Zimbabwe regime jubilant at failed U.N. sanctions bid
HARARE —
President Robert Mugabe’s government was triumphant Saturday at the failure of a U.N. bid to impose fresh sanctions on Zimbabwe as Britain pledged to return to the Security Council if political violence continued.
Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown would discuss further measures with EU partners next week, a spokesman for the premier said in a statement.
“We will continue to stand firmly for human rights and democracy and will return to the Security Council in the absence of early progress on mediation, humanitarian access and an end to violence,” the statement added.
Mugabe’s government, meanwhile, thanked those countries that opposed the U.S. draft resolution aimed at imposing an assets freeze and travel ban on Mugabe and 13 of his closest allies.
Harare reserved particular praise for South African President Thabo Mbeki, who has been criticized for his policy of “quiet diplomacy” with Mugabe.
Information Minister Sikhanyiso Ndlovu described him as a “leader par excellence” for not yielding to “international pressure and to the machinations of the West led by Britain and United States.”
China and Russia on Friday vetoed the U.S. draft while South Africa, Libya and Vietnam voted against the resolution. Indonesia abstained.
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said the decision would be “incomprehensible” to the people of Zimbabwe and America’s U.N. envoy warned that Russia’s veto cast doubt on its reliability as a G-8 ally.
Russia slammed criticism by both the U.S. and Britain as “unacceptable.”
“Representatives of the United States and Britain have declared that our vote betrayed the G-8 Tokyo summit accords on Zimbabwe and that this posed questions about Russia’s reliability as a partner in the G-8,” government spokesman Andrei Nesterenko said in a statement.
“We consider such statements unacceptable,” he added.
In a separate statement, the Russian foreign ministry condemned the violence in Zimbabwe but warned the proposed U.N. resolution would have set a “dangerous precedent” for interference in countries’ internal affairs.
The Zimbabwe main opposition, however, made a fresh call on Saturday for the African Union to intervene in the mediation process with Mugabe’s regime.
In the light of the worsening suffering of the Zimbabwean people, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) said it was calling on the “African Union to work with the SADC (South African Development Community) in establishing the framework in which a negotiated solution can be formulated.”
Mbeki is trying to mediate between Zimbabwe’s ruling ZANU-PF party and the MDC but has come under fire, in particular from Britain and the United States, and also from MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai, for not being more outspoken against Mugabe.
Mugabe was re-elected in a run-off last month after Tsvangirai pulled out, citing a campaign of intimidation and violence against his supporters that killed dozens and injured thousands.
Tsvangirai had earlier won the first round but fell short of a majority, according to the official results.
“We are surprised by what appears as Mbeki appearing to protect Mugabe while Mugabe uses violent means to fragment the opposition,” U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad said after the U.N. vote.
“I think he (Mbeki) is out of touch with the trends inside his own country,” he added.
A second day of talks between representatives of ZANU-PF and the MDC were held in South Africa on Friday.
Wire reports
Order by Time Order by Popularity
30 Comments
Login to comment
0
adaydream
I said yesterday to give the Russians and Chinese a chance. They ain't going no where. < :-)
0
Speed
A UN with China and Russia in it is an ineffectual UN. Too bad the those two were put on the Security Council to begin with. Biggest mistake. Kick those two out and replace them with Japan and Germany.
0
some14some
I think both China and Russia have never misused their Right of Veto Power and have always explained the logic behind using such power. Whereas, we seldom find any logic when US uses Veto power in favor of Israel in particular.
0
SezWho2
Speed,
I think that an ineffectual UN is a UN where any one country gets to veto a consensus decision of other countries.
Any idea which country has used its veto power more than any other country? That would be the USSR and Russia if we go back to day one. However in the last 20 years or so the US would be in the lead. In fact, in that period the US has used its veto two times more than all other countries put together.
Zimbabwe needs help, not more sanctions against its leaders. Sanctions themselves are a failure of leadership. The UN does need restructuring but it does not follow that the way to do that is to impanel a Security Council of the US and its good buddies. That would be a formula for disaster.
0
RepublicofTexas
Security Council reform is needed, take away veto power and add the G-4
0
Zen_Builder
I agree and have said so for many years the Veto-power should go. Also the current UNSC members do not accurately represent the current world situation.
0
thundercat
Mugabe will be dead soon and the world will see who is really running the show in Zimbabwe. We are going to wish we had done more when we had the chance.
0
RepublicofTexas
Exactly, the current UNSC represents the world as it was right after WWII, but times have changed. China and India are on their way to becoming superpowers, Japan is the world's second largest economy, Germany has a greater economy than France or the UK and is fairly influential, and Brazil is South America's most powerful state and one of the world's most populous. But perhaps instead of adding Germany they could remove France and the UK and add the EU? Western powers seem overly represented.
0
buddha4brains
RofT I agree. Perhaps have a major power from each region: USA, EU, Brazil, South Africa, India, China, Russia, Japan with rotating members from other nations filling out the council. Though, looking at the list, it may be even more difficult to gain agreement on much of anything.
0
Statistician
Another very nasty African dictatorship.
0
unscrejects
Mugabe is not the issue. What China and Russia have had the guts to say is that there is more to Zimbabwe than the BBC is telling. I dread the look on the US ambassador's face this time next year when the speech he just made in the UN turns out to be another Powell. For god's sake stop saying you're worried about the poor people of Zimbabwe. I am those poor people and what we are saying is help us from Britain and South Africa. Mugabe isn't the one that stopped our food production - it was Standard Bank of South Africa. Mugabe isn't the one that occupied the fallow farms - it was the MDC, the Socialists and the farm workers themselves! Do your research and spare us the humiliation. Better still, drag Tony Blair, Peter Hain, Claire Short, Gordan Brown and Nelson Mandela before the UN and ask them about 1997.
0
SuperLib
What do you propose?
0
presto345
Of course China and Russia vetoed the proposal. This is how these nations have maintained the balance of global power. But somehow the warning of setting a precedent of interfering in internal affairs of sovereign nations sounds a bit hollow coming from Russia.
0
RepublicofTexas
Of course Russia turns a blind eye to her own interference in Georgian, and Eastern European affairs. Russian backed Abkhaz forces waged ethnic cleansing against Georgians in Abkhazia, and Russia's always interfering in the Baltic States.
0
SuperLib
And to think some people want to expand the UNSC to have more seats....
0
RepublicofTexas
We want to expand, while simultaneously removing veto power. Veto power gives the current members of the UNSC too much power, this isn't an age of imperialism anymore.
0
SezWho2
SuperLib,
In short, instead of trying to punish the regime, I propose that we offer assistance to it and to the people of Zimbabwe.
0
RepublicofTexas
When NGOs set about trying to aide the people of Zimbabwe, Mugabe and his goons harassed them. There can be no peace and prosperity in Zimbabwe until Mugabe is out. Zimbabwe was once a model for post-independence Africa and now it is a cautionary tale of what not to do.
0
unscrejects
RepublicofTexas] NGOs are as welcome in my country as Gordan Brown is. Go back to 1997 and see what was done by Standard Bank of South Africa. Stop pretending not to hear what I am saying. Zimbabwe was broken in 1997 because of the Congo intervention which spoilt South Africa's rape of Mobuto's Zaire. We even arrested 3 US men armed with 36 rifles and pistols on their way to the Katanga - and your State Department said they were missionaries!!!!! The crap about multi-nationals destroying African countries and armchair liberals crying gabbage about evil African leaders has run its course. Mugabe outwitted you. I can't wait to see him die just to prove how wrong you are.
0
RepublicofTexas
unscrejects
Exactly, Mugabe and his gov't hate both.
ummm...I'm only half American, so I don't know why you seem to be yelling at me over what the US gov't has done, especially as you seem to hate South Africa. As for Mugabe outwitting me, I don't see how, the man's insane, he has no wit. What are you even talking about with multi-nationals, who said they were destroying Africa?
0
SezWho2
RepublicofTexas,
It may be true that there can be no peace and prosperity in Zimbabwe until Mugabe is out. It does not follow that there will be peace and prosperity when Mugabe is out.
Sanctions have not worked to oust him. Stricter sanctions are not likely to work. Strict sanctions might work in a true democracy but that is not the case in Zimbabwe. Unless we find a "coalition of the willing" to relieve Mugabe of his duties, Mugabe will find a way to live with any new sanctions, and like Castro in Cuba, our punitive efforts will not hasten his ouster one jot.
When punishment does not work, try reward.
0
RepublicofTexas
No where did I say that, it's obvious that the country wont recover for a long time after Mugabe is gone
0
RepublicofTexas
Yes, but pandering to every dictator and oppressive regime in the world sets a bad precedence. Already many countries (ex. North Korea) believe if they act up the rest of the world will shower gifts on them as a way of making them behave. It's like indulging a spoiled child. As for reward a man who violently suppresses opposition and participates in ethnic cleansing does not deserve a reward.
0
SuperLib
That might work, but it also might end up rewarding people like Mugabe. And it might be hard to explain to the neighbors why we're giving assistance to the guy while they get nothing.
0
SezWho2
RepublicofTexas,
It's true that you did not say that there will be peace and prosperity once Mugabe is out. It's also true that I did not say you said so.
Neither did I say that we had to "pander" to Mugabe. Ne?
0
SezWho2
SuperLib,
I agree. However, I think the goal is to bring relief to the people of Zimbabwe, not to punish Mugabe.
As for the neighbors, if they are now getting nothing, I think that in itself should be difficult to explain. And, if they cannot appreciate the difference between necessity and critical necessity, there may be no pleasing them anyway.
0
skipthesong
I would like to know why isn't South Africa offering more help in terms of offering refuge for refugees.
0
Alinsky4prez
Well, uhh, now Russia and China are siding with Mugabe. We need to stop provoking such outcomes. What we need is aggressive diplomacy! John Bush and George McCain haven't thought of that.
0
RepublicofTexas
South Africa's all show, no substance. Look at the anti-foreigner attacks on Zimbabweans a while back, as well as the inaction of the South African gov't. I don't understand why, one would think that a healthy Zimbabwean economy/stable gov't would be beneficial to South Africa.
0
unscrejects
Republic - your knowledge about Zimbabwe's crisis is as reliable as Colin Powell's on Iraq's WMDs. Zimbabwe's economy was intentionally destroyed by South Africa and Britain in 1997-1998. Ask the Japanese ministry of foreign affairs. Better still call Muneo Suzuki and Koizumi. The British embassy can tell you about the people it sent with cash offers to Mazda in November 1997 explaining that the balck Zimbabweans would be put through 18 months (max) of hell to get them to overthrow Mugabe who they noted had cost their multi-nationals through loss of mineral concessions in Zaire. Russia and China know the facts because they were also approached and asked to stand aside. Mbeki can vouch for it. Hell why I am telling you this when there is nothing you can do about it... Mugabe is a victim of treachery by members of his own party who were conned into the plot. The CFU, the ZCTU, the Jo'burg stock exchange all don't deny what I am saying - why should you.
Back to top