting the election. While indirect talks might occur between the two factions, the Mugabe government is unlikely to agree to hold new elections soon, nor to share executive power with the MDC.
The Mugabe regime’s refusal to permit the MDC an election victory during the first-round election in March, or to give the opposition a credible chance at winning the June 27 runoff, is a struggle largely for the survival of the regime elite. Losing executive power would mean top ruling-party figures, commanders and senior officers of the security services and Mugabe himself would lose their personal security guarantees — and their fortunes. They know that if the MDC took power, it would be under immense pressure both internally and internationally to prosecute the Mugabe regime for human rights violations, election manipulation and other crimes.
The MDC is not expected to accept a compromise that gives it anything less than full executive power. Having declared itself the winner of the March 29 presidential and parliamentary elections, but lacking the means to enforce its gains, the MDC opposes negotiating with the Mugabe government, as the move would essentially legitimize Mugabe’s victory. (Tsvangirai called for talks ahead of the June 27 runoff, but said he would not negotiate with the ZANU-PF if it went ahead with the vote after he withdrew from the race.)
As long as international criticisms and calls for negotiations are not backed up by action, the Mugabe regime does not feel threatened. Though sanctions from the United States and Europe — to include possible financial restrictions and an arms embargo on top of existing travel bans — might tighten, no such action appears to be forthcoming from Zimbabwe’s neighboring African states (particularly South Africa), on which landlocked Zimbabwe relies for trade flows. The Mugabe regime depends on the support of these states, not of the United States and Europe, for survival. In fact, as Zimbabwe’s leading trading partner, South Africa might be able to resolve the Zimbabwe crisis on its own if it enforced a unilateral embargo.
South African President Thabo Mbeki appears no closer to applying sanctions on the Mugabe regime, however, despite widespread criticism at home and abroad for failing to act on Zimbabwe. Mbeki has called for negotiations and mediation, but has not responded to demands for harsher action. One likely reason is the concern that cutting off Harare’s life support would lead the ZANU-PF regime to crack down even harder on the populace, sending millions of refugees spilling across the border into South Africa and creating destabilization there.
Following Pretoria’s lead, other African governments have been unwilling to sanction the Mugabe regime, not wanting to disrupt lucrative — albeit shrinking — trade flows or to invite reprisals by meddling in a neighbor’s internal affairs. WIthout such sanctions, calls for talks will likely fail to create a substantive political change in Zimbabwe. The lack of a resolution to the crisis also could severely undermine South Africa’s credibility as a capable and influential continental and international power.